The Republican Liberty Caucus is pleased to announce the latest candidates we’re recommending you support in 2010.  They include:

* Congressional candidates Brian Miller (AZ-08), Adam Kokesh (NM-03), Jaynee Germond (OR-04), and Terri McCormick (WI-08);

* Virginia State Senate candidate Steve Hunt (January special election); and

* State House candidates Jenn Coffey in NH (incumbent) and Paul Curtman in Missouri, as well as Missouri House incumbents Shane Schoeller, Tim Jones, and Jim Guest.

Learn more about these and other endorsed candidates at our 2010 endorsements page.

The Mississippi and Missouri chapters of the Republican Liberty Caucus have recently created new websites.

At the Mississippi RLC website, users will find a quote about the RLC from Governor Haley Barbour, a 2009 Liberty Index of Mississippi legislators, and a feed of RLC news from across the country.  The Mississippi chapter — under the leadership of Jeff Powell — is not yet chartered, but will soon be submitting paperwork to formally charter its affiliate.

At the Missouri RLC website, the main feature is the Missouri RLC’s 2010 endorsements, which includes incumbent State Representatives Shane Schoeller, Tim Jones, and Brian Nieves.

It’s still early to be thinking about 2010 elections, but the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board has approved several endorsements for 2010 already.

Liberty fans across the country will be pleased to note that the RLC endorsed Rand Paul in his bid to become U.S. Senator in Kentucky, and Peter Schiff in his bid to represent Connecticut in the Senate.

The RLC has also endorsed Jason Shepherd for State Representative in Georgia, Shane Schoeller (Incumbent) for State Representative in Missouri, and Bill Hunt for Orange County Sheriff in California.

Our endorsements process has just begun, so please stay tuned for more endorsements of worthwhile, liberty-loving candidates. In 2008, the RLC endorsed over 220 pro-freedom candidates, many of whom were inspired to run as a result of RLC Advisory Board member Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential bid.

RLC members will be working to help all of the above candidates succeed. Our Connecticut and Kentucky chapters are in the process of chartering, which we believe will be tremendous assets to the Paul and Schiff campaigns as we head into 2010.

In February, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a “fusion center” that “collects intelligence from both the local agencies and the DHS and uses these combined sources to analyze threats and better combat terrorism and other criminal activity”, labeled some Ron Paul supporters and other constitutionalists as militia members.

Last week, Missouri RLC Board member Mike Ferguson appeared on FOX News’ “Freedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano to discuss the status of the MIAC and its report.

See Mike and the Judge below:

In February, The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a “fusion center” that “collects intelligence from both the local agencies and the DHS and uses these combined sources to analyze threats and better combat terrorism and other criminal activity”, labeled some Ron Paul supporters and other constitutionalists as militia members.

On July 28, Missouri RLC Chairman Rob Hillman (above, center) offered testimony to the Interim Committee on State Intelligence Analysis Oversight regarding the MIAC report. That bipartisan Committee, chaired by Rep. Bob Dixon and Vice-Chaired by RLC-endorsed Rep. Jim Guest, was formed to gather public testimony about the MIAC fusion center in Jefferson City and the fusion center “MIAC Report” leaked to the public in February. The Committee is to report to the entire House of Representatives its findings.

On March 31, the Missouri RLC Board resolved unanimously to encourage the State Legislature to create a permanent MIAC oversight Committee. Rep. Jim Guest, Chairman of the REAL ID and Personal Privacy Committee, also sponsored HB 1138 to only permit MIAC to engage in constitutional activities in the future.

Earlier in the month, RLC members from the Indiana and Missouri affiliate attended the Young Republicans Convention in Indianapolis to spread the message of individual liberty and limited government.

RLC members Rob and Karen Hillman and Charlie Kochenash hosted a Republican Liberty Caucus booth at the YR Convention. Two photos from the booth follow.

Dave Nalle recently posted a summary of the YR Convention results at this blog.

Charlie Kochenash, Indiana RLC Chair, also spoke at the July 4 Northwest Indiana Patriots Tea Party:

In February, Missouri RLC Chair Rob Hillman testified before a legislative committee in support of a Missouri Sovereignty Resolution. Since that time, the Missouri RLC and Mr. Hillman have not let up about the sovereignty initiative.

Recently, Rob Hillman took his passion for limited government to the Saint Charles County Council. The County, which has over 280,000 people, is located in the metro St. Louis area. There are six members of the County Council. County Council Chair Joe Brazil sponsored legislation, Resolution 09-03, to support Jim Guest’s State Sovereignty Concurrent Resolution, HCR 13.

Rep. Jim Guest was endorsed by the RLC in 2008. (And is again endorsed in 2010.)

Recognizing the value of asserting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, St. Charles County legislators adopted the Resolution by a vote of 5-1.

When RLC activists in Missouri want something from their legislators, they take it right to them. Rob Hillman has paved the way for the Missouri RLC to continue its legislative victories such as the victory obtained on Charles County Resolution 09-03.

The Missouri RLC Board unanimously resolved support for HCR 13.  The RLC Board’s resolution was delivered to Republican Majority leaders in the State House and Senate, Rep. Guest, and Missouri GOP Chair David Cole.

The next step:  passing HCR 13 through the State Senate.

RLC Chair Rob Hillman (right) with Charles County Council Chair Joe Brazil.

A brouhaha has been bubbling in Missouri over the last month, with a lot of anger and confusion over a report released by the the Missouri Information Analysis Center. MIAC is a so-called “fusion center” for local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to collaborate on domestic security issues. In the report, it was noted that “it is not uncommon” for supporters of Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin (i.e., supporters of constitutionally limited government) to join violent anti-government militias. The report also suggests that domestic militias often subscribe to radical ideologies rooted in Christian views and opposition to immigration, abortion, or federal taxes.

The controversy has been aired on blogs, cable news programs and conservative radio, however much of what was written was hearsay or conspiracy theory. Finally there is something substantive to report: according to the Springfield News-Leader, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (R) has called on Gov. Jay Nixon (D) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation of a controversial report profiling members of militias issued by Britt’s department.

According to Kinder, “the report unfairly maligns Christians, anti-abortionists and advocates for protecting our borders and supporters of certain political candidates as potential threats to the public safety.” He noted the report makes no mention of environmental terrorism or Islamic terrorism. The News-Leader also said that Britt has issued an apology letter to 2008 presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.

RLC-endorsed State Representative Jim Guest said he will introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety’s budget barring the agency from using “state or federal funds for political profiling.” Guest said he doesn’t consider Britt’s letter to Barr, Baldwin and Paul a true apology. “This really was not a letter of apology … [i]t was a letter of regret that they had included these words in there.” Guest and a half dozen House Republicans attended Kinder’s press conference. Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat elected last year, has publicly defended the MIAC report.

According to the Kansas City Star, “Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. James F. Keathley released a memo saying the report did not meet the patrol’s standard for quality and would not have been released if it had been seen by top officials. Said Keathly, ‘I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report’. In the future, Keathley wrote, reports from the center will be reviewed by leaders of the Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety. The patrol will also open an investigation into the origin of the militia report.”

These days, when you thinks of a militia, the Michigan militia that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols associated with in the mid-1990s comes to mind immediately. Of course, McVeigh went on to bomb the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1996 — a violently anti-libertarian act. However, the Michigan Militia was formed as a result of two other events that disturbed constitutionalists and libertarians (including Barr, Baldwin, and Paul supporters) — the government’s actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion written in the Supreme Court case won by RLC member-plaintiff Dick Heller (see: Heller v. DC, 2008), “[a] militia in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’ — those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range.”

Regardless of what one thinks of either definition of a militia, the MIAC report highlights a growing and oft-overlooked phenomenon: government tracking and profiling of non-violent American citizens.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thanks to Lt. Governor Kinder, Rep. Jim Guest, and thousands of Missouri citizens who wrote to their legislators, action will be taken against those in charge of profiling innocent Missouri citizens.

In Florida, the Republican Liberty Caucus recently drafted a resolution that RLC activists have been circulating to friendly legislators for introduction. The legislation is based off of the Oklahoma resolution introduced by the RLC-endorsed Rep. Charles Key and Sen. Randy Brogdon. The Florida RLC is encouraging residents to sign a petition in support of the resolution and urging legislators to introduce it in the 2009 session. Stay tuned! The fight has just begun in Florida.

The newly up-and-running Asheville Area RLC chapter in North Carolina was able to obtain unanimous approval of a “Resolution for State Sovereignty” at the recent Buncombe County GOP Convention. The State Sovereignty Resolution will be forwarded to GOP Delegates at the North Carolina GOP Convention to be held June 12-14 in Raleigh.

Last month, Missouri RLC Chair Rob Hillman testified before a legislative committee in support of the Missouri sovereignty resolution. Rep. Cynthia Davis, who has been in close contact with RLC members in the state, introduced the resolution, H.R. 212.

Across the country, the sovereignty movement continues to grow, and the RLC is proud to lead the way to affirm sovereignty of the states.

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are currently considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions to reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:

“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

The Founders believed in a balance between state and federal power. The state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough” to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There’s a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is.

Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma’s bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government.

Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.

The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:

“That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

and

“That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right of the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire’s bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullification which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii’s proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

As things stand right now, it looks like Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, and Pennsylvania — where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills.

Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through.

As the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.