Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I propose to use all 5 rounds to allow adequate discussion & opportunity to make our points clearly. Round 1: Pro resolution (below) Con Challenge Rd. 2: Pro Argument Con Counter RD 3 Pro Argue Counter Con Argument Rd 4 Pro Counter Con Argue Counter Rd 5 Summary & Conclusion Sum. & Concl. Nullification: The Individual States have no choice but to Exercise their Right under the provision of the 10th Amendment to Nullify all Laws Invoked by the Federal Government which are not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. It has become more apparent to us as citizens and tax payers, particularly within the past 3 years, that we are at the mercy of a formerly insensitive Congress, turned blatantly arrogant toward us, in their execution of the nation's business. Washington continually passes more and more laws which are favorable to a select few if beneficial at all to the public at large in exchange for campaign contributions and other consideration personally benefiting the office holders. Throughout the country, depending on the issue, some states have taken their grievances to the higher court with mixed results. Six states are actively objecting to the assumption on the part of the federal government of their authority, and subsequent failure to act, on Immigration. Something like 22 states are exploring opposing federal requirement of mandatory purchase of health insurance in lieu of a confiscatory penalty, also with mixed results. In the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment clearly states: Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Proponents of States Rights, or rather limited federal authority, argue that the intent of this provision, purposefully attached to the original Constitution with the other Amendments, clearly states the division of federal vs state authority and responsibility. Opponents to States Rights cite the "commerce clause", "general welfare clause", and the "necessary and proper" clause as making provisions of Amendment X inapplicable due to its inclusion in the Amendments as opposed to the original body of the Constitution, known also as the Articles of Confederation. The commerce clause, Article I, Sect. 8, clause 3, states that the United States government "shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and within the Indian Tribes…." The general welfare clause appears in two instances in the Constitution. The first is in the Preamble, which is considered a formal introduction of the document, its purpose, as well as its standing to whomever it was addressed (King George III) and is not considered a proper part of the document content. The phrase also appears in the "taxing and spending clause", Article I, Sect.8, clause 1, also known as the "Uniformity Clause". It states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence(sic) and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…". The "necessary and proper" clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, Basket Clause, and the Coefficient Clause, Article I, Sect. 8, clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Opponents cite the three above elements as evidence that, together, they supersede and negate provisions and restrictions described in Amendment X because they were included in the Constitution document prior to the attachment of subsequent Amendments, which were included later, after much debate. Proponents of Amendment X claim that, due to the fact that it was included later, the founders realized the broad powers granted to the new federal government and that was contrary to the original intent of the drafters and ratifying body. The States Rights provision in the tenth amendment was included to temper unchecked authority and power in the US Government. The actions on the part of the US Congress today, and to a lesser extent, but no less important, a politicized judiciary branch, indicate no end in sight of confiscatory taxation, intrusive restriction, and anti-business regulation. This Congress hasn't passed a budget in over three years. Senate Leader Harry Reid says that we don't need one. Congress won't pass a budget because, to do so, then the public will the see the amount of deficit we as a country are incurring. The Congress and Executive branches both are employing authority to rule our day to day lives which are far beyond that which may be considered reasonable. We as a society, as a nation, are quickly approaching socialism and police state totalitarianism as a method to cause the public to act in certain manners. I submit that the only way we can temper the power and authority exercised by Washington is if the States can win their (our) rights granted to them and guaranteed in the Constitution. To be able to do so will require victory in the Supreme Court. Congress won't merely cede their power. We need to take it away from them; to get it back where it belongs; with the States. Sources: Woods, Thomas E. - "Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century" -2011 US Constitution