Nullification: It’s Official.

28. Jan, 2010

The Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

by Derek Sheriff
While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.
About five minutes into the video segment which you’ll find below, he said, “There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.”

As someone who attended that rally and was doing my best to represent my state’s chapter of The Tenth Amendment Center, I know I cheered very loudly and was very pleased when the rest of the crowd applauded enthusiastically.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson, when he authored what came to be called the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deemed unconstitutional.
James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.
These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ‘98″ became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ‘98″ would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.
Getting back to Ron Paul’s speech in December at ASU, Congressman Paul qualified his prediction about the revival of nullification by saying the following:

“But my suspicion is that there will never be official nullification or secession, but if the [federal] government continues to fail, and they can’t deliver anything..checks bounce..that we will be forced to take care of ourselves. And we will be forced to almost ignore everything they do.”

Less than a week after the speech I attended at ASU, Congressman Paul was interviewed by Mike Church on his radio show. When Mike asked him what his thoughts were on nullification, Ron Paul responded by saying:

“I think it’s a great idea. It was never really successful in our history. But I think it’s going to grow in importance. And I think it’s going to grow because the government, the federal government will be seen as inept and ineffective. And I think it’ll almost be de facto in the sense that the states will eventually just ignore some of the mandates.”

Here I would like to pause for a moment and point out that I am not usually in the business of disagreeing with Congressman Ron Paul. I would hardly need one hand to count the number of times that I have actually disagreed with him on any issue of real substance. I am a great admirer and supporter of Congressman Paul, who is undoubtedly very supportive of the idea of state nullification, even if he has doubted its efficacy in the past. However, in spite of all this, I would like to make two observations.
First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.
Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.
Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.
So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?
Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.
Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.
With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.
There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

“25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

But that’s not all; another example of “official” nullification has occurred in the form of an unlikely states’ rights ally: Medical marijuana.
There was a time when the federal government took the Constitution seriously enough that Congress did what is required in order to enact a nationwide ban on a substance. Even though the experiment would eventually be seen by most Americans as a mistake and a failure, the 18th Amendment was passed and the era known as “Prohibition” began. Four years later, it was repealed.
When it came to marijuana prohibition, however, the feds had another trick up their sleeve. All three branches of the federal government would agree on a very novel, liberal interpretation of the “commerce clause” which would allow them to regulate virtually any substance, including marijuana, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. Since that time, the federal government has managed to claim, with a straight face, as it were, that a plant grown in your back yard, never sold, and never leaving your property, is somehow able to be completely banned by the federal government under the interstate “commerce clause.” The only problem with their claim is that the states just aren’t buying it.
Fourteen states have actively refused to comply with federal laws on marijuana, and it looks as if six more are about to join the effort. In a recent blog post, Mark Kreslins observes:

“..medical marijuana now poses a real threat to the enforcement power of the Federal Government. With state after state defying Washington DC over this issue..Washington DC has a choice to make; enforce their laws based on a very liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause by sending thousands of DEA agents into all fifty states…or…look the other way. Thus far, they’ve chosen to look the other way for if they create the appearance of a Federal takeover of police powers in the States, they will fully expose their extra-constitutional behavior and provoke a direct confrontation with the States who will use the 10th Amendment (hopefully) to defend their prerogatives.”

Whatever your view may be regarding marijunana use, medical or otherwise, one thing is apparent: “Official” nullification has happened, and it works! Washington will have to get used to it.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether in addition to “officially” nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, state governments will be willing to use their power to “officially” interpose themselves between agents of the federal government and the people of their state. In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?
There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.
Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.
Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.
But do you even know the men and women who represent you? I’m not talking about those who represent you in Washington, but rather in Phoenix, Salem, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Richmond, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Columbus and Springfield.
If you don’t know them, and you care about our republic, you should make it your highest priority to get to know them and establish rapport with them as soon as possible.
For any of you who really want to preserve our union, and at the same time retain your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I can’t say it any better than 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin:
“..it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties..as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! ..this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.”
Derek Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned activist and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Guess what they are BACK......The dreaded John Birch Society has been let in by the Conservative Party. And this is what is on their home page....

Nullify ObamaCare in Your State With This Model Health Care Nullification Act

Written by Larry Greenley

Thursday, 22 April 2010 15:42

Now that the two major bills comprising ObamaCare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, March 23, 2010) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152, March 30, 2010) have been passed into law, the fight to repeal ObamaCare has been embraced by many organizations. Some individuals and organizations are placing their hopes in the lawsuits being filed by the attorneys general of nearly 20 states. Some are relying on repealing ObamaCare in Congress. And, many others have concluded that the best strategy is nullification of ObamaCare on a state-by-state basis. With so much of our freedom and prosperity at stake it is highly advisable to pursue all three strategies for stopping ObamaCare. However, there are some definite drawbacks to each method. The battle in the courts is over the principle of whether the state can mandate individuals to purchase healthcare insurance. Although this mandate is a very important provision of ObamaCare, a favorable court decision would likely not be sufficient to repeal all of the two ObamaCare laws. The presumably massive remnant of ObamaCare would likely have enough provisions to complete the federal government's takeover of healthcare in spite of any court rulings striking down the individual mandate. And, the court battle will be lengthy. An outright repeal of the two ObamaCare bills by Congress would be ideal; however, even if the makeup of Congress changes sufficiently in both the Senate and House in the fall 2010 elections to pass repeal legislation in 2011 or 2012, President Obama could still veto it. So, that means that outright repeal would depend on electing a new President in 2012 that would favor repeal. Once again, the process is lengthy. Nonetheless, the third strategy, nullification by state legislatures, could begin immediately in 2011 (and possibly in 2010 in those few states where such new legislation could still be introduced this year). Although the nullification strategy has the disadvantage of being unfamiliar to most Americans, it has the definite advantage of being part of the hottest current trend in state legislative initiatives, the Tenth Amendment movement to reassert state sovereignty over those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Nullification refers to the process by which a state passes a law declaring a certain federal law (or laws) to be null and void within that state based on the absence of constitutional authority for the federal government to pass such a law (or laws). Historian Thomas Woods has written an excellent brief history of state nullification of federal laws in his article, "The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows." In recent years dozens of states have introduced nullification-type legislation to stop Real ID, affirm the Tenth Amendment, reject federal firearms laws for guns manufactured, sold, and used intrastate (known as Firearms Freedom Acts or FFA), and reject a federal mandate to buy healthcare insurance. With a couple dozen states taking a stand against various aspects of the Real ID Act, this federal program has been effectively stopped. Twenty-five states have already introduced Firearms Freedom Acts; Alaska is expected to become the eighth state to pass a Firearms Freedom Act in a few days. Just last week, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming joined Utah in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in federal court in Montana in support of Montana's FFA legislation. Of course, the nullification approach to stopping ObamaCare is not going to be a cakewalk. Far from it. As presently composed, of course all three branches of the federal government will reject the concept of state nullification of federal laws out of hand. However, if dozens of states pass ObamaCare nullification acts, then we'll know there's sufficient support across the nation to begin the process of restoring our freedom by nullifying at the state level and defunding and repealing at the federal level over the next few years a whole series of unconstitutional federal laws beginning with ObamaCare. There is no easy way to recover our freedom under the Constitution, but applying the nullification strategy to the very unpopular ObamaCare legislation provides a vision for how the rapidly-growing, grassroots, constitutionalist movement can begin to take back our freedom state by state. Still, the long range key to success will be creating a sufficiently informed electorate to make Congress (through elections), and eventually the Executive and Judicial Branches (through elections and appointments), adhere to the Constitution. Click here for a "Model Federal Health Care Nullification Act for State Legislatures," which is: An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health care and health insurance industries and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty. The key provision of this act declares: The Legislature of the State of ________ declares that the federal laws known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Public Law 111-148) and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” (Public Law 111-152), signed by President Barack Obama on March 23 and 30, 2010, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in this State, shall not be recognized by this State, are specifically rejected by this State, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this State. Help begin the process of getting an ObamaCare nullification act introduced and passed in your state legislature by clicking here to send a message to your state representative, state senator, governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general in support of such legislation. Click here for contact information for your state legislators for personal follow-up. Don't worry that your state legislature might be out of session for the year, or still in session, but not able to introduce new bills. We need to be making ObamaCare nullification into a major campaign issue at the state level for the 2010 elections in November. Use any answers that you get to help you decide who to support in the fall elections. Electing candidates committed to ObamaCare nullification and repeal is key.  Begin taking back your freedom now by working to get ObamaCare nullified in your state!

A New Foundation for Energy and the Environment

"As we continue to tackle our environmental challenges, it’s clear that change won’t come from Washington alone. It will come from Americans across the country who take steps in their own homes and their own communities to make that change happen."

-President Barack Obama

Going Green

This Earth Day, join Americans across the country who are helping to protect our air, water and planet for future generations by making just a few small changes in your day-to-day life.

LEARN MORE

Get Involved


President Obama is calling on all Americans to help make their communities greener and healthier this Earth Day. Sign up to attend an Earth Day service project in your area.

LEARN MORE

Learn

The Obama administration is committed to building a clean energy economy and keeping our air, water and planet clean for future generations. Learn more about what we’re doing to help protect our environment and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

LEARN MORE

Share

What are you doing to help protect our environment and keep your community healthy? Whether you’re cleaning up a local park, weatherizing your home, or riding your bike to work, tell us what you’re doing to go green.

LEARN MORE

Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 16, 2010; A01

Video

Same-sex partners get hospital rights

President Obama signed a directive that gives same-sex couples hospital visitation rights after learning of the tragic case of one couple.

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. Obama's order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples' efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.

"Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement praising the president's decision.

Obama's mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.

In his first 15 months in office, he has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and held the first Gay Pride Day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama's top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of repealing of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the armed forces.

But the moves have been too slow for some gay rights activists, who have urged the president to be more vocal and active in championing their causes. John Aravosis, a prominent gay blogger, wrote last October that Obama's "track record on keeping his gay promises has been fairly abominable."

Other gay rights activists have defended the administration, while at the same time pushing Congress to act on broader issues such as passage of an employment non-discrimination act and an end to the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

"We see this as part of our ongoing effort to encourage the administration to take action where it has the authority to act," said David Smith, a Human Rights Campaign spokesman. "We've been working and pressing the administration on our legislative agenda. That work continues."

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing same-sex marriage would ease the stress associated with not being able to visit hospitalized partners.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have called the visitation issue a red herring, arguing that advocates want to provide special rights for gays that other Americans do not have. A spokesman for one group said the president's move was part of a broader effort to appease gays and to undermine the institution of marriage.

"In its current political context, President Obama's memorandum clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group," said Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. He said that his organization does not object to gays giving their partners power of attorney but that it questions Obama's motives.

"The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage," he said.

Obama's memo to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius orders the development of new rules to ensure that hospitals "respect the rights of patients to designate visitors" and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.

The action has the potential to increase conflicts between family members, same-sex partners and hospital staff over end-of-life decisions.

A spokesman for the American Hospital Association did not return calls and e-mails. Efforts to reach a spokesman for the Catholic Health Association of the United States were unsuccessful.

In the memo, Obama said hospitals should not be able to deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay," he wrote.

Affected, he said, are "gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

“There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital,” Obama wrote in the memo to HHS. “In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean — a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them”:

Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.
For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real [c]onsequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients’ medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients’ needs. It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.

Officials said Obama had been moved by the story of a lesbian couple in Florida, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were kept apart when Pond collapsed of a cerebral aneurysm in February 2007, dying hours later at a hospital without her partner and children by her side.

Obama called Langbehn on Thursday evening from Air Force One as he flew to Miami, White House officials said. In an interview, Langbehn praised the president for his actions.

"I kept saying it's not a gay right to hold someone's hand when they die, its a human right," she said, noting that she and Pond had been partners for almost 18 years. "Now to have the president call up and say he agrees with me, it's pretty amazing, and very humbling."

The new rules will not apply only to gays. They also will affect widows and widowers who have been unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. And they would allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions.

But it is clear that the document focuses on gays. A number of areas remain in which federal law requires proof of marriage, including receiving Social Security benefits and in taxes.

"The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 instances in federal law where marriage is important," said one gay rights activist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the White House formally announced the directive. "We've knocked off one of them."

Presidential Proclamation -- Earth Day

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 21, 2010

A PROCLAMATION

In the fall of 1969, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson announced plans for a national "environmental teach-in" -- one day, each year, of action and advocacy for the environment. His words rallied our Nation, and the first Earth Day, as it became known, saw millions come together to meet one of the greatest challenges of our times: caring for our planet. What Senator Nelson and the other organizers believed then, and what we still believe today, is that our environment is a blessing we share. Our future is inextricably bound to our planet's future, and we must be good stewards of our home as well as one another.
On the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we come together to reaffirm those beliefs. We have come far in these past four decades. One year before the first Earth Day, our Nation watched in horror as the polluted and debris-choked Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, caught fire. In response, a generation of Americans stepped forward to demand progress. What Americans achieved in the decades that followed has made  our children healthier, our water and air cleaner, and our planet more livable.
We passed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, established the Environmental Protection Agency, and safeguarded treasured American landscapes. Americans across our country have witnessed the impact of these measures, including the people of Cleveland, where the Cuyahoga River is cleaner than it has been in a century.
We continue to build on this progress today. My Administration has invested in clean energy and clean water infrastructure across the country. We are also committed to passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and cut carbon pollution.
We have more work to do, however, and change will not come from Washington alone. The achievements of the past were possible because ordinary Americans demanded them, and meeting today's environmental challenges will require a new generation to carry on Earth Day's cause. From weatherizing our homes to planting trees in our communities, there are countless ways for every American, young and old, to get involved. I encourage all Americans to visit WhiteHouse.gov/EarthDay for information and resources to get started.
The 40th anniversary of Earth Day is an opportunity for us to reflect on the legacy we have inherited from previous generations, and the legacy that we will bestow upon generations to come. Their future depends on the action we take now, and we must not fail them. Forty years from today, when our children and grandchildren look back on what we did at this moment, let them say that we, too, met the challenges of our time and passed on a cleaner, healthier planet.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 22, 2010, as Earth Day. I encourage all Americans to participate in programs and activities that will protect our environment and contribute to a healthy, sustainable future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
BARACK OBAMA

Statement by President Obama on the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 22, 2010

In 1970, a Senator from Wisconsin named Gaylord Nelson raised his voice and called on every American to take action on behalf of the environment. In the four decades since, millions of Americans have heeded that call and joined together to protect the planet we share.
Since that first Earth Day 40 years ago, we have made immense progress – from the landmark legislation of the 1970s, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, to the conservation of America’s precious landscapes.
And since taking office, my Administration has worked to build on this progress. We have made a historic investment in clean energy that will not only create the jobs of tomorrow, but will also lay the foundation for long-term economic growth.  And we have also renewed our commitment to passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will safeguard our planet, spur innovation and allow us to compete and win in the 21st century economy.
Earth Day has always been about people from different backgrounds and different walks of life coming together on behalf of a cause bigger than ourselves. And with that spirit of community, we must continue the hard work to make the dream of a clean energy economy a reality, and pass this world on to our children cleaner and safer than we found it.

The President Speaks to Wall Street, Republicans, and All of America

Posted by Jesse Lee on April 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM EDT

Ed. Note: Austan Goolsbee of the Council of Economic Advisers will take your questions following up on the President's speech in a live video discussion Friday at 2:00PM EDT.  Watch at WhiteHouse.gov/live or join the conversation via UStream.
At noon today the President spoke to an audience that included many from the financial sector at Cooper Union in New York City, a place where he spoke about reforming Wall Street and financial institutions two years ago:

As I said on this stage two years ago, I believe in the power of the free market.  I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings.  That’s part of what has made America what it is.  But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.  That’s what happened too often in the years leading up to this crisis.  Some -- and let me be clear, not all -- but some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged there’s family looking to buy a house, or pay for an education, open a business, save for retirement.  What happens on Wall Street has real consequences across the country, across our economy.

The President applauded the House for having passed reforms, and the Senate for working through their own version, despite “the furious effort of industry lobbyists to shape this legislation to their special interests.”  He then spoke directly to those in the audience and the area who might be paying those lobbyists:

And for those of you in the financial sector I'm sure that some of these lobbyists work for you and they’re doing what they are being paid to do.  But I’m here today specifically -- when I speak to the titans of industry here -- because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort.  (Applause.)  I’m here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of the financial sector.  And I’m here to explain what reform will look like, and why it matters.

The President focused on four key elements of reform:

Now, first, the bill being considered in the Senate would create what we did not have before, and that is a way to protect the financial system and the broader economy and American taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail.  If there’s a Lehmans or an AIG, how can we respond in a way that doesn’t force taxpayers to pick up the tab or, alternatively, could bring down the whole system.

He acknowledged that there might be legitimate debate about the best way to approach that issue, but made clear that he had no patience for those making the false claim that somehow reform would lead to more bailouts: “In other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts.  That’s the truth.  End of story.  And nobody should be fooled in this debate.”  He then moved on to the second component:

Number two, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets.  As you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others who were making huge and risky bets, using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments, in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense.  In fact, many practices were so opaque, so confusing, so complex that the people inside the firms didn’t understand them,  much less those who were charged with overseeing them.  They weren’t fully aware of the massive bets that were being placed.  That’s what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.”  That’s what he called them.  And that’s why reform will rein in excess and help ensure that these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day.

The President applauded the Republican Senator who crossed the aisle to support Democratic efforts on reining in derivatives, and moved on to the third major priority in reform:

Third, this plan would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever.  (Applause.) And that's absolutely necessary because this financial crisis wasn’t just the result of decisions made in the executive suites on Wall Street; it was also the result of decisions made around kitchen tables across America, by folks who took on mortgages and credit cards and auto loans.  And while it’s true that many Americans took on financial obligations that they knew or should have known they could not have afforded, millions of others were, frankly, duped.  They were misled by deceptive terms and conditions, buried deep in the fine print.

Speaking on the fourth and final main component, the President addressed one of the biggest sources of anger across the country over the past years:

Number four, the last key component of reform.  These Wall Street reforms will give shareholders new power in the financial system.  They will get what we call a say on pay, a voice with respect to the salaries and bonuses awarded to top executives.  And the SEC will have the authority to give shareholders more say in corporate elections, so that investors and pension holders have a stronger role in determining who manages the company in which they’ve placed their savings.
Now, Americans don’t begrudge anybody for success when that success is earned.  But when we read in the past, and sometimes in the present, about enormous executive bonuses at firms -- even as they’re relying on assistance from taxpayers or they’re taking huge risks that threaten the system as a whole or their company is doing badly -- it offends our fundamental values.
Not only that, some of the salaries and bonuses that we’ve seen creates perverse incentives to take reckless risks that contributed to the crisis.  It’s what helped lead to a relentless focus on a company’s next quarter, to the detriment of its next year or its next decade.  And it led to a situation in which folks with the most to lose -- stock and pension holders -- had the least to say in the process.  And that has to change.  (Applause.)

The President urged the audience to recognize that there are legitimate issues at hand, even if all parties will not always agree on everything, and to join him in supporting commonsense reforms.