Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed

Bookmark and Share

by Derek J. Sheriff
Editors note: This article can also be listened to as an .MP3. See episode #1 of The Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. CLICK HERE to visit the podcast's iTunes page!
What is Usurpation?
If there is a term that I wish would become a household word to be used again by every American in their daily political discussions, it would be the word “usurpation”. Yes, I would love it even more if average Americans would add to that list the words: “Nullification“, “interposition” and the phrase, “the principles of ’98“. However, in order to understand the meaning of those words in their political context, you have to understand usurpation. Before you can discover an effective solution, you have to correctly identify and understand the problem.
Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.
Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, beacuse they already existed.
As part of this new constitutional contract between the people of the several states, their respective state governments and the federal government, the people of each state (as opposed to one American people as a whole), delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the new federal government. They did so with the understanding that these powers could be revoked if necessary. Furthermore, all the other powers which they did not loan to the federal government, they either retained for themselves or delegated back to their state governments. Each state’s constitution differs slightly, but all of them guarantee their citizens a republican form of government.
Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:
“All 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
The Bane of Free Governments
George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed”.  He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:
“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
As Obama likes to say, “Let me be clear”. When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and its amendments, it isn’t abusing powers that it doeshave, it’s usurping powers that it doesn’t have.
Question: What should the people of the several states’ reaction to federal usurpation be?
Answer: Swift and resolute action in the form of nullification and/or interposition by, with and through our state governments and their county and local subordinates.
In such cases, we must not exercise patience and wait to “Vote the bums out” in 2012 or even as soon as 2010! We should do that when the time comes, yes. But in the meantime, to allow our state governments to wait until the usurpers are removed from office through elections would be to consent to a dangerous dereliction of their duty to protect our constitutional rights.
What is Nullification?
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government’s earliest acts of usurpation. An early draft of it began:
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”
“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”
Nullification is a state’s decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. It is a process which can unfold in a variety of ways. It may involve formal legislation, or it may not. I could include court battles, but not necessarily. Interposition by state and local officials, such as your state’s Attorney General or elected county sheriff might be required, but not always. A few times in the past, state nullification conventions have even been convened, but this has been the exception, not the rule.
The process of nullification will look different in each state, according to the particular issue and the social and political culture of that state’s people. But understand, although it’s not a ‘silver bullet”, nullification does work! Don’t let anyone feed you a bunch of phony historical narratives. Do your own study of the history of nullification and see for yourself.
Finally, as George Washington wrote, let there be no change by usurpation! Instead, let us work with our elected state officials to nullify acts of federal usurpation and reclaim the sovereignty that is every American’s birthright.
Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center and the host of the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. His blog “The Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com 
Copyright © 2010 by Derek J. Sheriff. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Friday, October 15, 2010

Arizonans Dare to Defy the Feds Again!

by Derek Sheriff
Just when you thought Arizona couldn’t get any more provocative, or push any more of the federal government’s buttons, it looks like America’s 48th state may actually become the 15th state to adopt another very controversial law!
This proposed law, on the other hand, may actually make some people on the Left, as well as the Right, happy for a change. I have my doubts about whether it will make those who put party above principle, or anyone employed by the U.S. Department of Justice happy, however.
While Arizona was getting tons of media attention related to the passage of its high profile immigration enforcement law, (SB 1070), the grassroots activists that were delivering more than 100 boxes of petitions containing 252,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office received little.
But this recently, Fox 11 Arizona’s website reported:
“Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office on Tuesday certified that organizers of the initiative campaign had turned in enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.”
What measure is he referring to?
The Medical Marijuana Initiative, of course! The initiative, which Arizona voters will soon have a chance to vote into law this November, would do seven things according to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project’s website:
  • Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors’ approval.
  • Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their doctor-recommended medicine.
  • Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to legally purchase their medicine from tightly regulated clinics, as they would any other medicine — so they need not purchase it from the criminal market.
  • Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for medical use if a regulated medical marijuana clinic is not located within 25 miles of the qualifying patient.
  • Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.
  • Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.
  • Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.
The AMMPP, which is a grassroots organization, has been devoted to passing a medical marijuana initiative in Arizona in November 2010. As they explain on their homepage:
“Currently, seriously ill people who use marijuana on the advice of their doctor to treat illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis are subject to arrest and imprisonment, simply for trying to stimulate their appetite or alleviate their pain.”
People who often dismiss state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana always seem to argue that “federal law trumps state law” and that federal “laws” still prohibit the possession, use, cultivation or distribution of the plant, even for medical purposes.
It’s true that federal “laws” make no exceptions for those who are sick and suffering, and the Feds have claimed universal jurisdiction, even over plants that are grown and consumed by patients in their own home. But I wish more of these critics, (and all Americans for that matter), would take the time to ask the following question:
“Which of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution gives them the authority to prohibit the cultivation or use of marijuana at all, for any reason?”
It’s a fair question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to it. Michael Boldin, founder of the Los Angeles based Tenth Amendment Center puts it this way:
“An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no ‘legal’ commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.”
I know it’s difficult for educated, reasonably intelligent people to understand how cultivating, harvesting and consuming a plant, all on one’s own property, is actually in fact, a form of “interstate commerce”. However, that is only because it defies common sense, which is something the unelected, black robed demi-godswho preside over our federal court system do with ease almost daily. We mere mundanes, on the other hand, lack their special wisdom, which allows them to interpret the words of the Constitution in a more innovative and sophisticated way. Our duty is to stand in awe, bow our heads, wave incense before their judgement seats, and to suppress any impulse we might have to think critically about their interpretations.
Don’t be fooled. As far as medical marijuana is concerned, all marijuana that is produced within a state’s boundaries and stays there, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that state!
Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse
It’s funny that the same “Commerce Clause”, which has been pervert ed by the federal government to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, was also the same clause that was twisted to justify passing the legislation that gave us Obamacare. Fortunately, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to effectively nullify both Obamacare and the federal prohibition of medical marijuana this November.
Whether you approve of people using it for any reason, medical or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that unless and until the US Constitution is properly amended (the way it had to be in order to enact alcohol prohibition), the federal government has no authority to interfere with seriously ill Arizonans who decide to use marijuana with their state government’s permission.
The last time I checked, I discovered that although the 10th Amendment has been largely ignored by the Feds, it has not not been officially repealed. Just like all health care decisions, a person’s choice to use or not use Medical Marijuana is a sensitive and highly personal decision. It’s a decision that should, at the very most, be decided by we the people, in our own state, not by politicians or unelected bureaucrats and judges in far off Washington, DC!
Like every other state level measure designed to nullify unconstitutional acts of federal usurpation, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative has the potential to be an unstoppable choice if the people of Arizona simply resolve to exercise their constitutional rights, with or without Washington, DC’s permission.
The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope
But won’t the DEA come in and arrest people who are dispensing medical marijuana and/or even the sick and dying people who use it?
Well, the answer to that question largely depends on whether or not your state officials, especially your elected county sheriff, allows them to get away with doing that.
More and more sheriffs and candidates who are running for the office of sheriff, are boldly coming out and frankly saying that they will not tolerate federal agents who would dare to harass and arrest the innocent people they have sworn to protect.
Bill Hunt, for example, is a candidate for sheriff of Orange County, CA.  He is part of a growing movement of incumbents and candidates seeking the elected office of sheriff who have seen the light.  This great awakening of sheriffs across the country has mostly been the result of the educational efforts of former under cover narcotics officer and two term Graham County, AZ sheriff, Richard Mack.
Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Bill Hunt:
Question: “If you are elected sheriff and the DEA came into Orange County (OC) and asked OC Sheriff’s Department to help shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, would you oblige them with support?”
Bill Hunt: “No. I would prevent them, it’s unconstitutional! I’m not an advocate for legalizing marijuana but on tpthe other hand the sheriff is elected to enforce state laws. So, if I’m elected sheriff to this county enforcing state law and I’m using federal law to circumvent state law, then I’m not really being true to my office and my oath of office. The sheriff can prevent the feds from coming in and doing that.”
I can assure you, Bill Hunt is not alone. There are sheriffs already in office, and many more running for office, who agree with him 100%. But even if you don’t live in a county with a sheriff who takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously (give him a copy of Sheriff Mack’s book and start educating him about his oath, or replace him with someone who is committed to keeping it), here is what the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has to say about the matter that is very optimistic:
“Even within the confines of federal law, states can enact reforms that have the practical effect of removing the fear of patients being arrested and prosecuted under state law — as well as the symbolic effect of pushing the federal government to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana..Federal laws still apply to patients. While the federal government does not have the resources to arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of small-scale medical marijuana users and growers, the federal government has raided some large-scale medical marijuana distributors in California. However, because 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made at the state or local level, state medical marijuana laws give patients 99% protection.”
The Will Of The People And The Power Of The States
Take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. What the MPP says about enforcement of the federal laws criminalizing medical marijuana also applies to other unconstitutional federal laws that states might decide to nullify. Some examples are: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, federal regulations on firearms manufactured and kept within state boundaries, the federal plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, or federal regulations that might prohibit the sale and consumption of raw milk. All of these have to actually be enforced by someone.
The Original Constitution
Get the Book Today!
If the people of a state choose to ignore the federal government’s unconstitutional acts of usurpation, which it mistakenly refers to as “laws”, and their state government stops assisting the Feds in their enforcement efforts, the reality is that the federal government does not have the resources or manpower to investigate, arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of those people who choose to ignore illegitimate federal edicts and instead exercise their constitutional rights.
The truth is that when enough people within a given state begin to form a consensus that certain federal laws forced upon them are unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate, and a majority of their government officials at the state and local level agree with and support them, then the idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed so clearly in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, will be actualized:
“.. whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”
Let’s make it so.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. He is also the host of The Arizona Tenth Amendment Podcast. This article was originally featured in June 2010 by The Tenth Amendment Center and
Copyright © 2010 by Derek J. Sheriff. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Nullification In One Lesson

Jefferson and Madison
Authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798
Note: If you do not find the title of this article presumptuous, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with Henry Hazlitt's classic: Economics in One Lesson. My intention was not to be presumptuous, but rather tongue-in-cheek. However, I want to bring to your attention a new book, that in all seriousness does present nullification in one lesson. New York Times bestselling author, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has written a new book titled: Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

The True Nature of the Union:

Some of today's most brilliant patriots may be mistaken when they assert that the states created the federal government. However, it all depends on what they mean by "the states". If they are using the word "states" as shorthand for the people of the several states, as opposed to the American people in aggregate, then they are correct. If by the term "the states" they mean the legislatures of the several states, then they are incorrect.
"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821."
A New Form of Government: Federalism

Acting in their highest capacity, as sovereign political societies, the people of the several states ratified the US Constitution and gave life to the newly created federal government. The people of the several states, NOT the American people as a whole, acted by, with and through the special ratifying conventions, which they convened in their separate states. In these special conventions, which deliberately bypassed their state legislatures, they delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the federal government. These powers were enumerated in the US Constitution.
They had already delegated numerous and indefinite powers to their state governments, which were enumerated in their respective state constitutions. The majority of powers, however, they retained for themselves, reaffirming the hallowed American tradition of self-government. Although these principles were already contained in the structure of the original Constitution itself, the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights expanded upon and clarified them beyond any reasonable doubt.
In summary, both state and federal governments derive their powers directly from the people of the several states. In ratifying the Constitution, then, they established a system of dual-sovereignty, in which the state governments and federal government are co-equal.
Even before the Constitution was ratified, James Madison reassured the anti-federalist skeptics that this system of dual sovereignty would protect their rights. He wrote:
“Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (The Federalist # 51).
We must never forget that our state governments are charged with the duty of controlling the federal government. To do so would be to ignore one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.

The 10th Amendment:

Thomas Jefferson considered the 10th Amendment to be the cornerstone of the Constitution. He wrote:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the
people' [10th Amendment]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any
"The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed."

Usurpation: When the line is crossed
"I have always thought that where the line of demarcation between the powers of the General and the State governments was doubtfully or indistinctly drawn it would be prudent and praiseworthy in both parties never to approach it but under the most urgent necessity." --Thomas Jefferson
When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it isn't abusing powers that it DOES have, it's usurping powers that it DOESN'T have. What should our reaction be to federal usurpation? 
Vote the Bums out?
If a branch of the federal government abuses a power clearly delegated to it by the Constitution, that is, one which can be found among the enumerated powers listed in the articles of the Constitution, then there is a clear remedy:
Change the people who make up the federal government at the time of the next election.
However, if one or more branches of the federal government USURPS a power not delegated to it, that is another situation altogether! If the federal government usurps one of the powers retained by the states or the people (violates the 10th Amendment), then this calls for much more swift and resolute action on the part of the states! In such cases, we must NOT exercise patience and wait to "Vote the bums out" in 2012 or even 2010!

Submission, Revolution, Secession or Nullification?
When Congress or the President usurps -- that is to say, when either or both of them exercise a power NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, the people of the several states and their representatives in state government have four choices:
1. They can submit to the act of federal usurpation for the time being and wait until the next election, with the hope that they may elect new people to federal government who will discredit and repeal the act of usurpation.
2. They can exercise their right of revolution and and alter or abolish the federal government.
3. They can peacefully withdraw from the Union -- which was created after all, by the people of the several states.
4. Or, they can demand that their state government arrest the progress of federal usurpation by an act of nullification. 
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government's earliest acts of usurpation. It began:
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”
“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”
Nullification is a state's decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. 
Weighing the Options:
1. Submission:
Advantage: Requires no courage or sacrifice; Avoids confrontation; Ensures federal funding will continue to flow.
Disadvantage: Invites more usurpation; Incremental loss of liberty and state sovereignty; Higher taxes in most cases; Federal funding may become unreliable; Even if we were able to "clean house" and clear Congress of every bad incumbent (unlikely), the new representitives may not keep their promises or might be unable to implement real reform -- Remember the Republican "Contract with America"? Remember Scott Brown's campaign promises? How that working out for you?
Conclusion: Unacceptable option.
2. Revolution:
Advantage: Overturns usurpation and discourages future acts of usurpation.
Disadvantage: Dangerous because it risks more social chaos and economic hardship than minor acts of federal usurpation themselves create; Revolution risks life, property, prosperity and the stability of the social order.
Conclusion: Drastic, irresponsible option for all but the most intolerable acts of usurpation and tyranny.
3. Secession:
Advantage: Defensive; May avoid violent confrontation with the federal government; Prevents future acts of federal usurpation and tyranny; May unleash greater liberty and prosperity; Frees the state from burdensome obligations and dangerous risks tied to the old regime.
Disadvantage: Avoids, or "runs away from" the problem; Too rash a solution for most acts of federal usurpation; Temporary social and economic disruption.
Conclusion: Unwise, rash option for most acts of federal usurpation.
4. Nullification:
Advantage: Avoids all the disadvantages of the other three options; Confronts the federal government in a moderate but firm manner; Enlightens and educates the people of the several states; Preserves the Union AND federalism.
Disadvantage: Requires state legislators who understand federalism and the original meaning of the Constitution.
Conclusion: Nullification is the moderate, constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal behavior. 
What if the federal government tries to overrule a state's act of nullification?
The two most recent cases of successful nullification involve resistance to the federal REAL ID Act and federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Space does not permit a lengthy treatment of all the states that have nullified federal REAL ID and federal marijuana laws. But whatever your opinion is about these issues, two things should be clear: Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate plants that remain within the boundaries of a state or demand that state drivers licenses conform to federal specifications. These are state issues, period. 
So to make a long story short, in both cases, the federal government has backed off. When state governments refuse to cooperate, the feds recognize that they simply do not have the resources or man power to enforce their unconstitutional laws. 
But what if the feds don't back off when states use nullification to neutralize other unconstitutional federal laws, such as intrastate firearms regulation, federally mandated health insurance or Cap and Trade
Here's what Michael Boldin, the founder and director of the Tenth Amendment Center, has to say:
"Ultimately, however, nullification is much more than mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice may require active resistance on the part of the people and their state government.
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
'That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.'
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are 'duty bound to interpose' or stand between the federal government and the people of the 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. 
The sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law enforcement authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff has the power and responsibility to defend his citizens against all enemies – foreign and domestic. Former two term county sheriff Richard Mack has pointed out many times that the sheriff may be America's last hope. 
Doesn't Federal Law Trump State Law?
Yes, but only when the federal law in question is pursuant to one of the federal government's enumerated powers. A federal law or other measure that exceeds the limited powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is simply an act of usurpation. In short, it's not a law at all. 
The Principles of '98:
The principles first articulated by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions came to be known over time as "The Principles of '98". They were invoked by many states, north and south, for a variety of issues, all throughout the nineteenth century. These issues involved everything from states' claims of unconstitutional embargoes(1807-1809), conscription for The War of 1812, the Second Bank of the United States (1825), and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
Today, the Principles of '98 have been rediscovered and are again being invoked to confront everything fromCongressional "Commerce Clause" abuse (CCCA) to Cap and Trade and unconstitutional Legal Tender Laws
Here's to the republic, the rights of man and the Principles of '98!

Copyright © 2010 by Derek J. Sheriff. Permission to reprint or reproduce this article in any form is gladly granted provided credit is given and the URL for this blog is linked or mentioned.  
Derek Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned liberty activist and the Arizona State Chapter Coordinator for the Tenth Amendment Center.