This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms of journalism made available as technology has advanced, and an increasing emphasis on national coverage and issue-based coverage from our network. Over the coming months, AINN will announce a number of new journalism initiatives that will continue to advance our mission of producing impact journalism in the public interest.

Going forward, an archive of Minnesota Independent’s reporting will exist on AmericanIndependent.com.

We are grateful for the loyal readership of the MnIndy, and to the outstanding work of our reporters and editors.

We look forward to keeping you posted on our plans, which will be announced early next year.

Best regards,

David S. Bennahum
CEO & founder, The American Independent News Network

The Senate amendment, which has a recent House counterpart, would give Congress and states the authority to regulate money spent in federal and state political campaigns.

Franken formally signed on to support the Senate amendment last week. It was proposed at the start of November by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.

“Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections ,” Franken told the Minnesota Independent in an email. “This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it.”

The move comes as a slew of new Super PACs have raised millions of dollars in anticipation of next year’s presidential and congressional races.

Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, shared the new page on Facebook this morning with the comment: “I’ve spoken a number of times this year on the Fed’s Dual Mandate — a congressional requirement to promote both maximum employment and price stability. We’ve just launched a Dual Mandate site with background information and links to my speeches on the topic.”

The page features graphs of the unemployment rate and changes in consumer inflation since 1999, together with the current projection from the FOMC, the Fed’s policy committee, of what the unemployment rate and inflation rate will be in the next five years. The Fed’s most recent projections, from the start of November, say that the unemployment rate will remain above 7.5 percent through 2013, and the inflation rate will remain below 2 percent during that same time period.

That’s an unacceptably high level of unemployment for Evans, who has said that it’s worth tolerating a higher rate of inflation, up to 3 percent, in order to accelerate a return to full employment.

Evans has been the loudest voice on the FOMC in favor of using monetary policy to stimulate the economy further. In the FOMC’s most recent policy statement, which announced that it would continue to maintain its current level of monetary stimulus, Evans was the lone dissenting vote. He voted against the majority because he favored “additional policy accommodation.”

In a conversation with reporters at the Council on Foreign Relations today, Evans reaffirmed that he is calling for “increasing amounts of policy accommodation” in order to reduce the unemployment rate, which is currently 9 percent. “We ought to be behaving as if there’s a very big problem out there.”

Evans’s vote was the first dissent for further stimulus since December 2007. Since then, all dissenting votes have come from inflation hawks who have opposed the FOMC’s efforts to further stimulate the economy in the wake of the recession. That the vote for further stimulus comes from Evans is particularly noteworthy because all of the dissenting votes against stimulus in the past three years have come from his fellow Federal Reserve Bank presidents on the FOMC.

Seven seats on the FOMC are appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress, but five seats are reserved for presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. As the American Independent has previously reported, these presidents aren’t selected by democratic representatives but rather by the Federal Reserve Banks’ boards of directors, which are predominantly made up of senior business and financial executives.

Some of Evans’s fellow Federal Reserve Bank presidents have made statements indicating they don’t believe that unemployment should be reduced by government at all. In a speech on the same day as the most recent Fed statement, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president Richard Fisher criticized government efforts at reducing unemployment. ”Pliant fiscal authorities,” Fisher said, “have run out of enabling money.”

Fisher added that were the Federal Reserve to support Congress’ spending by “monetizing their debts”, it would end “in the most ruinous of scenarios, the onset of hyperinflation.” The government must not, Fisher said, “hide under the skirts of the Federal Reserve.”

This is not only a rejection of Evans’ belief that the Federal Reserve should directly undertake more stimulus, it is also a rejection of Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke’s statements at his most recent official press conference that Congress should engage in short-term fiscal stimulus in order to reduce unemployment.

But as the Chicago Fed’s new dual mandate page explains, the Federal Reserve does have a legal obligation to reach maximum employment. The Chicago Fed page quotes exactly where in the Federal Reserve Act the mandate is written:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. [emphasis added]

The most recent FOMC statement is at odds with this mandate, as it currently states in its own projections that unemployment remains unacceptably high, but is simultaneously committed to maintaining policy constant. Moreover, under current policy, inflation is projected to remain under 2 percent, below what it has been in past decades, and talk of “hyperinflation”, or extremely rapid or out of control inflation, is considered by most economists to be a red herring in the debate over whether to stimulate the present day American economy.

Here are the Chicago Federal Reserve’s charts showing unemployment and inflation over the next five years:

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a controversial California law that requires non-ambulatory livestock at slaughterhouses to be immediately euthanized and removed from the food supply and, based on their questions, it appears the justices are leaning toward a ruling in favor of the meat industry and the Obama administration.

The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed non-ambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

The study averaged the net worth of each member. When members file their financial disclosure statements, they list assets and liabilities as part of minimum and maximum bet worth and CRP averaged those. For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported a minimum net worth of $345,029 and a maximum of $1,104,000 for an average net worth of $724,512.

In Minnesota politics, the Republican members are much wealthier than the DFLers.

The wealthiest member of Minnesota’s delegation was Sen. Al Franken with an average net worth of $8,747,525 followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann at $1,783,508 and Rep. Chip Cravaack in 217th place with an average net worth of $1,391,551.

Those three were in the top half of Congress’ 535 members.

After Klobuchar’s $724,512 comes Rep. Erik Paulsen with an average net worth of $487,017, Rep. John Kline had $471,006, Rep. Collin Peterson had $263,005, Rep. Tim Walz with $247,502, and Rep. Betty McCollum with an average net worth of $88,005.

Rep. Keith Ellison had the lowest net worth, with negative $14,497.

The generally accepted cutoff for the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of net worth is about $9 million on 2010, a threshold that none of the Minnesota delegation report.

Eleven percent of Congress is in the top 1 percent in terms of net worth.

Photo: Opponents of Proposition 8 in California protest. Source: Dannyman, Flickr

The Minnesota for Marriage coalition, a group that is is urging voters to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has told the media and the Minnesota campaign finance board that if they have to disclose their donors, they will be subject to violence by supporters of marriage equality.

But a string of court cases across the country have shed serious doubt on those claims, with courts finding that conservative leaders were unable to provide credible evidence of threats or violence.

Avoiding disclosure in Minnesota

The Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage lobbied the campaign finance board to loosen disclosure on campaign spending by arguing that their donors will be targeted if their names are disclosed.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Tom Prichard, president of MFC, told the board in June. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

Prichard said he had knowledge of violence against donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose,” he said. “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

Conservative Catholic columnist for the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, recently echoed the Minnesota Family Council’s claims.

“A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views,” wrote Kersten. “[T]his is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who—ironically—seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.”

She added, “Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.”

The groundwork is actually being laid for a lawsuit by NOM and the Minnesota for Marriage coalition against the state of Minnesota. When the campaign finance board rejected Minnesota for Marriage’s arguments that full disclosure of donors would put them at risk, the coalition announced that it would not follow the board’s disclosure rules.

But history shows that launching a lawsuit in Minnesota based on the possibility of violence against marriage amendment supporters would be an uphill battle.

Protect Marriage Washington falsified or exaggerated about threats

NOM’s claims were tested this fall in Washington state when Protect Marriage Washington (PMW), a group affiliated with NOM, lost its case in court. PMW wanted to overturn that state’s domestic partner laws through an initiative called R-71. The group was successful in gathering enough signatures to put the repeal on the ballot, but it did not want those signatures to be public arguing that “militant homosexual activist groups” would target them.

After a local paper did a feature with state legislator Elizabeth Scott, a feature that included her contact information and talked about her support for repealing the domestic partner law, she said she received death threats.

“Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs,” Scott told the Faith and Freedom Network. “I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

The court found that Scott’s story did not stand up to scrutiny.

“However, other than speculation, Scott does not attribute to R-71 this death threat or any other incident that she claimed could be considered harassment,” the court wrote.

After the court decision, she wrote, “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second.”

Gary Randall, who runs the Faith and Freedom Network that spearheaded the effort to repeal the domestic partner law, also had his own complaints about death threats, which he later retracted.

“Randall testified that he received death threats via a blog site; however, when asked to demonstrate where in the copy of the blog posting he believed a threat of his or another’s life was made he could not do so without relying on assumptions,” the court wrote, adding that Randall “finally conceding that no actual death threat was made on the website”

The court noted that Randall was referring to the website, PinkPistols.org, which is a group for LGBT people who hold conceal and carry licenses.

“This website appears to advocate for homosexuals to be armed if desired to use only in self defense,” the court said in a footnote. “[Randall] has not supplied competent evidence to the contrary.”

As a matter of fact, the website no longer exists and according to the Wayback Machine hasn’t been updated since 2006, well before Washington’s enacting of the domestic partnership law.

Other witnesses provided testimony in the Washington case that the court found lacking. One witness testified that he was harassed when two women came up to him while he was gathering signatures for R-71 and one said “we have feelings too.” Another said he found three Post-It notes on his car with vulgar language. Still another felt harassed when a passing motorist made offensive gestures at him.

In the court’s conclusion, Judge Benjamin Settle wrote:

Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made.

The court did say that they’d demonstrated that there was some hostility to a same-sex marriage ban in the state, but not that it could lead to threats or violence, and that there had been no evidence that advocates had been harassed in the two years since the ballot question was introduced to Washington state voters.

California and Prop 8

In October, NOM and ProtectMarriage.com lost their bid to keep donors to the Proposition 8 campaign anonymous. The groups worked to pass Proposition 8, which repealed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008. NOM had argued that disclosing its donors would chill free speech and that widespread violence against Prop 8 supporters would put its donors at risk.

But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, a Bush appointee, found the evidence a bit thin.

[T]he vast majority of the incidents cited by Plaintiffs are arguably, as characterized by defendants, typical of any controversial campaign. For example, picketing, protesting, boycotting, distributing flyers, destroying yard signs and voicing dissent do not necessarily rise to the level of “harassment” or “reprisals,” especially in comparison to acts directed at groups in the past.

Moreover, a good portion of these actions are themselves forms of speech protected by the United States Constitution.

The court also rejected the idea that any activity directed at entities that backed Prop 8, such as the Mormon church, necessarily meant it was due to Prop 8.

“Plaintiffs have produced insufficient evidence that the more incendiary events on which they rely were connected to Proposition 8 or to gay marriage at all,” the judge wrote. “Rather, a number of these incidents were directed at the Mormon church, which, though a backer of California’s proposition, may also have been a target for any of a number of other reasons.”

And while NOM and other anti-gay marriage amendment backers said that the violence against them was widespread, the judge disagreed.

Accordingly, while Plaintiffs can point to a relatively few unsavory acts committed by extremists or criminals, these acts are so small in number, and in some instances their connection to plaintiffs’ supporters so attenuated, that they do not show a reasonable probability plaintiffs’ contributors will suffer the same fate. Given the grand scale of plaintiffs’ campaign and the massive (and national) support they garnered for their cause, plaintiffs’ limited evidence is simply insufficient to support a finding that disclosure of contributors’ names will lead to threats, harassment or reprisals.

The future in Minnesota
Government transparency advocates have been watching NOM’s actions in Minnesota very carefully. In addition to California, Washington, and Minnesota, NOM has also unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Iowa, Maine, New York and Rhode Island.

“Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage certainly are engaged in a heated debate,” wrote Common Cause Minnesota’s Mike Dean and Mark Ladov of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Universtiy School of Law in a column for the Duluth News Tribune. “But it is insulting to claim transparency would leave major campaign donors vulnerable to the violent intimidation tactics civil-rights activists faced in the era of Bull Connor.”

Dean and Ladov pointed back to the outcry when Target Corporation gave money to a group supporting an anti-gay marriage candidate.

“[R]emember how these same groups howled about so-called ‘harassment’ when gay-rights advocates called for a boycott of Target over contributions supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. But that isn’t harassment. It’s a boycott — one of the time-honored ways in which ordinary people, without access to wealthy corporate treasuries, can organize for change and make sure their voices are heard in the political process.”

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

A bill recently introduced by congressmen from Pennsylvania and Illinois could have a far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 union workers on Aug. 1.

Members of Minnesota and North Dakota’s congressional delegations have repeatedly warned that the company’s lockout could help undermine the congressional consensus around protections for the sugar industry.

“There are members of Congress whose natural constituency is agriculture; some who see themselves as champions of business, and others who fight for workers,” Sen. Al Franken wrote in late August. “Knowing that the program has worked so well for so many years for the hardworking growers who produce such a large percentage of our nation’s sugar beets and for the dedicated workers and skilled management, who turn those beets into the highest quality sugar in the world, has played no small role in creating this consensus.”

Big Sugar has maintained support from Congress by continuously lining the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats, although there is also a tangible discontent among industries that use sugar products, who find domestic prices to be too high. Those upset with American Crystal Sugar’s labor practices could join with these discontented industries to repeal the protections.

Enter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., who teamed up to introduce a bill that would protect the other sweet-tooth industries: candy companies that lie within their districts.

“We’ve heard from his constituents that the price of sugar is affecting business, it’s affecting jobs,” says Pitts spokesperson Andrew Wimer, who adds that Davis, the Chicago Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation, cites examples of factories that have shut their doors because of the high price of sugar.

The Free Market Sugar Act would repeal the sugar loan program and amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (known as the Farm Bill), perhaps the most important piece of legislation impacting U.S. sugar interests. Written every five years, the Farm Bill helps sugar growers with farm subsidies (which some dismiss as “corporate welfare”) and a series of quotas that tightly control the supply of imported sugar, a benefit to the handful of American sugar producers who pocket around $1 billion in excess profits a year, and a detriment to candy companies that buy U.S. sugar at prices two to three times higher than the global market rate.

Federal legislation also calls for the sugar program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a provision some sugar insiders project will remain for years to come.

“In general, [the Free Market Sugar Act] seeks to reform the sugar program so that the government is not controlling how much sugar is produced and imported,” says Wimer. ”It loosens the controls on production and importation, so that the U.S. price for sugar can be more closely aligned with the world price.”

In addition to amending the sugar price support program, the bill pushes for more transparency in the sugar industry, and an overhaul of how it does business. If enacted, the bill would replace quota import provisions with a tariff rate quota. “Right now the USDA is tightly controlling how much raw cane sugar comes into the U.S.,” says Wimer. “Instead of blanket eliminating quotas, we are modifying it so it’s not as unfair to the current market.”

Pitts and Davis have also recently announced the formation of the Congressional Sugar Reform Caucus, a bipartisan group that also includes Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Jean Shaheen, D-N.H.

The Minnesota Independent’s Jon Collins contributed to this report.

A video clip featuring some of Beck’s words was uploaded Monday by the Santorum campaign:

The campaign also offered the following transcript of Beck:

I don’t endorse candidates, I don’t get involved in politics, I don’t make donations to any politician. Rick Santorum is a friend of mine, but I choose my friends carefully and I would never tell you someone was a friend of mine if I didn’t have great respect for them. I will tell you this. People ask me all the time, ‘who is out there?’ I tell them the same thing, I don’t trust any of them, but if I had to trust the reins of power with one person that is currently in this field and, because I think the next president has got to be Abraham Lincoln, he has got to be somebody who knows exactly who he is, knows exactly where he stands and is willing to, in the end, turn those reins of power back over. The temptation and the pressure is going to be absolutely enormous. If there is one guy out there that is the next George Washington, the only guy that I could think of is Rick Santorum. I would ask that you would take a look at him.

To place the Santorum-promoted piece in context, visit The Right Scoop blog, where a nearly 17 minute clip has been posted of the same exchange.

“We think all of the candidates suck,” Beck said after Santorum joined him by phone.

Beck added that there are only two candidates, in his opinion, that don’t have “scary policies.” Those two being Santorum and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“So, what do we need to do to get you and Michele Bachmann to be the president? Vice-president? I don’t care — you can switch chairs whenever you want. You can work it out. What do we do?” asked Beck.

Santorum’s response was his website address and a request for campaign donations.

The ad features a number of farmers, one of whom says the EPA wants to regulate methane coming from cattle.

“For thousands of years, 60 million buffalo roamed these prairies in Iowa,” one farmer says. “Who regulated them?”

EPA regional spokesman David Bryan told our sister site, The Iowa Independent Monday that “there’s no truth to that at all.”

“There are a number of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and different types of ambient air quality standards, but trying to say we’re putting a tax on emissions from cows is just a little ridiculous,” Bryan said.

Another claim in the ad, that the EPA wants to regulate dust on farms, is also a myth. Bryan said every five years the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to evaluate air standards, but EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made it clear in a note to Congress that there is no intention to regulate dust on farms.

“You can’t plow a field without dust, you can’t drive down a gravel road without dust,” a farmer says in Cain’s ad. “My dog makes dust.”

The EPA focuses on regulating coarse particulates, Bryan said, such as dust from construction, demolition and industrial sites.

“We center our monitoring of air mostly on urban areas where it affects the most people,” he said. “We’re going to leave the dust standards where they are.”

Dean Kleckner, former head of the Iowa Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau, endorses Cain in the ad, saying, “He reminds me of Ronald Reagan, and I knew Ronald Reagan.”

“Over-regulation is killing the American farmer,” Kleckner says. “I think Herman Cain is the answer. Running a farm is a business and Herman Cain is a proven CEO.”

Bryan said the EPA has worked to counter the false claims that the EPA wants to regulate methane and dust, but not everyone is getting the message.

“What further method do we have other than you folks to say we don’t intend on doing this?” Bryan said.

Source: Sen. Lee Bright's Facebook page.

Rep. Michele Bachmann announced Tuesday that her presidential campaign chairman in South Carolina, where the first shots of the Civil War were fired, is state Sen. Lee Bright, who has made comments about secession and introduced a bill to study whether the state should start printing its own currency.

“Michele Bachmann is the candidate who doesn’t just give lip service to conservative principles but actively lives them out every day,” Bright said in a statement. “She is the conservative who has been consistent in her record and her rhetoric.”

Bright introduced his bill to study the creation of a new South Carolina currency earlier this session. The resolution argues that the right to print currency can flow from the state’s constitutional police powers.

“[M]any widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future,” the resolution reads. ”[I]n the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the state is not prepared, the state’s governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos, with gravely detrimental effects upon the lives, health, and property of South Carolina’s citizens, and with consequences fatal to the preservation of good order throughout the state.”

If passed, the legislation would appoint a subcommittee to come up with a plan for an alternative currency.

“South Carolina can avoid or at least mitigate many of the economic, social, and political shocks to be expected to arise from hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System only through the timely adoption of an alternative sound currency that the state’s government and citizens may employ without delay in the event of the destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency,” according to the resolution.

It was last year that Bright played a major role in helping to pass a non-binding, but contentious, affirmation of South Carolina’s sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution.

“If at first you don’t secede, try again,” Bright joked to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal after the sovereignty bill’s passage. ”I think all of our rights are under assault, but assault on the 9th and 10th amendments is the most egregious.”