by Dave Nalle
You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.
In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:
“â€The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.â€
The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.
The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough†to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.
There’s a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma’s bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.
Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.
It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.
The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:
“That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.â€
and
“That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.â€
What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.
Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire’s bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullifcation which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii’s proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.
As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.
Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at IdiotWars.com.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
This is a great article and love all of the debate going on in the comments. Any idea why the quotes and apostrophes are showing up as weird symbols??
Betsy wrote, "This is nothing more than a move in “word†that will not be enforced by “deed,†unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the “negligence†in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties."
I take an even more dim view; I think the movement will backfire because for the most part these declarations simply say, in effect, "Give us enough money to carry out your whims, and we'll do whatever you ask."
New Hampshire's resolution is worth emulating but most of these others are just words, as Betsy says. And the legislators can't even get the "words" passed.
Sorry for being a pessimist but it's in my genes.
Jack,
That is true, a citizen Juror can with impunity (if mouth kept shut) vote not guilty thereby nullifying an unconstitutional law and or an unjustly applied law, but nullification does not repeal a law. Only Lawmakers can repeal a law.
I have no problems with a Jury nullifying such mentioned laws. There are a couple of problems with jury nullification though; Judges and Officers (Lawyers) of the Court tamper with and stack the jury and Jurors know not the difference nor know an unconstitutional law when they hear or read one. Jury nullification is a citizen force to be used against government “legislation†and is not a force “directly†against a Lawmaker; where the ballot box is a force for all Voters to be used “directly†against Lawmakers.
History proves we are not going to see a positive change of direction of government until the People educate themselves about the Constitution and the Duty in Citizenship. The ballot and jury boxes (two) sum up the Duty in Citizenship. The duty in citizenship is not a duty to government but is a duty to each other – citizen to citizen.
Allan
Mary,
My information indicates U.S. major News (Print, Hollywood, TV) is owned or controlled by America’s enemy, Israel to be exact, and that enemy controls Congress too.
Good propaganda is 90% true and propaganda is about all we get from our enemy. Our churches have capitulated too.
Reestablishing Constitutional America rests entirely on the back of the U.S. Citizenry and none other. It will be 2010 before we can do, force, anything “constitutional†toward regaining our Rights and Freedom.
Allan
Very well researched and written article, thanks Dale.
I am all for the States standing up against “unconstitutionality†no matter from which direction it comes from. However, I question the Constitutional truth of States Rights when speaking/writing to the Citizenry on the subject. I think I see a manufactured hiding place for the Citizenry to hide from citizen’s Duty in Citizenship hoping or expecting the States will correct the federal government. From that hiding place the Citizenry will continue reelecting Incumbents (Lawmakers) to the House of Congress and doing so every two years. The States do not elect Federal Representatives.
Unconstitutionality prevails for two basic reasons; the Constitution is not enforced by the “Enforcer†and the Enforcer does not know it is the Enforcer, or simply doesn’t care. The Citizenry, not the States, is the Enforcer of the Constitution (on government. Local, State & Federal) and constitutionally the Ballot Box is the only force against government the Citizenry has.
Then, when mentioning (to the Citizenry) the Constitution, I feel the same about quoting what someone says (Jefferson, for instance) when the quote is not from or even related to what is written in the Constitution. Such quotes denounce the Constitution and give the Citizenry another place to hide from the reality of its true constitutional role in controlling government.
Allan
If you are talking about minimizing government Im totaly for it. But why give the states the job of doing what they couldnt do in the first place. Are we too busy that we dont know right from wrong. Number 1 all the laws today have nothing to do with the common good. They all have$$$$ written all through out. Any law that involves money is illegal. Think of the millions who violate these questionable laws if they choose not to pay will they go to jail? Second this country is totally and completly created for immigrants. That being said any law that excludes any one based on race, color, religion, or sexual preference is also illegal. The judicial system is based on the principles that it cannot choose sides or be bias. So it cannot make decisions without violating its own code of ethics. What has happened today is greedand power has corrupted our public servants. I belive our good intentions have been twisted to serve malice. Less government will allow for funds that are being used by corruption to go back where it belongs to schools, law enforcemsnt( peace officers) , healthcare, and family welfare. I dont belive those in capital hill deserve what they are getting paid. In fact i dont pay them to have me fined, jailed, abused, or to take my children. I dont pay taxes for them to twidle their thumbs year after year claiming to be helping those they represent. What they have been up to is criminal in nature and things need to be simplified for them you abuse the authority granted to you by the people of this great nation and your penalty is death on the charges of treason and terrorist acts on the equality of the US AND ALL WHO CALL HER HOME.
The reason they are flooding our borders is because it is only Conservative White America (for the most part) that understands, or even cares to understand constitutional rights. Multiculturalism is just an excuse to "water down" constitutionalists voters with those wanting more government handouts. The average immigrant has "no clue" what the constitution is about and does not even care. They are here for the American dollar, or to "take their country back" as the Hispanics here in Southern California constantly yell, but you will never hear it on the news...which essentially means turn it into another Mexico. If some States do not separate from the Union, anything gained in the next few years will be lost when the country is overrun by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans and Chinese. Yes, some of these people support us, I understand that, but the percentage of these immigrants that support constitutional rights is extremely low... too low to form a mandate. Look at your Tea Parties, they are almost entirely conservative Whites, this is NOT because they are racist, it is because, for the vast majority (95%) no one but conservative Whites care about a constitutionally free society. Call me names for saying this (I am sure some will) but everyone with a brain knows it to be true!
This action by the DEA is a clear violation of the State of Montana's sovereign right to duly enact state laws in accordance with the will of its people. The Montana Medical Marijuana law was duly processed via democratic process and duly enacted into Montana law. For the DEA, or any other Federal Government agency, to override that authority is a clear violation of our Sovereign right to govern our state. By this action, the DEA has usurped our Governer's authority; rendering him nothing more than a figurehead and spokesperson for the Federal Government. I think it is time for the Governer of Montana and the Montana State Attourney General to stand up and prosecute the DEA for acts of treason, violation of Constitution, and violation of State's rights to govern according to the will of the people.
Of course, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.
There is proper authority within the U.S. Constitution for "We The People" to assert ourselves. Therefore, we must move quickly to demand that no provision of the U.S. Constitution is "out of date or made for horse and buggy times" anymore than the Bible, The Alphabet, and other age old standards". This "Cosmopolitan Society" than we have allowed to be spun is choking the life out of our Citizens. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has been replaced with War, Tax, Corruption and "Legalese from Washington". We must "Validate" our U.S. Constitution and 50 State Constituions and then take action for the power of government to be returned to We The People.
HI I THINK THIS IS GREAT AND YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GOOD JOB BUT I AM WONDERING IF YOU UNDERSTAND WE HAVE NO TIME WE ARE DEALING WITH A SYSTEM THAT IS RUNNING ITSELF NOW -- THERE IS NO ONE IN CHARGE -- SOME HOW IT HAS ITS OWN MIND -- EVERYONE IS GOING TO WORK BUT THE SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY ASSIGNING JOBS -- THERE IS NO JUSTICE ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY PERIOD -- IT DEPENDS WHERE YOU ARE IN ORDER TO SEE HOW SERIOUS THIS HAS BECOME -- THANK YOU PIXIE AN DUDE
i totally agree Sheryl. i think we are running out of time, i saw the videos of police going in the womans home without a warrant,, i cant believew this is America.. HELP!!!!!!!!!
It's funny none of you guys were pushing this when Bush and the Republicans were ruining this country. I suppose as long as they are doing it your way it's all fine.
Don't be an idiot. I'm the founder of this organization and it was started in 2006. In my interviews with the press I consistently hammer bush and obama....like tac has done all along.
The real question...what were YOU doing in response to all the bush criminalties...electing the "peace" candidate? What a joke that turned out to be.
Likewise, states can "reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution," as much as they like; it won't matter a whit of difference. The federal government simply maintains that *all* of its federal laws, are well-within its Constitutional delegations of power; and if the federal Supreme Court concurs with the other federal branches, then the states will have no means to redress their claims to the contrary.
Madison made clear in his 1800 "Report on the Virginia Resolutions," that "However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
These "parties to the constitutional compact," were the Peoples of the individual states. Unless they have the sovereign authority to clarify and revoke their delegations of power to state and federal governments alike, then the Constitution is a paper tiger which can safeguard nothing; for both state and federal governments alike will simply claim that their laws are 100% constitutional and just.
This has been their modus operandi ever since the War Between the States, at which point the walls began closing in with regard to individual liberty, as the United States began facing World Wars, taxation of private income, and control of private transactions such as banking, lending and other finance under the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the SEC-- completely apart from any allegations of fraud or other actual wrongdoing. This is all possible only by state and federal claims of a right to use force against a state's popular majority-- which is in full violation of national sovereignty, but which is subverted via suppression and control of mainstream media, academia and other thought. See my website for further info.
I'll say it again: State Sovereignty has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment, which simply reflects "respective delegation--" i.e. the People of each state **delegated** certain powers to the federal government, as listed in the Constitution, while reserving the remainder to their respective state governments or to themselves. However all sovereign power remained VESTED in the People of each state-- and ONLY in the People of each state: delegation, in contrast, is not surrender, since a "delegate" is simply a DEPUTY by definition, i.e. an assistant. A delegate CANNOT be the sovereign.
Therefore, state sovereignty pre-dates the Constitution entirely, back to 1776, when the states recognized each other mutually as sovereign, free and independent states (i.e. sovereign NATIONS); the only respect in which the 10th Amendment regards state sovereignty, is the fact that it notes that all federal powers were **delegated,** not "surrendered" in any way.
Some, like Yale Prof. Akhil Amar, believe that the federal government has the right to use force against a state's popular majority; however this is entirely FALSE. The USA is NOT a single nation, but a free and voluntary republic of independent sovereign nations.
I think the states ought to get together and draft a Constitutional Amendment clarifying their rights and negating those laws that have violated states rights over the years. It's the only way to really take back our country.
Gordon, that Amendment already exists - it's the 10th! That's the one that says - the only powers the feds can exercise are those in the Constitution.
Why work on a national level to get another amendment passed when they don't follow the ones they have already? Work on a state level to resist and nullify unconstitutional laws - you'll be far more effective if you do.
Please, Everybody, look at this video - Finally the Truth shown, simply and completely - first it leaves you numb - but then at least you won't run around in circles not knowing where to start....
May God be with us...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqzXGYXaTKs&feature=related
Just learned about your website through Fox Nation. This appears to me as the best way ro real in big federal govt. As I understand 2/3 of states come on board the tax code can be vetoed at the federal level. Very powerful movement!!!!
I think you nailed it right as to why any of these 20 states would wait after us to try seceding (peacefully this time around): because the Quebecer call for secession is much larger than it would be in any of these 20 states. In regards to sovereignty, Quebecer political strategists often use the "thirds" model, i.e. 1/3 of the population is made up of staunch sovereigntists, 1/3 is made up of the hardcore federalists and the last 1/3 can go either way.
I believe that NH has a larger secessionist call than most of the other 19 states. Besides, NH sovereigntists and QC sovereigntists complain about the exact same things on at least one issue (the federal government encroaches on provincial/state power.)
Do you realize some of these 20 states are waiting after Quebec to actually try to secede? Maybe you don't understand why I'd mention Quebec in the first place but Quebec has been contemplating at secession for what, thirty years?
Let's hope that the next Premier of Quebec will come from a sovereigntist party so we can secede... no, that won't work. The best bet for us Quebecers (and these 20 states, by extension) would be a Bloquist government in Canada. However, the Quebecer Bloc does not run outside Quebec only because they fear the massive vote-splitting they'd cause.
If you don't know what the Quebecer Bloc is, it is a center-left (or far-left, depending on where you are) party that advocates Quebec's sovereignty at the federal level. Outside Quebec, though, it's primarily known as a party that stands up to protect the provinces' rights.
No, I don't know much about the movement in Quebec, but I'm pretty confident in saying that any secession calls in the US are really quite small. Not that I'm opposed to people having self-determination....just saying there isn't much of a call for it yet. Will be interesting to see how things pan out. Stop by and let us know how things progress up there.
But Maggie, the public schools taught me, that we have to vote? It is our civic duty. Now go vote. You can choose Yes, or Yes.
Until people realize that Central Planning is the enemy, and not abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc... We will continue to be run by Big Government Communist Central Planners. The Nazi Central planners in the GOP laughed at Ron Paul.
I'm getting a bit tired of statements like this, seen all too frequently in the cybersphere:
"...the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states."
Drop the vendetta against the Dems and spending. Let's admit it: the Republicans have outspent the Dems by an astonishing margin. The Dems at least make no pretensions that they aim for limited government.
We have a one party system: oneworldguvmintparty #1 and oneworldguvmintparty#2. This party doesn't give a rip how the US is bankrupted and destroyed; fiscal destruction at the hands of Fascist Corporatism will do just as well as fiscal destruction at the hands of the Nanny State.
You might want to check out the information revealed at www.tax-freedom.com
It is of course, all related to the federal intrusion on the State's sovereignty.
The Tenth Amendment movement actually is nothing more than redundant, as I said.
Article IV, Section 4 states that the feds guarantee a Republican form of government. The Tenth Amendment already exists - so why are we petition for an amendment that already exists in the first place? I just don't get it, I guess.
Why do we petition for state government to do what's right? Because they aren't right now. So we need to push them in the right direction. The more positive feedback they get from constituents on this issue, the more likely they will be to get some courage and stand up for the constitution...
The problem with "jury nullification" is this (since I am an ex-paralegal), the jigg has been fixed on that also, at least in my former home state of Arizona. The attorneys rarely give that jury instruction that informs the jury that they have the power to examine the facts AND the law and thow it out if it doesn't fit the circumstances, or is questionable in it's Constitutionality. Judges don't like it because it removes their power and authority - and judges really do like having that power and authority undilluted by the juries.
Also, as with the now low level DUI "social" drinking taxes throughout the nation, they have been moved from civil to criminal violations but the Supreme Court - in another of their abridgements - in a Nevada case several years ago determined that the Constitution didn't mean what it said, and that jury trials were not due citizens in ALL CRIMINAL MATTERS, simply those in which the sentence was greater than six months. They used the "catch all" reason of "in the interest of public safety" as their reasons for the "insertion" of new words into the Constitution. But the founder's did place those words in there in order to protect the rights of the accused more than anything else. As one of them said: Better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man spend a day in jail. That's how strongly they felt about denying American's their freedom. And now America has the highest prison population in the world.
So that is why there are now 13 levels of punishment for low level DUI offenses throughout the nation and lifetime records for .08 readings - which is a level that is less than your average hit of cough medicine. And why there are more and more homeless now each and every year, the fines now on such violations are so great, as are the increasing fines now for speeding and other violations.
And actually, in every and all traffic violation the crime is simply "reckless endangerment." These legislators have to justify their own existence, and even run over sessions in order to get those per diems and expense accounts. With all that is going on now in the border states, Arizona spent legislative sessions on such things as petitioning the federal government for a National Day of the Cowboy.
This is where your money goes, friends.
Unless and until the state's start acknowledging the questionable status of the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act, and call for the IRS to cease and desist harassing their citizens, these actions have been undertaken before by the states in order to attempt to quiet the masses.
The Ninth Amendment actually precedes the Tenth....which is why the 16th is also questionable. In other words, it preceeds the 16th in legal authority which left any and all provisions not in the original Constitution to the people and that 16th Amendment should have been placed before the people prior to the states having ratified it in the first place. This was assumed by the founders after providing the Bill of Rights - that their provisions for indirect taxes would remain unless and until the people decided to amend it.
The states unilaterally gave up their voice and power when they ratified the 17th, 16th and Federal Reserve Act giving all power and the purse strings to Washington - and the people are now suffering "double jeopardy" in taxation - and even triple jeopardy at the municipal level.
I don't see much changing unless and until those amendments are rescinded, since contrary to all representations made by the states - the states are in bed with the Feds on many of these issues. It is the state which petitions the federal government for those work visas....while claiming they are just as upset by the insourcing and outsourcing and the jobs lost to Americans - it is THEY who have steadily been requesting increases in them. The feds are merely providing them due to the petitions of the states.
The American public seems to be totally unaware of just what is going on here. Those amendments afforded the state's a "way out" of citizen unrest by blaming the "foreign" government - the feds - and they like it that way.
Ever tried writing them on any of those Bill of Rights issues? They will claim it isn't within their power since they are under "federal mandates" to enforce those laws - under threat of removal of funding.
As long as Washington controls the purse strings, nothing will change. The state's are now no more than lobbyists at the federal trough, as are most of the municipalites. When they get their revenue - do they reduce your state or local taxes? Are any of the sums that the state's receive from the feds included on the budgets and balance sheets? Of course not, otherwise they wouldn't have those sums in order to feed to their campaign buddies at the state level.
It's a game, and Americans don't see how the noose has been progressively placed around the citizen's necks by BOTH state and federal government acting hand in hand.
In after the housing boom, when they were getting all that excess property tax revenue - especially in California and the Sunbelt States, they are whining about their revenue shortages - just where DID all that money go?
Betsy wrote, "This is nothing more than a move in “word” that will not be enforced by “deed,” unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the “negligence” in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties."
I take an even more dim view; I think the movement will backfire because for the most part these declarations simply say, in effect, "Give us enough money to carry out your whims, and we'll do whatever you ask."
New Hampshire's resolution is worth emulating but most of these others are just words, as Betsy says. And the legislators can't even get the "words" passed.
Sorry for being a pessimist but it's in my genes.
Everyone, please read the book, "Un intended Con sequences" by J ohn R oss. It's a fictional account of the gradual usurpation of American's rights based on historical evidence and suggests a grassroots strategy to regain our Republic without the need for firefights in the streets which would only endanger innocents and children. Then write your legistraitors and Executraitors and suggest they read it as you're genuinely concerned with their future welfare considering all the nut cases around.
I don't know how you you can take back your country but I hope you do it soon. The rest of the world is wondering why you as a people have not put a stop to it yet. Where are the American free the people riots?
This is all well and good, expect that this state sovereignty is unnecessary, and another one of those "shut up" moves by the state legislatures rather than doing what they need to do in order to curtail the federal government and act as "representatives" of the people rather than "agents" of the feds. In Article IV, Section 4 it already asserts the "sovereignty" of the states by "guaranteeing to each state a Republican form of government," and the Tenth Amendment already reinforces that any and all powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people.
This is redundancy, and will serve no purpose unless and until the states actually start suing the federal government for "lack of performance" when they don't provide the revenue or resources for the enumerated powers, or start filing "injunctions" when they overstep their powers and start forcing the state's and people to cowtow to their unconstitutional edicts.
This is nothing more than a move in "word" that will not be enforced by "deed," unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the "negligence" in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties.
Nothing more than more bureaucracy and looking like they are doing something, when actually doing nothing at all.
Betsy, keep in mind that action takes time. We've got a few generations of mis-education about the nature of the federal government to turn around here. I believe John Adams said it best:
“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
Betsy, keep in mind that action takes time. We've got a few generations of mis-education about the nature of the federal government to turn around here. I believe John Adams said it best:
“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.â€
For too long, Americans have allowed their politicians to interpret and bend the rules of the Constitution.
Our government representatives have taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution and their State Constitution.
Denying the passage of this resolution would demonstrate the disregard of these representatives loyalty to the oath and the people of this great state.
Not passing such resolution demonstrates the denying of the US Constitution and the State Constitutions.
JLB, you make a great point. For decades and decades, people in the US have allowed politicians to bend or break the rules of the constitution - ostensibly for good reasons. i.e. helping the poor, security, and the like.
But, what most are not realizing is that when you allow politicians to bend the rules, and you allow it for a long time, eventually you end up with politicians, and an entire government...that feels and acts as if there were no rules at all.
I believe that's pretty much where this country is today.
When OBushma calls your house, and tells you to "put on this brown shirt uniform" you will gladly do it. And you will follow the orders to arrest and burn your neighbors in ovens. That is the way it is. You put a uniform on a man, and he will do unconscionable things to anyone without the same uniform. Rationalizing that "they are different. I need to arrest them, seize their guns and children, because they don't have the brown shirt on......"
Comrade, So you don't like what the Government is doing? then stop voting for the Government. You go to the polls, and you don't even know that you are being asked by the proletariat to vote Yes, or Yes. Both parties are big Government Nazi Socialist Central Planners. Wake up. STOP VOTING - as all you are doing is encouraging them.
Declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment sounds like real "Change". Not those repackaged Bush policies that Obama calls "Change"(Keynesian economic policies, hawkish foreign policy, illegal spying on citizens, etc.)
Just for your information SC. is in the fray. The bill has passed the lower house and is now in the State Senate where it is said to be heavily favored.
To touch on something said above. Second Amendment rights are one of the things listed in the bill.
Good point, Palladin. While the US military is certainly powerful, much of it will be null and void in a citizen's uprising. The use of tactical nukes will never happen, the Navy will not be a factor. Air Force pilots wouldn't bomb American cities. The military certainly has no love lost for the liberal journalists and professors who support flag burning, nor the liberal congressmen calling for military investigations and integration of gays. The National Guard is comprised of local citizen/soldiers who would immediately revolt against an unconstitutional federal government.
Faced with a war of attrition against a well-armed citizenry, the military would oppose the Obama regime. Most of the career politicians would flee the country with the money they have stolen from We The People. While there would still be riots and civil unrest, most of that would occur in large cities and along the Mexican border. Armed citizens in the suburbs and militias in the rural areas would be able to keep the peace fairly well.
Thats the hope at least. The fact that organizations like OATH KEEPERS exist, give me renewed faith in my fellow servicemen and women. I underestimated my fellows in this, I see that they do seem to recognize corruption, but they like me, must fight against the urge to stay silent. For now, my view of it is that you are right, Our military I think has a more idealistic view of life than our police force, and will see corruption for what it is.
Oh, by the way, the ballot box has been compromised. I don't know anyone (and I've been in sales for over a quarter-of-a-century so I know a lot of people) that has confidence in our voting system these days. It has been corrupted by groups such as ACORN et. al.
The ballot box as a "force against government" has been nullified.
Dear Allan:
I beg to differ with your statement, "the Ballot Box is the only force against government the Citizenry has." You forget that if all peaceful means fail to right our grievances, there's the 2nd Amendment. This amendment provides for the citizens ability to use force other than the ballot box." And don't try to tell me the citizenry cannot defend or prevail against the US Military because a large portion of our military will join with the citizenry - many will be high ranking officers who will bring their entire TOE with them (Cannons, Tanks, .50 Cal auto machine guns, APCs, etc. etc.) The military take an oath to "support and defend the US CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign or domestic." The DO NOT take an oath to blindly obey the supposed POTUS. The military are ynder NO OBLIGATION to carryout unlawful orders which violate the US Constitution (e.g. confiscating weapons from the citizenry would be the most quoted example).
Since most of the fighting will be in highly populated areas, I seriously doubt any military members who violate their oath and obey an unlawful order will be allowed to use mass destruction devices such as bombs or artillery etc. because the collateral damage to the populace would create even more anger and rebellion. Additionally, the "freedom fighters" would be able to disappear into the populace much like the Islamic Extremist currently do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To repeat, the Ballot Box is NOT the citizenry's "only" force that can be used against the feds!
Of course, we all hope it doesn't come to that but it could!
[...] states file sovereignty resolutions State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing » Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] and Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing [...]
[...] Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] · No Comments I found an interesting blog article explaining in more detail. Click here to check it [...]
infighting…
So… does anyone want to take bets on how the new 10th-Amendment-reinforcement laws that twenty-odd states are considering will mesh up with the newly-proposed “Assault Weapon” Ban? It might just be me, but the two seem rather… contradictory…….
[...] I am NOT a constitutional scholar, I don’t claim to be, but there is a vein of dissatisfaction ripping through this nation the likes of which we have never seen. Many states, not just Texas, are making an effort to establish their sovereignty for the United States. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off. SOURCE: State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing [...]
[...] and Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] Add to this the fact that possibly a whole lot of states are trying to exercise their rights under the 10th amendment. [...]
[...] asking the government to leave our food alone. Better still, it’s worth looking into the state sovereignty movement, and asking the federal government to do what it’s supposed to do (militia, treaties, etc.) , [...]
[...] authority in favor of state or local authority” appears to be aimed at supporters of the State Soverignty movement, which seeks to assert states rights over the federal government as outlined in the 10th Amendment [...]
[...] else, Washington now controls almost everything a state might want to do on its own. There is a growing movement by states to reassert their own sovereignty based on the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government with all other powers [...]
[...] shot heard round the world has its echoes today in the TEA PARTY movement, state sovereignty and nullification movements, and even the push for federalism amendments. Likewise the long list of [...]
[...] shot heard round the world has its echoes today in the TEA PARTY movement, state sovereignty and nullification movements, and even the push for federalism amendments. Likewise the long list of [...]
[...] idea of state secession is growing among state legislatures, as evidenced by the number of state sovereignty bills submitted. My home state of Mississippi shot down a bill promoting state sovereignty on June 3rd [...]
[...] word "reign". I before E, except when you reign over the rules Re-posting your link : State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing*|*Tenth Amendment Center 2009 July "Currently 36 other states have introduced similar measures in their various state [...]
[...] elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause to greatly expand its powers. There has been a movement recently though to reassert state [...]
[...] State Sovereignty Movements: Legislatures in states like New Hampshire pass bills to limit federal power. Built-in escape clauses allow states to secede when they perceive that the feds are infringing on [...]
[...] shot heard round the world has its echoes today in the TEA PARTY movement, state sovereignty and nullification movements, and even the push for federalism amendments. Likewise the long list of [...]
[...] War. The fact is the Civil War was only 10% about slavery. It was 90% about States rights, sovereignty, and the attempt to force the Federal Government to obey THE LAW in OUR CONSTITUTION. The [...]
[...] War. The fact is the Civil War was only 10% about slavery. It was 90% about States rights, sovereignty, and the attempt to force the Federal Government to obey THE LAW in OUR CONSTITUTION. The [...]
[...] “The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance. The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough†to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year”. (Full article at the 10th Amendment Center) [...]
[...] State Sovereignty Movements: Legislatures in states like New Hampshire pass bills to limit federal power. Built-in escape clauses allow states to secede when they perceive that the feds are infringing on [...]
[...] legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states [12] States take the tenth [13] State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing [14] Federalism and the 10th Amendment [15] Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! [16] States Rights [...]
[...] and Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! Albany's Insanity What happened to the 10th Amendment? State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing|Tenth Amendment Center State prepares to challenge U.S. gun laws Idaho first to sign law against health care reform [...]
[...] and Washington legislators reaffirm states’ rights UPDATE: 8 more states States take the tenth State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing Federalism and the 10th Amendment Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! States Rights Movement vs Federal [...]
[...] Supporters of the 10th amendment are pushing a petition to reassert state sovereignty because the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long power in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lost balance. A petition drive is under way to reassert states sovereignty rights and limit federal government encroachment into a state’s affairs. Learn more about the State Sovereignty movement. [...]
[...] 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution are the state and local governments’ check and balance against overreaching federal power. For far too long, our local and state governments have neglected and often ignored those [...]
[...] States right – the tenth amendment – quietly growing movement. I expect to see more challenges to the current interpretation of the 10th Amendment. [...]