Moving to Reclaim sovereignty

WorldNetDaily reports on efforts by state legislators across the country to reclaim the rights recognized in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution: So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington…. “What…

Details

States Asserting Their Sovereignty

by CJ, A Soldier’s Perspective

With our Democratic Congress and President slowly eating away at our Constitutional rights and “changing” the way our government intrudes into our lives and business, some states are fighting back. Bills are currently working their way through Congress that impose weapon and ammunition standards on states, forbid states from selling their own land, force states to comply with energy and emissions standards, and even a push to give state voting rights to D.C. residents – a change that would require a Constitutional amendment and possibly other challenges.

New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Missouri and Washington are just some of those states doing just that. Other states are sure to follow suit with their assertion of 10th Amendment rights, which state:

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

Details

State Sovereignty Movement Growing

by Kurt Nimmo, PrisonPlanet.com

Back in December, the Wall Street Journal had a good chuckle over Russian academic Igor Panarin’s prediction that the United States would break apart by 2010. Using threadbare Cold War logic, Andrew Osborn wrote that Panarin’s forecast “is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis.”

For the WSL scribe, Panarin’s analysis is about the Red Bear “returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.”

Details

Montana Firearms Freedom Act

by Greg Heller, The Holy Cause

There is a new bill circulating in Montana’s legislature which has significant implications on several fronts in the battle for liberty, most notably that of States Rights, and the right to bear arms.  The bill can be read here, and is not a long read (freedom is much easier to describe than tyranny), but to whet your interest here are a few snippets.

Details

If At First You Don’t Secede

Guest Commentary from VirginiaConservative

If you have spent anytime at all in the western part of Virginia, you’ll find that monuments dedicated to U.S. Civil War are just about everywhere. For example, there are historical markers, statues, even an occasional flag or two. Generally, a lot of people who are native to the Shenandoah Valley are quite suspicious of the government in Washington due, in part, to the events before, during, and after that conflict. After all, a number of battles took place here and tales of the brutal actions of General Sheridan linger in the minds of many to this very day.

But now time for a bit of history, eh? The idea of secession was integral to the formation of the United States of America. After all, the War for American Independence against Great Britain was a secessionist movement. The thirteen colonies (or states) no longer sought redress or a greater sway in the matter of the government of Great Britain, but instead wished to break free of that government and to rule themselves as they saw fit.

Details

Is it Possible to Restore Constitutionalism?

by Gary S. Lawson, Heritage Foundation

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, many citizens worried that the new national government proposed by the document was a Leviathan in waiting. During the crucial New York ratification debate, James Madison, writing as Publius, sought to allay these fears in the 45th Federalist Paper by emphasizing that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce….”[1] Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, “will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous.”[2] Exactly six months after publication of this essay, New York became the 11th state to ratify the Constitution.

Once the national government was up and running, disputes naturally arose about the proper scope of its “few and defined” powers and about the proper institutional form for the exercise of those powers. It is helpful to examine just a few of those early disputes to get a sense of the frontiers of constitutional argument in the Founding era–that is, to gauge the kinds of claims regarding federal power that generated serious discussion. Those examples provide an interesting basis for comparison with modern law.

Details