Health Care Nullification on Governor’s Desk in North Dakota
On 04-09-09, the Indiana Senate passed Senate Resolution 42 (SR0042) to claim “sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
The final vote was 44-3; find the tally here (.pdf)
Read the full text of the resolution below:
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “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 peopleâ€;
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;
Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science;
Whereas, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,†said, “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 peopleâ€;
Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate†to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same governmentâ€;
Whereas, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.†He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between themâ€;
Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and infringe upon Indiana’s reserve powers and the people’s reserved powers;
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress do infringe on the States’ reserve powers and the people’s reserved powers, and may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
SECTION 3: That all compulsory federal regulation that directs Indiana and her sister states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or directs states to pass conforming legislation under threat of losing federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
SECTION 4: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.
NEXT STEPS
Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Free People Claim Their Rights - October 17, 2014
- Liberty Hangs by a Thread: You Can Help Turn Things Around - October 6, 2014
- Plans of Resistance: A User Guide for the Constitution - October 1, 2014
Related posts
I pains me to read, “Where we’re all of you during the “W” years?”. Listen gang, few realist are challenging the fact “W” breached the constitution and was responsible for at least part of the nations fiscal hardships. It sounds like you’re excusing the current president’s policies because of the prior 8 years…sounds a bit childish, doesn’t it! The alternative is to wait another 4-8 years and complain once again without taking action. Please tell me you’re not so closed minded you don’t get it.
I pains me to read
um… did they just secede from the union?? or was this just a notice to the feds to stay outta states business?
I’d like to note that the amendment says that powers not subject to the feds are subject to the states or the people, yet these clowns ignore the part about the people and claim all other power for the state.
Also, having lived extensively in both Texas and Louisiana, I can tell you that State legislatures are often immoral, hypocritical, corrupt, and out of control on a scale the Feds can’t begin to get away with.
This statement merely says that the US constitution’s 10th ammendment is the law of Indiana. So what? it was the law of Indiana long before these jokers were elected and will be long after they are consigned to the dust.
Hey folks,
While I am GLAD that this resolution passed in the Indiana Senate. I feel obligated to let you all know that when it was sent to the House, it died in committee. The House version HCR 50, also died in committee. I’m from Indiana, and I’m also all for state sovereignty, but this battle is far from over.
It’s not just Obama, it started way before Bush … people always want to attach a personality, either evil or hero to certain things. The fact is this erosion of our rights has been happening for a long time, under both parties. Thank God that some are starting to wake up and take any action, even if it is in a superficial way as this. At least it is a beginning.
To Trip:
Yes, we see how well off you “coastal elites” are. You can keep your outrageous taxes and out of control cost of living expenses. You are getting to the point of unsustainability, and we who have lived within our means are watching the implosion.
I could read the post from EE>UUdr tomprf… I speak, read and write English.
I am proud to be living in Indiana. Our Constitutional rights have been chipped away for the last 50 some odd rears. We didn’t like all what Bush was doing. He was the lesser of the two evils. Bush was a New World Order guy taking our civil rights away inch by inch. I am not Republican nor Democrat. I am a Conservative and love the Lord!
Go Hoosier’s! Texas too!
I could not read the post from: EE,UU se rompe. el… I speak, read and write English.
I am proud to be living in Indiana. Our Constitutional rights have been chipped away for the last 50 some odd years.
We didn’t like all what Bush was doing. He was the lesser of the two evils. Bush was a New World Order guy (as his father was and (Clinton)) taking our civil rights away inch by inch. I am not Republican nor Democrat. I am a Conservative and love the Lord!
Go Hoosier’s! Texas too!
My friends, it shouldn’t matter whether Indiana did this during the Bush or the Obama administration, but that Indiana did in fact do this. Far too long the United States (every wonder why we’re called that anyway?) federal government has been giving over sovereignties to itself and also to the United Nations. All of this without the consent of the states. This is wrong. Before long, and actually already in part, we (states) will not just be administrators of the federal government, but administrators of the world government. Enough is enough. Way to go Indiana!! Hopefully the other branches of government in Indiana, besides the Senate,follow suit. The governor SHOULD pursue this as well, as that will help him gain a lot more popularity than he already has. And why stop with Indiana? It is in the BEST INTEREST of ALL 50 states to pursue this stance as well. After all, true Americans follow the Constitution, right?
Isn’t this the same deliberative body that once passed a bill stating that pi equals three?
Pi is what it is without regard to the opinions of the Indiana legislature, and so is the 10th Amendment.
I don’t care what party these folks belong to. Throw them all out.
It strikes me as typically odd that every time the issue of state sovereignty raises its head there are those detractors who immediately cry that it’s mainly brought about by racism. Just as it happened when several southern states seceded from the Union in 1861, the primary issue is STATES RIGHTS and STATE SOVEREIGNTY. Even when the southern states seceded in 1861, it wasn’t until 1863 that Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation, and even then he only freed those slaves that were held in slavery in those states that were “in rebellion”. Had racism and slavery been a real issue then (instead of a red-herring fallacy waved by the federal government at the time) the slave in ALL the states would have been freed by the government. However, slavery was still allowed by the federal government to continue un such states as Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia (whose status of staehood may still be considered questionable since the state of Virginia never relinquished its governmental authority over that western counties that became West Virginia). But I digress — A LOT!
Back to the issue at hand. . . The legislature of the state of Indiana is entirely within its rights to remind the Federal Government in Washington that Indiana is indeed a sovereign state. The very word “state” is defined a “a sovereign political entity.” Unfortunately, for too many years Washington has treated the states as mere “provinces” and has denied the sovereign authority that the states retain under the Constitution of the United States. No where in the Constitution is it stated that the several states relinquished their sovereignty to the Federal government. Rather, the states GRANTED certain ENUMERATED powers to the Federal government, and all powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the Federal government by the States are reserved to the States and the People, respectively.
Upon a review of the full text of the resolution, it appears to me that Indiana go it right. And were I a member of the Indiana legislature I would gladly tell the Federal government that they may keep all the funds they had “earmarked” for use in Indiana. Furthermore, the citizens of Indiana will in no wise be held responsible for paying any income taxes to the Federal government until that government in Washington finds that it can abide by the rules laid forth in the Constitution and begin to act like a legitimate FEDERAL government rather than a dictatorial CENTRAL government.
There is sooooo much more to say regarding this matter, but I fear I have already been placed on some watch-list by the DHS for this little diatribe, so I guess I’d better end here before there’s a VERY heavy knock on the front door. I’m hearing the black helicopters already! ;D
Way to go, Indiana!
Awesome job Indiana. Between yourselves and Texas (those were the only two I was aware of until reading this), I hope it gets the ball rolling. But like someone previously said, this needs to be followed up by real action, no symbolic paper-pushing. Deny the Feds the taxes you collect on their behalf (if any), and return them to the people of your state. Reject their money if it’s a program beyond their constitutional bounds, and don’t offer/enforce said programs.
I’m not familiar with Indiana politics (at all), and I make no illusions to understand the nuance of what goes on in your capitol buildings, but what I do know is that as a Californian, I wish our action-movie-hero-turned-washed-up-governor would grow a backbone and work with the state house and senate to accomplish something similar.
Tomorrow the tax day tea parties are going to go off in 700 cities around the country, and yet MY state still wants to increase taxes. New Yorkers are threatening to leave their state over 8.97% income tax… CA is higher than that, AND it kicks in at a lower income level, yet we stay (or some of us do – the smart ones got out while the getting was good).
Oh, and for those out there thinking Indiana is going to start printing its own money and whatnot with this “sovereignty” language… The word you’re thinking is secede, and no state can do that. We fought a war to prove it.
Hey, Randall, good first comment. However, regarding the right of secession, just because the Federal government succeeded in defeating the Confederacy does not “prove” that the states have no right to secede. It simply means that those Union forced its will upon those states that had seceded and forced them back into the Union against their will, and in a subservient position to the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the states were held together under the “Articles of Confederation” which included in its language that the states were to be held in a “perpetual union” meaning that they had no right to leave the government established by the Articles of Confederation. These Articles gave way to a new and improved Constitution which was ratified in 1787. If you search the Constitution very, very thoroughly, you will find the words “perpetual union” absent from that document. Many things from the Articles of Confederation were included in the language of the Constitution, yet for some reason those words “perpetual union” are absent. In fact any allusion to the idea of a perpetual union is nowhere to be found. This is what one might call a “conspicuous absence.” In fact, it’s as conspicuous as hip-hop at a funeral!
I don’t currently advocate states seceding from the Union, but I find it a bit arrogant to say that the fact that the Union won the war between the states proved anything other than the Union had the industry to sustain a long and protracted war against an agrarian society. Politically, all it proved was that Washington wasn’t about to give up any part of the cash cow that the states had become.
Please forgive me if I come off as a bit of a jerk. I really don’t mean to. It’s just that I’m quite passionate about two things in this life… The survival of the United States as a truly free nation of free people, and LSU football. (My passions aren’t necessarily in that order, though.)
I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the situation in California, however. California is a bit of an enigma to those of us here on the opposite coast, and I’d be very appreciative of your continued thoughts and postings regarding what is going on in your state.
Hi Swamp Angel, Thanks for the feedback. While you’re right, it’s not a technical “Fact” that states cannot secede, for all intents and purposes, I think the only time secession is going to be a realistic option will be well beyond “the tipping point”, which achieves the same ends. By that I mean the majority of the states will be of the opinion that the Feds are in the wrong, and either a convention will be called, or another means of changing our path will be decided and implemented.
I understand your point (and passion!) about “perpetual union”, however I think is is key, (If my memory of history is any good) that towards the end of the Cival War, Lincoln began using “The United States”, rather than “These United States”, in subtle yet distinct move to reinforce the very first line of the preamble of the constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”
I believe that the use of “the” and “a more perfect union” decidedly show that the founders believed explicitly we should remain a contiguous body, which while maintaining (and securing) our individual liberties, was done in order to preserve the union. It’s really quite amazing how much was said in a single line. It leaves me feeling envious of their ability to communicate so succinctly.
I saw you used “currently” to describe your position on secession, however I really feel it should never be considered an option as it is far better to spend 10-15 years convincing people your right and changing public opinion, than it is to spend a day fighting our fellow Americans in the streets of this country for our beliefs. And there is no mistaking it – should a state declare they are seceding from the union, you can be sure the feds would step in to stop it, and there *would* be bloodshed.
(Apologies for the extremely wordy sentence.)
As for Kaliforniya, we’re screwed here. That about sums it up.
Our state is insolvent for what it’s worth, and the wagon is being lead right off a cliff into the Pacific by people in both parties telling us its exactly what we need. I live in LA, where even a city runs a $500M deficit. Pretty impressive considering there’s only 3.5M people in LA City limits. A couple of other interesting facts about CA’s current problems; we’ve doubled the size of state government in 10 years. It took us +/- 150 years to get to the size of gov’t we had in 1999. We effectively created another gov’t of equal size in the 10 years following. I’m at the point where I’m hoping either the state declares bankruptcy, or housing prices come back in time for me to move to TX.
Please don’t be concerned about coming off as “a jerk”, passion leads to furiously typing fingers and text carries no inflection. Besides, I’m just as guilty.
Randall,
You really hit a home run regarding Lincoln’s use of “The” vs. “These” and the “. . .more perfect Union. . .” phrase from the Gettysburg address. I believe you’re one of only five or six people that I have ever known to mention those two little interesting tid-bits. I have been THOROUGHLY impressed. Careful that you don’t get put on a watch list.
You make some really good points regarding secession, and I tend to agree with you insofar as any real ability of any of the states being able to get away with even so much as mouthing the word secession. Uncle Sam would undoubtedly send in the guard to stomp out that fire before that spark even got near the tinder or kindling.
I hate to hear about the state of things in California. Here in the southeast, just about all we ever hear of California is that it’s full of kooks and left-wing weirdos that would have the whole nation turn to a Soviet-style socialist government. Of course, we of all people ought to know better than to stereotype. After all, contrary to popular belief, the South is not as racist as many would have the rest of the country believe. I found racism to be more of a problem where I was raised in northern Kentucky {as well as across the river in southern Ohio) than I ever found it to be in Louisiana, Georgia, or even (if you can believe this) in Alabama or MISSISSIPPI! So I don’t put much faith in regional stereotypes.
Looks like Texas has a pretty good grip on what it takes to hold off the worst of the economic woes, although it does suffer to a pretty substantial degree with the rest of us. Then again, since Bobby Jindal has taken the reigns as governor in Louisiana, that state is starting to look more respectable and less like a banana republic every day. Louisiana politics have been a bit, shall we say “entertaining”, since Governor Claibourne and the pirate Jean Lafitte were going at each other in the 1810′s. Much more so since the eras of Huey Long, Oscar K. Allen, Earl Long, and Edwin Edwards. I figure that if those governors couldn’t completely destroy Louisiana, then there is still hope for California. I mean, come on! Y’all gave us RONALD REAGAN! (Do you have another one like that to share with us? We could sure use him!)
As usual, I am waxing overly verbose so I’ll cut myself off here. Thanks for your posts!
When examining this topic we need to appreciate the span of decades taken to make ‘DC’ what it is. This problem we face didn’t just show up in the past 8 years, nor the 8 before.
In retrospect, the question being begged is, ‘If we designate one entity to act on our behalf and fail to hold them accountable when they stray, could a different outcome be expected?’
DC has grown comfortable jacking with us as they see fit and the National Media playing the angles to set ‘We the People’ against each other. A limited number of people shape perspectives we are presented. Sadly, most of them are bought and paid for by those wishing to reshape the country to suit themselves.
We let it happen. We need to fix it.
Talk of secession is- well- treasonous! We are the United States of America and the Constitution provides for states and people unhappy with it (the Constitution ) or the manner in which it is being applied to (OMG) Ammend it! Which, by all accounts, is far less messy than a civil war. Could it be that many of the malcontents in Indian, Texas and the other 28 states really have a problem with “Democracy” rather than the Federal Government?
We hold our “Revolutions” every 2 or 4 or 6 years at the polls where we elect our “Representatives”. This process separates us from the banana republics and dictatorships that exist elsewhere. This peaceful transition of power is the secret of our success.
My advise to the Republican Party and the Wingnutters clinging to it, is to bone up on Democracy and move toward the middle ideologically. Join the rest of the “Real Americans”. We believe in the United States of America, The Constitution and Democracy, without which, we have no freedom or liberty!
Here’s the important question, “ChapMan” – if the people of a state, any state for that matter, decide that they want nothing to do with your federal government anymore and just want to be left alone – what would you want to do?
Would you be willing to kill them to force them to comply?
Michael, Sounds like your mind is already made-up. I doubt a whole state would vote to leave the United States of America! My quess is around 28%, which is interestingly enough the same percentage that supports the Bush Administration and Tea-bagging! You really have no choice, You either have to Love it or Leave it, or Win an Election!
You know that about 20 other States have signed similar Resolutions right? Google it.
Actually, the Constitution doesn’t provide squat-diddley for the states. The Constitution is a document that describes the make up (or “constitution”) of the federal government. And the idea that even mentioning the word secession is treasonous is beyond ridiculous. What IS treasonous is federal usurpation of powers which the states never delegated to it. Did you notice the name of this website? “tenthamendmentcenter.com”? Have you ever read the tenth amendment? It’s pretty clear in its language and very clear in its meaning.
There are several things that one may hear from an American about his country. Two glaring misconceptions about the United States are:
1) The United States are a democracy. This one is way out there with seeing a bright light from a disc shaped object in the sky and hearin’ Elvis a-sanging while little green men abduct a family member and slaughter a cow. People that claim the US is a democracy and are called on their faux pas tend to try to explain it away by saying, “Well, you know. . .We’re a ‘representative’ democracy.”
That’s lunacy. There’s no such thing as a representative democracy. The fact is that the United States are a REPUBLIC. Unfrtunately there is not enough band-width here for me to explain the difference between the two, but suffice it to say that democracy is, more or less, mob-rule while a republic is described as a rule of LAW.
2) As Americans we have many constitutional rights that make us the free-est nation in the world.
Well, we once could have claimed to have been the free-est people in the world, but it sure as hell wasn’t due to any constitutional rights granted to the citizens of the U.S. due to the simple fact that not a single American citizen can rightfully claim that the Constitution gives any rights to the citizens of the U.S. The Constitution only gives rights to the federal government. These rights were already held by the states and the people, and it was the states and the people of these states that penned and ratified the constitution giving certain rights to that federal government. The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) simply reiterates certain rights that it wants to make very clear to everyone that were NOT bestowed as powers to that government. The first nine amendments began a trend of listing some of those specifics not granted to the federal government. It quickly became obvious over the course of writing the first nine amendments that to list all the powers NOT bestowed upon the federal government would result in an infinite number of amendments they felt would be needed to limit the powers of the federal government, thus the tenth amendment simply said that any powers that were not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution were powers that the states and the people held for themselves.
Therefore, it is not “we, the people” who must resort to amending the Constitution in order to establish our rights, but it is the government who must request of the states and the people that they amend the Constitution to grant it any further powers it may need in order to perform its duties.
Chapman, you stated, “I doubt a whole state would vote to leave the United States of America! My quess is around 28%, which is interestingly enough the same percentage that supports the Bush Administration and Tea-bagging!”
I would dare to say that your estimate is a little bit off. I doubt I would be far off if I stated that you probably believed that President Obama won with a 70% majority of the vote. But that’s neither here nor there. The fact is that it was a MINORITY of the population of the 13 colonies that wanted independence from England. As a matter of fact, that number is generally accepted as being around 32%. I guess that number probably was, interestingly enough, about the same percentage of those who supported General Washington and the Boston “Tea-Bagging.”
Go back to the message boards at CNN and enjoy your soy latte with your fellow Anti-Big-Oil/Pro-Big-Government circle of leftist friends. Seems like your idea of “Real Americans” differs radically from my idea of real Americans. That notwithstanding, I have no authority to ban anyone from commenting on any topic here, nor would I want to. I am a firm believer in free speech. However, I am also a firm believer that before one exercises one’s free speech, it is a good idea to have a solid grasp of the topics at hand. That being said, may I suggest some reading material? — First on the list would be the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. And yes, that includes — the TENTH amendment.
Swamp Angel, we could argue the definition of “is” if you would like. But our Republican form of government is indeed democratic, with power residing in the people, through their representatives. My point being, the tea-baggers and secessionists like the governor of Texas are more upset with the results of the recent elections than they are with the Federal Government. Had McCain won the election, there would have been no tea bag parties, dicussion of secession or griping about the 10th Amendment. I believe these people (you?) are suffering from a bad case of “sour grapes”!
As for the beloved 10th Amendment, I believe its alive and well for what that’s worth. Afterall, it was D.O.A. As you so eloquently stated it was added to end the possibility of endless amendments. The courts, including the Supreme have shown it little respect.
The “Republic” of the United States of America allows for Your Democratically elected representative to offer an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. If Adopted by the United States Congress and Ratified by the prerequisite number of state legislatures, it becomes law. Hence a nation of laws, not men rules the Republic. Kind of beautiful huh? Hence, we forgo the rather messy civil war and provide for the orderly transfer of power! Kinda’ NOT like a banana republic (or the state of Texas).
As for ‘Real Americans”, I repeat, They love the (United) United States of America, the Constitution, and Democracy. They know that in America we have “revolutions” every time we go to the polls and cast our vote. They accept the outcome of our elections and the orderly transfer of power.Real Americans do not Seceed from the Union! That IS treason and we fought a civil war once to establish that fact.
Now if you will excuse me, I need a soy latte, that arugula salad didn’t set well!
Where does the Bill talk about secession? The one cited has 4 sections, none of which have anything to do with leaving the union. Claiming “sovereignty under the 10th Amendment” only speaks to the rights that the states have over that of the National Government. For the uninformed this does not mean you will get to “bomb them,” rather that Indiana is simply reminding the National Government that they are stepping on the States’ toes and to watch their boundaries. Who cares that its during Obama’s administration and not Bush’s; people would make the complaint if a State wrote this reminder during a Republican run National Government. Its finally being made known to the country that at least one State has the gall to stand up for its promised rights; and why shouldn’t they be able to? Citizens appeal the Supreme Court every year for matters involving the constitution, I think a State should do the same.
Okay, ChapMan, you’re right that we could probably disagree over much. Regarding McCain, however, I see him as no better an option than President Obama. That being said, there are many things about this past presidential election that were a bit odd. Either way, I honestly believe that these “tea parties” are looooong overdue. Since the 1930′s and Roosevelt’s New Deal, the fed has been running rough-shod over the states, and it’s high time that we stood up and said, “Enough!” And, as much as I may have personally liked President Bush, I believe he may have screwed us rather well with the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security. (Sounds kinda like Gestapo or KGB if you ask me. Any department with the word “homeland” in its name generally proves a little “jack-booted Nazi in my opinion)
Anyway, you’ve got class. . .”Now if you will excuse me, I need a soy latte, that arugula salad didn’t set well!”
You know quite well how to disarm someone with a witty reply. Thus I think I’ll settle for a cup of coffee with one cream and two sugars, and I’ll offer a toast to our “republican-democracy” and you.
Have a good one. (I’ve got to find another topic to read about. This one’s becoming a bit obsessive for me;D)
All you people complaining about the fact that this should have been done years ago…at least someone is doing something now. I don’t see your state proposing a bill like this and passing it. It should have been done years ago but at least people are finally getting around to it.
To answer Erykah and Mark. Indiana and some other states have passed “Resolutions” declaring Sovereignty. Sovereignty means; a supreme lawmaking authority, exclusive of any other state and subject to no other authority.
First of all, Resolutions are binding to noone, they are merely expressions of opinion, will or intent by an official body or assembled group. Legislators pass resolutions daily, usually designating a particular day some kind of designation such as national salamander day. It is what lawmakers do to appear busy in sight of the gallery!
The problem is with the word “intent”. Does Indiana or any other state Intend to declare itself a sovereign, that is, “subject to no other authority”? Some of us “Real Americans” may take offense to that!
Governor Perry and other state officials swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws or whichever state. You’ll notice the Constitution of the United States is always listed first because it is the sovereign.
The 10th Amendment DOES NOT allow a state to declare itself a sovereign! While it does allow the states powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, few states or individuals have been able to argue successfully before the courts, including the Supreme Court using the 10th Amendment. In effect, the United States of America exercises many powers simply by assuming them, not unlike Bush’s claim that he could hold American Citizens without Habius Corpus, in a time of war, simply by designating them “enemy combatants”.
In any event, secession is not the remedy for Indiana’s or any other states complaint. The Constitution is! Your democratically elected representatives may offer a specific amendment defining the powers of the United States government. If this amendment is endorsed by the United States Congress, and also endorsed by the prerequisite number of state legislatures in the allowed time, it becomes the law of the land!
Lincoln rightfully declared that the Union cannot be allowed to fail! The United States of America derives its power from That Union and The Constitution. We swear to uphold the United States Constitution and we pledge allegence to the flag of the United States of America, remember?
When Elected Officials, like Rick Perry, talk about sovereignty, they are walking a slippery slope. He owes Texas and all Americans an apology for his ignorance. Hopefully, Texans will send him packing and choose to exercise their right to vote more carefully in the future.
Sorry to all those out there hoping the 10th Amendment allows a state to seceed from the Union. Further research on the subject led me to a Supreme Court decision, Texas vs White 1869. The court ruled 5-3 that states DO NOT have the right to seceed. NEXT!
ChapMan: At the same time, in 1869, the southern states, which had seceded and been forcefully returned to the Union were members of the Union WITHOUT voting privileges. It remained this way until they met certain criteria that had been established by the victorious and morally superior forces of those states that had remained faithful to the Union. The south had been sooooooo mean and sinful that the Union could not grant them full rights of participation, nor full status as states until they showed themselves slobbering subserviant to the Federal government of Washington. Only the state of Ohio stood up in the behalf of these states that had been brought back into the union and stated that, “If these states had no authority to leave the Union, but were only in rebellion, then now that the rebellion is ended, they are to be treated again as equals in every way with no penance needing be served.”
Sounds to me like the federal government wants to eat its cake and have it too.
Furthermore, if secession isn’t legal, then West Virginia isn’t a state. Since the state of Virginia didn’t have the right to secede, then it obviously didn’t secede and was thus in rebellion. But while in rebellion it supposedly remained a state that was to be held as subserviant to the federal government. Bugt one must keep in mind that since Virginia never really seceded from the Union, then the counties that seceded from Virginia to become West Virginia never had the authority to secede from Vriginia, Thus those counties that are called West Virginia should immediately admit their error and promptly remit all back-taxes owed to the state of Virginia as well as dismantle all emblems of that illegal government in Charleston and turn their allegiance to Richmond.
ChapMan, you’re wanting to turn this into an issue of secession, which,at this point, it is not. The issue is states sovereignty. And quite simply, when our Constitution was written and ratified, it was quite clear that the word STATE meant SOVEREIGN POLITICAL ENTITY. It was only after the forcible re-inclusion of those states which had dared to leave a union that was becoming more federally dominated that the word STATE began to mean PROVINCE due to general usage.
Language DOES in fact mean something. If it didn’t, then I doubt that our English teachers would have been so insistent upon forcing us to learn our vocabulary words each week and turn them in with their definitions and usage in sentences.
Show me ONE single instance anywhere in our Constitution where the states give all power to the federal government and then say that it is the federal government who will determine what powers the states may have. Show me a single instance written into the Constitution and ratified that says that once a state has enjoined itself to the Union it may never leave that union, and may never secede.
Yeah, the Supreme Court, in 1869, may have stated that secession was illegal, or unconstitutional (I think I’ll be searching for the concurring and dissenting opinions on that one) but one has to remember that a government CANNOT be trusted to police itself without the oversight of its citizens. The three branches of our federal government exist in order to provide checks and balances among themselves. But in order to truly hold that Federal government in check, it is the states that must be the ultimate sovereign authority as to whether the Federal government is acting lawfully within it authorized bounds.
The States do NOT derive their power from an all-powerful federal government which benevolently allows them some modicum of “home rule.” No, sir. The Federal government derives its power from the States which grant to that Federal government ONLY the powers and authority SPECIFICALLY GRANTED by the Constitution.
SPECIFICALLY GRANTED does NOT mean “implied”. Nor does the term SPECIFICALLY GRANTED allow for that Federal government to “infer” any powers that they may wish to have.
Quite simply, Indiana, and several other states are passing these resolutions to remind that ever growing CENTRAL government in Washington, that it is not authorized to be a CENTRAL government, but a FEDERAL government which exists not to DICTATE to the several states what they may do, what they must do, what they may not do, and what they must not do. The fact of the matter is that it is the STATES who hold the sovereignty, and that the Federal government is to be used as a tool for these states to interact with one another as equals in their interactions wit one another.
The Federal government has, on innumerable occasions, over-stepped its constitutional authority by dictating to the states what their policies and laws MUST be. Consider the case of California legalizing medical marijuana, yet the Federal government says, “No you don’t! Federal law trumps state law! It’s still illegal and YOU, California, have no right to legalize it.”
Well, sorry to tell you this, Uncle Sam, but YOU don’t have the constitutional authority to tell California, “No.” You may send your para-military forces [BATF, DEA, etc.]in to do your dirty work, but such action is ENTIRELY un-Constitutional and illegal. It is even TYRANNICAL in nature.
California is a SOVEREIGN state and has EVERY right and all authority to pass ANY legislation they like within the confines of their own state borders, EXCEPT where they have specifically granted authority to rule on an issue to the federal government. Thus discrimination based upon race, religion, creed, or national origin is off-limits to California in passing legislation.
There are innumerable instances of the federal government overstepping its authority usurping powers from the States which they never delegated. This trend has continued unchecked for so long now that there is little reason for one to doubt that shortly after these resolutions re-iterating the sovereignty of the states are passed, that goose-stepping hordes of federally employed brown-shirted agents of the federal government will come in to re-establish order and allegiance to that government in Washington.
Again, I am not advocating secession, nor do any of these resolutions currently threaten secession. They are simply stating their assertion that the Federal government recognize that it needs to “back off!”
The word secession only gets included in these discussions when those on the left want to confuse and escalate the issue enough to try to justify Federal intervention to search out and arrest those whose speech may be considered sedition and treason.
Ask yourself, “Do I really champion the idea of freedom, or am I simply spouting the word freedom as I work toward the ends of establishing an all-powerful central government that answers to no one but itself?”
Then again, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I haven’t the mental ability to read and understand the Tenth Amendment. If this is the case, would someone please enlighten me and educate me in a step-by-step manner as to what the Tenth Amendment really means?! Apparently, we who read the Tenth Amendment and see it as a limit on the authority of the Federal government are little more than knuckle-dragging australopithicenes devoid of understanding. We must need our more evolved liberally intellectual brethren to spoon feed our mushy brains with their truths.
Swamp Angel, What IS it with those English teachers anyway?
Now, the People. Yes the ordinary, regular JOE. But, as represented through his democratically elected representative. Not really room enough for all of us in Washington. Furthermore, if we can’t have consenus between our 535 representatives what hope would there be if we were all there individually? The House of Representatives is based on population, each representative the “voice” of approx 600,000 JOES. To prevent mob rule, we also have the Senate, each state represented by 2 senators, giving each state equal representation. Thus a large state like Texas cannot railroad small states like Rhode Island. Both houses must pass a bill amicable to each before sending it to the President where it will become law, but only if he signs it. If he doesn’t sign the bill, it can still become law if both houses over-ride his veto with a 2/3 majority.
The LEGALITY of the bill can be challenged by offended parties thru the courts. If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, like Texas vs White 1869, and the court upholds the law, it becomes THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Every person(finally), over the age of 18 is thus FAIRLY represented. This process is guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The CONSTITUTION is the bedrock of our democratic government and our FREEDOM.
The CONSTITUTION allows modification through AMENDMENT, like the 10th, but it is an onorous achievement. Still, it allows greivences to be addressed. The STATES have the POWER to enact changes to the Constitution through this process. If the people (JOES) of Texas, or any other State feel agrieved, they can offer an Amendment, through their representatives. If enough people from enough states agree with them, their grievance is remediated. Ammendments can be made to deliniate the power of the Fed. and the Supreme Court can make sure that even the mighty Fed. can’t trample the rights of the minority or pass laws that are unconstitutional. So where’s your case? Either SUE to stop the overreach of power or Ammend the Constitution to limit the power. The System is not broken, it works all the time for everybody. We all have the same rights and responsibility.
That’s the problem! The agrieved in this case (many of whom spoke here) are not in the majority, not even close! They want to intimidate the majority because they are unhappy with the recent election and the decisions of our Democratically elected Representatives. This is all the more confusing to the true majority because these same people stood by quietly and in most cases supported the Bush Administration while it systematically chipped away at the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.
Domestic Spying, Detention of American citizens without Habeas Corpus and Torture. Not to mention Pre-emptive war, the doubling of the National Debt, the crash of the economy and distruction of the middle class (JOES),the destruction of America’s moral authority, loss of governmental accountablity, and the polarization of the American public as wittnessed here.
We are a large country, representing 330 million individuals and 50 States.
We posscess extreme natural resources and incredible military power.
We are the most diverse population on the face of the earth, all pulling in different directions.
How do you suppose this nation is to be governed if not throught Democracy?
Are people here advocating Anarchy, a Theocratic State (i.e. the Texas Taliban), a Monarchy? If you believe their is a better form of government, than you are NOT an American!
FACT! The Constitution IS the LAW OF THE LAND period! No State is more equal than any other State. NO Party is more American than another party. No man more free than the next. Our votes are all equal,unless you didn’t vote, then same on YOU! This is the BEST and most FREE nation the world has ever known!
Believe me when I tell you, many Americans feel your pain. How do you suppose those on the Left felt when the Right was calling the shots? How did THAT work out? The Right would not be in the position it is in if they could have lead responsibly. They had complete control from 2000-2008 and they blew it! They did NOT have the answers! If they had, they would still be in power. NOBODY robbed you of that power- it was squandered! As America and the World changes, you must change with it or be doomed as a voiceless 28% of the electorate. Quit the fearmongering and come up with some NEW ideas to win the majority. Obama IS a U.S. citizen. He IS your President. The Nation NEEDED a change. You’re ready to RIOT and DEMOMSTRATE after less than 100 days of his adminsistration? Is that because the past 8 years have been such a whopping success?
A little story. The plane is flying at 40,000 feet. We’re on it, Bush is the pilot. Suddenly the plane peels off into a spiriling dive toward the earth. It’s straight down to the unforgiving ground! 40,000 feet! 30,000 feet! 20,000 feet!
At 10,000 feet, still in a death spiril he finallly hands the controls over to the co-pilot. “Here Buddy! Gotta go now! This is where I bail-out! Heh! Heh! Got a library to build!” Bush bails.
Let’s all pray Obama can land it in the Hudson!
In response to Thomas – Everything that you don’t like is a “Bush” problem. On the other hand, after drinking enough cool-aid, the Chosen One, in his experience as a community organizer, and surrounded by socialists and tax cheats, leads the unapologetic and bad american people to bow at the feet of dictators. Pretty clear to many of us who voted for the man, who he really is after 90 days. We should be praying alright . . . . Funny that the democrats ignored the warnings back in 2004 on Freddie Mac – screw it, you wouldn’t get it anyway.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHAAAAAA. Indiana has made me proud, proud to be an Indian!
Farquar, Freddie Mac! Are you kidding? That one and the fiction that it’s the fault of the labor unions is as tired as the rest of the dribble that passes as “fair and balanced” on the Faux News Network!
Look up the Graham-Leach-Bailey Act of 1999, also known as the Investment Securities Moderization Act of 1999. It was the ticking time bomb that precipitated the entire chain of events that led to the crash. Another fine piece of Republican Deregulation! It allowed private banks, investment banks and Insurance companies (AIG) to merge and therefore comingle funds and avoid regulation. They merged and created “Companies too big to fail” which in turn created sophisticated derivatives and credit default swaps that they marketed world-wide. AIG, then declared them AAA investments. To assure nervous investors, AIG than sold the same investors insurance against default on these “assets”. Because they were unregulated, AIG was able to sell insurance on each of these derivitives to as many investors as wanted to buy them (A.K.A Ponzie scheme). This would be like nine of your neighbors buying fire insurance on YOUR house! If your house burns down, they have to pay ALL NINE “investors”. When the Graham-Leach-Bailey Act was passed only 486 billion dollars worth of these instruments were on the world-wide market. By March 2007 (when the Dow crashed-under the Bush Administration) AIG and other investment banks were insuring 62 TRILLION dollars worth! Because there was no regulation, AIG and the other investment banks did not have the reserves set aside to honor their obligations. The first bank to fail, in March of 2007, only had reserves of 3% of their obligations! Investors panicked and the rest is history!
THINK ABOUT IT! Even now only 10-12% of all mortgages are late or in default. Would that cause a World Wide Crash? Follow the MONEY! Do you realize that most of the bail-out money we gave to Wall Street was immediately paid out to French and German banks to cover these debts? George Soros, an old nemisis of the Republican Party knew about it. He bought up these insurance policies and made a killing. He personally earned 1.2 Billion dollars last year! Many people knew, including foreign banks.
Many people knew and betted against the system. It had all been predicted by people back in 1999. It was not a surprise! How did they Know? They knew because it had happened before in 1933! History does repeat! F.D.R. and his economic team passed an act called The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 less than 100 days after taking office. It regulated the banks and made it illegal for private banks, investment banks and insurance companies from forming monolopies, which they ascertained caused the first Great Depression. The Graham-Leach-Bailey Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act protections!
The Republican Party worked for over 70 years to repeal the “New Deal”. Graham-Leach-Bailey was the Coup de Grace of those efforts. Glass-Steagall protected us for 70+years. It only took 7 years after Graham-Leach-Bailey to trash the world economy! Why do you think the Republican Party has been working overtime to pass a law to end taxation of CAPITAL GAINS? They don’t want to pay taxes on the money they robbed from the American Public (your 401K, retirement accounts and home equity). Even now, the center piece of their 2009 Republican Fudget, is the repeal of any Capital Gains Tax and a drop in the highest tax bracket from 35% to 25%!
The Republican Party has been using “Regular Joes” to push their agenda for as long as anyone can remember. They get the “Regular Joes” to vote against their own interests by pushing hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun rights, all the while advancing the interests of big business and theives on Wall Street. If only we gave a little more money to the “investor” class, it would GROW the economy. Sound familiar?
Well, if you’re not part of the “Investor” class, you probably know by now (or SHOULD know by now) that your 401k is caput, your home equity is gone, your retirement is gone and in many cases your JOB is gone! It’s NOT going to trickle down! The Investor class is pissing down your back and telling YOU it’s raining! They’re money is safe in a Swiss band account or invested in China or Abu Dhabi! They and the Republican Party thank you! You’ve been their “Bitch”!
As for SOCIALISM, the socialism practiced in America is as simple as your car insurance or health insurance. Is insurance the kind of socialism you want to eliminate? Can you afford to replace your home if it burns down or your car if someone steals it? We all contribute to the insurance pool in case it’s our home that burns, our car that gets stolen, our heart that fails! We build public roads, water systems, electrical grids, hospitals and libraries. The Republican Party and Faux News uses this word to scare you because the American public associates it with the evil empire that used to be known as The Soviet Union. The Republican Party and Faux News started using this term because they have worn out the old term,Communist, these past 8 years. Most recently they have begun to use the terms Facist and Nazi. Their reasoning is that these terms are even more frightening than Socialist. PEOPLE! They are trying to scare you! An enraged public is much easier to control- they’ll even vote against their own best interests!
Oh, Screw it! You probably won’t get it anyway!
“Either SUE to stop the overreach of power or Ammend the Constitution to limit the power.”
ChapMan, I would like to bring your attention to your own quote above. Particularly the part: “. . .ammend the Constitution to limit power.”
Exactly what do you think the Tenth Amendment is? Freakin’ CHOPPED LIVER???
The Constitution placed limits on the power of the Federal government before it was ever ratified by the first State. NONE of the States would have ratified it without the Tenth Amendment’s limit on its power.
As for several of the items and grievances you laid at the feet of G. W. Bush (No. 43), I can agree with several of them. Particularly the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. (Sounds like Stalin himself came up with the name.) The TSA oversteps its authority on frequent occasion, and just about any other government agency that has been granted power since the FBI was first created has become little more than another Sturm Abteilung type agency in the pursuit of defining their own missions to satisfy their own needs to dominate Joe Citizen should Joe Citizen decide to exercise his “unalienable” rights bestowed upon him by his Creator.
Seems like you and I both desire the unfettered freedom of the individual citizen, but our difference lies in how we each view the Constitution. You seem to view it as a list of powers the Federal government has, and that further powers for the Federal government may be inferred. I view the Constitution as a LIMIT on Federal powers and authority, and see no Federal authority or power to exist except where specifically given in specific verbiage.
Do I desire anarchy? No. I desire a rule of law. Democracy? No. That’s little more than mob rule. I firmly believe in the Representatives to the US House being elected by the PEOPLE directly. I also believe, however, that since the Senate of the US Congress is to represent the States that comprise this Federation, that they should be duly elected or appointed by the legislative bodies of those states. As it is now, Senators are little more than slightly higher paid Representatives of the people, and represent their respective States only in the least possible capacity.
Finally, I am a firm believer of the Electoral College. Not because it allowed for the election of George Bush over Gore, but because it tempers an election and demonstrates how, just as in the Congress with equal representation in the Senate, smaller States can prevent being railroaded by larger States.
I find that you may do well, however, to do a little study of the terms:
Socialism; fascism; Nazi (it’s short for National Socialist Party); democracy, republic, anarchy, and oligarchy. These words are also part of the English language and have very real meanings. It is unfortunate for our nation that popular usage of these terms is rarely even within cannon-shot of the actual definitions of these terms.
I have yet to understand how so many have fallen as willing accessories to the Democrat party in their continued dissolution of the Republic all the while readily giving up their heretofore unalienable rights for the warm wing of a domineering matriarch of a federal government.
Republicans are little better, as they carry us toward that abyss that is socialism at a speed of 70 miles per hour as opposed to the Democrat party’s speed of 90 miles per hour.
I am finding my political beliefs tend to be more and more aligned with the Constitutional Party, if one must align himself with a political party.
But again, we digress, following the red herring which distracts our noses from the scent of the fox. So to get back on track. . .Kudos to Indiana, Texas, and the other twenty-some-odd States who dare to stand up to Federal tyranny and reassert their sovereignty as STATES, and to demand that the Federal government reassess its position on a good many things which it has unconstitutionally enacted!
i live in indiana and im glad we clamed our 10th i read one post that said people here was retarted and all that . and i think that person said he or she lved here that person can move from this state if they think that way my sister is miuldly retarted and i take great ufence to there coments . about that i could say more but i wont becouse im better then that. and dont think it a matter of black or white or dumacrats or rebulican. its about fredom and those that think it is about any thing but fredom are not to smart im tired of hearing all the crap about it. get a life . as you read you can see i never said one time the mans keeping me down thats becouse im free to do what i want when and were i want. fredom is a great thing live with it or do with out it up to you.
The Break is when we should be organizing!! READ ON!!
SEND THIS BLOG TO 10 PEOPLE AND THEM TO 10 AND SO ON TILL ONE MILLION PEOPLE GET IT.
LETS ELECT CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTARIANS TO THE US HOUSE AND US SENATE
WHO WILL IN TURN RECALL AND OUST FEDERAL JUDGES WHO POINT THE GUNS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UPON THE STATES FOR NOT COMLYING WITH THEIR MANDATES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOISTED UNLAWFULLY UPON THE STATES.
The 10th amendment makes it clear that only a handful of custodial duties are assigned to the Congress and that the innumerable other objects are to the sovereign states.
Prinz v. United States (95-1478) 521 U.S. 898 (1997) states:
“the conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet enumerated ones.” The states or other political subdivisions, “are not subject to federal direction.”
Federalist Paper #39 states, “…the local and municipal authorities from distinct and independent portions of supremacy, no more subject, with their respective spheres, to the general authority (federal government) than the general is subject to them within its own sphere.”
In other words, the federal government has no more authority to impose its cap and trade mandates on the sovereign states; their health care mandates on the sovereign states than Russia has to impose the same upon our sovereign states.
Our only problem is that the federal judges will point the guns of the federal government on our sovereign states for not complying with their illegal encroachments of our sovereignties.
Marchetti v. U.S. 390 U.S., 39, 57 states: “If the exercise of a constitutional right can become the cause for imprisonment, the Constitution has beennullified and there is no security from omnipotent government.”
YES WE CAN. Sound familiar? We can elect an entire Congress of Constitutionally Libertarian US Reps and US Senators who will then in turn fire all of these federal judges replacing them with constitutionally responsible ones and therefore recapturing our liberties and our rightful sovereignties without any violence. WE MUST DO THIS SOON.
Send the word out and organize to take back our sovereignties. Thank you
A Friend of Liberty,
Ronald Pray