Advocating an Aggressive State Sovereignty Agenda

Some good stuff there, Tom. Especially the line about LA (and all States, for that matter) being the only ones to directly tax the people and the fed getting its "allowance" directly from the several States, not from the people. Fed would be given its "revenue" based on apportionment. This would be true federalism and a BIG blow to centralism... the fed would be at the mercy of the States and would have to really watch its spending.

Also, it would take away the need for a federal IRS, as each State would effectively have its own "IRS" for managing its own unique tax policies. Peoples' taxes would then reflect their own philosophy on government. I hate to stereotype, but West Coastalites, and Northeasterners can pay 90% of their income to their State, since that's what they seem to believe in over there, while we folks in the Midwestern, Western, Alaska, and Southern States would pay a far lower percent, since we tend to trust people more than the gov't.

I'd also like to add a couple of things to the list:

- Since it is unrealistic to expect a full repeal of the 17th Amendment, how about leaving this question to the States? Individual States can decide whether their federal senators should be elected through mob tyranny (popular vote) or by the State legislatures themselves (or one of each). CA will be happy with the current "democracy/tyranny" method of special interests funded senators, while States like OK, UT, or TX might elect to return their senators to being true "ambassadors" of their States, immune from special interests or mob tyranny.

- Give the States the ability to "check" all federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the State legislature to overturn any US Supreme Court ruling within that specific State, OR the State Supreme Court directly overturning the US Supreme Court.

- Allow a simple majority (26) of State legislatures to "veto" any and all bills signed into law by the President.

State Level Solutions:

Work to get your state legislature to pass a Sovereignty Bill with teeth.

See example below:

“A Politician’s Ear”

Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People.

This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:

What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty?

The Sovereign people of Louisiana, having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana, call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation:

- Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 states. & Work within that Alliance to peaceably bind the Federal Government with the chains of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

- All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government.

- All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana.

- All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement.

- All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license.

- Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana.

- All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions.

The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession.

There is no Succession here. We seek to enforce the contract made between each state and the Federal Government (The Constitution).

Each State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the contract that formed the Federal Government. That contract is The Constitution.

State Level Solutions:

Work to get your state legislature to pass a Sovereignty Bill with teeth.

See example below:

“A Politician’s Ear”

Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People.

This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:

What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty?

The Sovereign people of Louisiana, having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana, call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation:

- Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 states. & Work within that Alliance to peaceably bind the Federal Government with the chains of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

- All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government.

- All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana.

- All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement.

- All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license.

- Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana.

- All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions.

The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession.

There is no Succession here. We seek to enforce the contract made between each state and the Federal Government (The Constitution).

Each State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the contract that formed the Federal Government. That contract is The Constitution.

LARRY SAID "It is my opinion that Republicans are embracing these issues as a means to regain a foothold in 2010. Until I see an emergence of a breakaway group of politicians ( both blue dogs and conservatives ) I will consider any and all offers by republicans as just a way to get back into the circus act."

Watch for a group of "Constitutional Conservatives" to form, made of people from all political affiliation. You should be able to recognize them by their platform and voting record. I will vote for nothing less.

This most recent States Rights movement began in response to the attack on our property rights under Bush1 and "The War on Drugs," and was rekindled under Bush2 and the ensuing assault on our privacy rights in the name of "The War on Terror."

"The powers that be" are cycling us again, from a "Republican," setting pieces in place to "defend from an enemy," and then following up with a personality-cult "Democrat" to enhance, and further use those pieces to infringe us at home.

This isn't Right V Left. This is Liberty V Tyranny.

"Interesting how" the cult-followers of Democrat Presidents always point to it as an attack on "their guy." The same accusations were made during the Clinton Administration.

Notice how the movement is about "State's Rights." These are "State Representatives." These are not people that are trying to get into Congress in 2010. Representative Murphey is from the small town where I was born, these are "our people." These are not pseudo-celebrities with crazy benefits as a motive. These are people that care about the Constitution and give of themselves to fight to preserve it.

I, for one, have given up on Congress as a "bought and paid for" entity that does not represent me. This movement is about observing and re-defining the constitutional safeguard to protect The People from a tyrannical Federal Government. It is nothing so small as a political ploy.

Louella, this didn't all just come about after the Nov. 8 election. It has been brewing for a long time. You can't suggest that a shift in the Presidency and Congress from "R" to "D" really has much to do with this.

The Libertarian party has been growing for a good number of years because many have concluded that the "R's" are equally blame-worthy.

Many other "R's" sat in disgust over Bush's Presidency. Why do you think the Republican party has fallen apart? It's not BECAUSE the "D's" are in office. It is WHY the D's are in office.

The Republican party has fallen apart because the "R" voters are sick and tired of the way the "R" politicians have been running the country. They've been sick and tired for a long time. The Republican party didn't fall apart in November 2008. It fell apart quite some time prior to that.

You need to get your cause and effect in order. The only reason you hear more "R's" talking about the 10th Amendment lately is because they've been looking and learning about WHY the Republican politicians blew it.

larry - "Interesting how hardcore, root of the heart issues such as gun rights, State sovereignty, and individual freedoms are now center stage with republicans when, while they were in office, these issues were shelved, and have been for years. All of the sudden, republicans have turned back to the public for support, when issues like Immigration were ignored."

Yes, and let's not forget how much the government has grown under Republican majority.

Don't believe me? Look at the pages and pages of Federal departments listed in the latest U.S. Treasury budget report - http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0409.pdf. It contains one page of receipts on page 6 and ELEVEN pages of outlays beginning on page 7.

It is astounding.

I think we need to give these Federal totalitarians some ( End of political life care) one red pill, and one blue pill, should suffice.

“It appeared strange that the states might communicate together to amend the Constitution, and were not permitted to do so, in order to protect the same when amended; that they might communicate together when they chose to give away their rights, but could not do it when their reserved rights were invaded.” - Mr. MERCER IN THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES,
Saturday, December 15, 1798.

“It appeared strange that the states might communicate together to amend the Constitution, and were not permitted to do so, in order to protect the same when amended; that they might communicate together when they chose to give away their rights, but could not do it when their reserved rights were invaded.” - Mr. MERCER IN THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES,
Saturday, December 15, 1798.

Time and again, I hear people suggest the states ought to organize their effort, and time and again, I see the invariable response from someone who says, "To organize will be to replace one federal government with another."

IMO, that is arguing from the slippery slope. Imagine if we had to fight WWII alone, without allies. Just because we allied with some other governmnets does not mean we became inseparable from them.

We even allied with Russia in WWII, but as soon as the war was over, it was most clearly "to each his own."

The question that keeps nagging me is where were these Republicans, such as Murphy and the like when Bush was in office?.. where was the outrage, where was the concern over States rights when the very party that they align themselves with is just as threatening to sovereignty as progressives?
Aside from Ron Paul ( at least you know where he stands and votes accordingly ), I view these republicans with suspect, and wonder if they are just pandering to a movement that has yet developed an official party.

Interesting how hardcore, root of the heart issues such as gun rights, State sovereignty, and individual freedoms are now center stage with republicans when, while they were in office, these issues were shelved, and have been for years. All of the sudden, republicans have turned back to the public for support, when issues like Immigration were ignored.

It is my opinion that Republicans are embracing these issues as a means to regain a foothold in 2010. Until I see an emergence of a breakaway group of politicians ( both blue dogs and conservatives ) I will consider any and all offers by republicans as just a way to get back into the circus act.

Charles Henry wrote:

As you could imagine, I received some interesting responses to that request, particularly from the liberal members of my State’s House.

I certainly do not doubt the validity of that claim. Leftists and leftist wannabes in Oklahoma still occupy certain strongholds in the state, and they seem not yet to have learned their lesson even though we've been consistently dismissing them over the last several elections. So I guess we'll just have to keep teaching the same lesson to them. People interested in the state sovereignty movement really need to keep a close eye on Oklahoma, though. We have a very large percentage of independent, self-governing people here ... by comparison to most other states in the union. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, those are the kinds of people who are going to make the difference in this fight. And don't kid yourselves, it is a fight.

Charles Henry wrote:

As you could imagine, I received some interesting responses to that request, particularly from the liberal members of my State’s House.

I certainly do not doubt the validity of that claim. Leftists and leftist wannabes in Oklahoma still occupy certain strongholds in the state, and they seem not yet to have learned their lesson even though we've been consistently dismissing them over the last several elections. So I guess we'll just have to keep teaching the same lesson to them. People interested in the state sovereignty movement really need to keep a close eye on Oklahoma, though. We have a very large percentage of independent, self-governing people here ... by comparison to most other states in the union. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, those are the kinds of people who are going to make the difference in this fight. And don't kid yourselves, it is a fight.

I more than suspect that I am one of the letter writers that Representative Murphy refers to in this article. I wrote Representative Murphey, and all members of The Oklahoma House and Senate with a demand of interposition between the Federal Government and The People of The State of Oklahoma, when our current President was at the G20 trying to sign away our sovereignty under international treaty. As you could imagine, I received some interesting responses to that request, particularly from the liberal members of my State's House. "Scared?" You bet I was and am.

Regarding a "sovereignty advocacy organization," I believe that something of that nature exists. I believe that members of the Utah house and other State's Representatives have formed a group called "The Patrick Henry Coalition." I may have the name wrong. I have been keeping an eye open for such a group to form since New Hampshire's HR006 included language about creating a new body of Representatives from the several States.

Give 'em hell, Guys. We're with you.

James- Well put. Indeed, we may soon see the contest you speak of. I can't see how Texas could stand to be one-upped by Tennessee and Montana at all. I expect they'll join the party shortly.

As I've commented many times before, time will tell. Hopefully, the telling will be peaceful, but this contest could eventually turn to secessions and who knows where that will lead.

Darkwolfe and Windy,

I agree with you that the United States are in peril from a usurping central government. But I want us all to realize that organizing in such a way as SCP suggested above is "crossing the Rubicon". Those in power in Washington won't sit idly by while we take such measures.

Matters of invasion and imminent danger are not, of course, brought before courts for redress. But should our question of agreements and compacts be decided in a federal court, I'm sure we could all predict which way Ar. 1 Sn. 10 would be interpreted.

Besides, there are ways for states to coordinate their efforts without signing treaties with one another. In fact, the very news of a state resisting federal overreach can be of great encouragement to others - until it even becomes a competition as to which state has the most guts in opposing the tyrants in Washington!

I believe it is of utmost speed that all the states reassert their sovereignty as soon as possible.Our Federal Government has usurped the powers delegated to the States.
It is also interesting, should the Federal Government continue to do so,
the states by a 2/3rds vote can oust a tyrannical government and force its' dissolution.
I'm sure most states are aware of this and each state should take forthright action in reclaiming the rights of the states as guaranteed by the Constitution!!

James, I would say that all the states are in "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay" from D.C. and, therefore, the dire circumstances in which the states find themselves due to the actions in D.C. should negate Article I, Section 10.

James, true is your statement, but I wonder if this mess from DC might legitimately be called an invasion? After all, an invasion is designed to take over power from a sovereign state.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

- Article I, Section 10

SCP - while I like the idea of more involvement from more and more states, but building a new "charter" with a new organization, is akin to building a replacement federal government. It'll start small, but we'd be looking to replace the problem with the problem. It's the bureaucracy and the centralization that's the issue. When there's no "head" it's way harder for our opponents to cut it off and end resistance.

Brainstorming: Would it be possible for the state governments to partner-up in creation of some kind of sovereignty advocacy organization, completely independent of the federal government... It could be funded by and accountable to the states with a charter to focus on state sovereignty issues in order to counterbalance washington's overreach through litigation, public relations and lobbying (and any other method).

Maybe 1 state would have a tough time opposing Washington, but 50 together would have more leverage. A sort-of collective bargaining at the state government level.

I believe this is the pulse - the direction that activism needs to go. The federal government is not going to save us - from it. We need to look inwards, closer to home, to have a chance for liberty.