Please encourage all citizens to call their state reps to encourage their governor to legally call out the citizens miltia of each county for protection of the people just in case there is social breakdown caused by corruption in government.

I am wondering if by State's rights whether people mean the State governments or the people. Who ultimately in the minds of most Americans holds the sovereignty in other words?

Right now it seems as if local governments, State government created corporations, have the power (but never the authority) to overwrite every constitutionally secured inherent, unalienable right of free people. As an example, consider the protection of the 2nd Amendment (no amendment or constitutional provision gives us rights - they are inherent from conception) against intrusion by government. Corporate CITY OF ____ and COUNTY OF _____ routinely regulates the right, with many State governments demanding fees for weapons carrying. None have the authority but take it through force. The same with every right, and nearly all for no other reasons than control over the people and revenue collection. All fees are a form of tax - direct tax, that is, which is prohibited by both the Constitution for these united states and state constitutions.

In all cases, we are treated as 14th Amendment citizens of the United States, which are not Citizens by birthright of the united States of America. This citizen class (14th Amendment) are those people that were privileged by the US Government Corporation to become citizens essentially of the District of Columbia in which the US Government has plenary control.

If one investigates fully, one finds that through fraud, coercion of many forms, including deadly force, have been used to thoroughly oppress the free expression of rights, doing away effectively with the Law we by birthright American Citizens are in fact under, with the primary rule that we may do as we wish so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others. There is no other Law on us and, of course, by never interfering with others, we automatically are in compliance with the Ten Commandments, the Magna Charter, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen states of America, the Constitution FOR the united States of America, and our state constitutions. We are, in essence, at peace with our fellow man.

That is the de jure America, in which no governing body politic has control over us, or the authority to charge us fees, fines, arrests, jailing (which incorporates kidnapping and assault automatically), torture, and other forms of coercion. We as free men are not under government control. That is freedom. That is liberty. That is the real America.

Thus, all it takes to keep the invading federal government on its lease dictated by the Constitution FOR these united States, and to keep State and its politically created quasi governments, on their lease (which is the same as the feds' lease via Article VI of the national constitution and provisions that must be in every state's constitution, are the people.

But, we who have taken action against government intrusions usually lose, not because our cases are not solid and within Law but because government entities do not give a crap about Law and do as they wish. It is, therefore, up to the people - all the people - to restore what was once taken as understood by all.

And, therein lies the rub. Most of the whole of the people are terrified not of foreign terrorists but the terrorists that live amongst us - the different enforcers of de fact law that rob us of our property, etc. Until the most feel the pinch of governments out of control, we can forget any change, except that oppression will keep increasing until government openly kills dissenters where they stand.

(If any doubt the latter, better study the world's history of societies that have been disarmed and the ease with which criminal governments get fellow citizens to do the genocide of people that are objectionable to the government.)

I believe I stated in an earlier post that going down this road requires two lanes.
First reassertion of rights legislatively and second a state holding/settlements bank for federal funds.
The fed is to enforce the constitution, as written, and originally intended, etc.
At any point the fed fails its responsibility, it loses its power.
IF any state offers the two basis above, be prepared to confront federal power. This will require an armed stand against exercise of the power the fed is attempting to use.
Only when said state is willing to offer this level of real time commitment, will power be retained and returned.
I strongly suggest this be done by several states together as each will need the collective power, manpower, etc.
It is nice to see patriotism, better to see states taking action, and yet realize none of this will be easy.
The federal corporation's holders will do anything to retain the status quo and will offer a vicious fight to keep their money-maker running. After that, those of other brands of the same types of power grabbers will emerge. Again, another fight.
I estimate some dozen groups/organizations who will move in for the kill and try to take the pie...
Figure some three years to really sort the whole thing out and once again find peace.
I guess the real question is which state/grouping will go first?
Accordingly, we have until sometime next summer/year. The estimate as to when there are supposed to be a lot of riots, etc.
Guess we'll see.

I believe I stated in an earlier post that going down this road requires two lanes.
First reassertion of rights legislatively and second a state holding/settlements bank for federal funds.
The fed is to enforce the constitution, as written, and originally intended, etc.
At any point the fed fails its responsibility, it loses its power.
IF any state offers the two basis above, be prepared to confront federal power. This will require an armed stand against exercise of the power the fed is attempting to use.
Only when said state is willing to offer this level of real time commitment, will power be retained and returned.
I strongly suggest this be done by several states together as each will need the collective power, manpower, etc.
It is nice to see patriotism, better to see states taking action, and yet realize none of this will be easy.
The federal corporation's holders will do anything to retain the status quo and will offer a vicious fight to keep their money-maker running. After that, those of other brands of the same types of power grabbers will emerge. Again, another fight.
I estimate some dozen groups/organizations who will move in for the kill and try to take the pie...
Figure some three years to really sort the whole thing out and once again find peace.
I guess the real question is which state/grouping will go first?
Accordingly, we have until sometime next summer/year. The estimate as to when there are supposed to be a lot of riots, etc.
Guess we'll see.

"No state has ever been allowed to enact any policy that contravenes Federal policy"

Again, in order to correct the misinformation given by this commenter, I point out the successful resistance to federal laws already happening right now. No violence, no wars, no troops, none of it. I guess the bottom line - if you want to live in tyranny, just cower under the fear-mongering of our commenter here - otherwise, show some backbone and stand up to peacefully resist dc!

"As far as nullification goes, it's meaningless unless the states are willing to exert lethal force against Federal agents or troops in order to stop execution of Federal laws."

That's a pretty wild, unsubstantiated claim. In fact, I'd take the position that it's completely absurd - and potentially intended as a distraction for people who are successfully resisting federal overreach in their states.

For those who are interested in what's been effective already, I'll just point you in the direction of state nullification of federal marijuana laws, and the federal read id act of 2005 (both of which are mentioned here in the article) - the feds, slowly but surely, have to back off on both these issues - and states aren't getting into a shooting war with the feds.

Period.

People working to advance medical marijuana laws on a state-level aren't doing it in the courtroom - and they're more successful each year. In fact, when going to the courts, they lost - because the court believes the "commerce clause" is so expansive that something grown, kept, sold, and used in state could somehow, in some way, possibly impact the interstate commerce of a product - for a product where no "legal" commerce even exists. Thinking that a court battle is the right way forward is a sure way to codify in federal law that your rights are gone.

If 30 or so states make this an issue and are willing to band together to sue the US goverment -that would be a debate I would love to see.

Its got to be in the court room.
I don't see many of the Federally trained Sheriff's of the counties standing up to the Feds in any sort of shooting confrontation.
If they did Obama would just recall the troops from Iraq, call it an insurrection as did Lincoln the last time the states declared their rights, and snuff out anyone in the way.

This is getting interesting.
The fact that the legislatures of the "recalcitrant states" didn't immediately respond to the ATF with a letter declaring that what the ATF wants is irrelevant proves that the states still don't have the guts to see this movement to the end.
Look for an example to be made of the state lawmaker who doesn't genuflect to the federal demands.
In the end,I don't care what any judge,federal agent,politician,charismatic leader or an eventual world government tyrant declares regarding guns,I shall never relinquish mine.

As a non-American and yet one who loves America and its people for what they used to be, I am depressed and saddened by how the country has evolved into a totalitarean nation that is well on its way to stiffling the very notion of freedom, all under the lying guise of "protecting your freedom".

Possibly if a few States do take back their rights and attempt to stop this maniacal government in Washington, that possibly a reversal of this pernitious power grab just might be stopped.

But first, the American people have to get off thier collective butts and take to the streets (being a keyboard warrior will not do it) to proclaim loudly that they are taking their country back and to state emphatically that "...its the politicians that work for the people and NOT the people for the politicians"

Best of luck!

I see the potential that if one state sticks its neck out, the federal government will seek to make an example of it. Therefore it would be nice if when one state takes some high ground, that others would quickly follow. The federal government may move on one, but to move on ten or more would be a much greater task.

Secondly, one will expect the federal government to retaliate with the constriction of federal funds towards renegade states. But now the reply may be that those particular states do not want subsidies and bribes and threats and the like because those dollars are debt instruments of which the states do not want to partake.

"While some advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success..." What???
If state legislatures develop a backbone and assert rights belonging to them by the Constitution, why would those states yield either to Congress OR the federal judiciary? Why not simply ignore laws and rulings at odds with the Constitution? This presents some practical problems to avoid anarchy, but I'm assuming a mechanism deciding jurisdiction would be made by the state courts involved in the nullification.

I'm from the great state of Tennessee and could not be more proud of our state and it's legislature for their brave stand concerning 10th amendment issues and our passage of the Firearms Freedom Act, but I must ask a difficult question. Where is the local police force (state trooper or county sheriff) willing to stand up to the tyranny of the BATF and defend that states citizens against federal forces bent on enforcing fed. regulations? Until our state governments grow some teeth to back their bark, it doesn't matter how many federal laws we nullify. We'll still be under the boot of our federal oppressors. Maybe our valiant state rep. Susan Lynn's letter to the other state legislatures concerning our state's stance on the sovereignty issue will inspire like minded states to band together and peaceably reject federal mandates, but I remain skeptical. Tyrannical governments (monarchies or democracies) have always been reluctant to cede usurped powers to anything short of matched force.

I am confused.

Okay,I've got a question,if Missouri,and Montana too,do not have state boundaries in their state constitutions anymore,how can this be enforced?

The fundamental right of sovereignty under the constitution must and shall be protected at all legal costs and otherwise,for without it,we have no sovereignty in any quarter.

"Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution."

In a nutshell, this is why each and every sovereignty bill is vitally important, with or with out legal 'teeth'. Each one builds the movement and encourages the next.

There is another principle to consider. During the militia debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, John Marshall, who would become an infamous chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court made the following statement:

“The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislatures before, both shall exercise it, unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that of the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.… All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.”

He went on to state that if the States had a power “antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been.”

Alexander Hamilton also made this observation several months prior to Marshall in his writings in the Federalist Essays. In Essay No. 32 he wrote:

“The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor… We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions.”

And in Essay No. 82 he went on to state:

“The principles established in a former paper teach us that the States will retain all preëxisting authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union, and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to the Union, with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.”

Marshall and Hamilton both agreed that the States retained every preexisting power that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government. As stated by Hamilton, an exclusive grant of power would have to be stated “in express terms.” For example. The States did not lose the power to tax because a like power was granted to the federal government. Same principle.

Marshall and Hamilton both noted that all of the constitutional prohibitions on State power are contained in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. A review of this section shows that it does not contain a single clause that places a restraint on State power concerning the regulation and/or manufacture of firearms within an individual State.

There is a clause in the Constitution that proves the correctness of these assertions. Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 3 forbids the States from engaging in war “unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The Constitution, through the above clause, authorizes the States to engage in war without consulting Congress. How could a State engage in war to protect its borders, independent of the federal government, unless it possessed the right or power to manufacture and control the production firearms within the confines of the State?

If the States do not have this power, then this clause of the Constitution is an absurdity!