Most articles that seek to demonize the Tenth Amendment movement are so rife with logical and intellectual fallacies that even responding to them is a waste of time. However, in the case of Dan Casey, blogger for the Roanoke Times, an exception must be made.

For starters, Casey is writing in my (and Thomas Jefferson’s) home state of Virginia, and his piece, “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy” actually links to the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center, which I helped to found.

But, more importantly, in his article, Casey attempts to smear the brilliant men who wrote the U.S. Constitution by claiming the document doesn’t mean what they explicitly said it meant.

As James Madison might have said, there is a host of proofs that Dan Casey is dead wrong.

Like so many others before him, Casey leads his attack with a flaccid attempt to discredit the “Tenthers” (as he pejoratively calls them) by linking constitutionalism with support for slavery.

Of course, this completely obscures actions by Tenthers of an earlier era, who used the 10th Amendment as the prime justification for the “States Rights” argument that itself was a smokescreen for the real cause of the Civil War — the South’s insistence on preserving slavery.

Behold straw man number one: The Tenth Amendment is code for racism. Casey is either ignorant of the fact that many Northern states used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for undermining slavery long before 1861, through their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts, or he has chosen to ignore that inconvenient part of history. 

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Historical accuracy is not Casey’s goal. He merely intends to color his readers’ perception of Tenthers by linking them, however spuriously, with Southern slaveholders. To acknowledge the truth about the history of states’ rights in the North might disrupt his narrative of unquestioning obsequiousness to centralized power.

Casey continues:

But apart from aligning themselves with slaveholders, there’s another more fundamental flaw in the whole modern Tenther argument. In a nutshell, it’s this: Their interpretation is based on a single sentence in the Constitution, rather than on the document as a whole.

In fact, the larger document directly contradicts the Tenthers’ argument.  That’s right — words the founding fathers quite deliberately wrote into the Constitution clearly and effectively rebut the Tenthers’ faulty reasoning.

It’s hard to imagine where Casey got this impression, considering that James Madison himself described the document he helped to write by saying

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.

Thomas Jefferson also knew the Tenth Amendment was more than just “a single sentence.” He called it the Constitution’s foundation: 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

It really cannot be any clearer than that. The self-serving opinions of Dan Casey and myriad federal judges notwithstanding, if the people and the states didn’t explicitly surrender a power in the Constitution, then they still retain it. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is another story.

But if federal power is limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, Casey asks, why do we need a Bill of Rights at all?

The problem for the Tenthers here is that the First Amendment has nothing to do with what Congress can do. It’s all about what Congress can’t do.

And this is where the Tenthers’ entire argument falls apart. Because under Tenther-logic, unless the Constitution permitted the feds to establish religion, or abridge freedom of speech and so on, then the feds would automatically be prohibited from doing it.

Obviously, the founding fathers themselves did not believe that, or they never would have felt the need to write the First Amendment in the first place.

Here Casey has a point, although not the one he thinks. He is right, the feds are automatically prohibited from doing any of the things he lists, just as they are prohibited from requiring every American to buy health insurance, based on the fact that those powers are not delegated under Article 1 Section 8.  

But, more importantly, many of the founders themselves argued against the Bill of Rights for the same reason as Casey: It should not be necessary. 

Alexander Hamilton said

…bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. …For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 

If there is any argument to be made against the Tenth Amendment, it is Hamilton, not Casey, who has made it.

The Bill of Rights should never have been needed. Every one of the first 10 Amendments is essentially legally redundant based on the text of the Constitution itself.

But, over time, activist judges and complicit politicians have turned the entire document on its head, until the only rights left to the people are those explicitly granted, while the only powers not yet claimed by government are those explicitly prohibited.

Yet Casey calls Tenthers, who only want the Constitution’s clear language enforced, ”intellectual boobs who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.” Apparently, thinking for oneself means ignoring the purpose of our founding documents, and gratefully acquiescing to federal tyranny.

Those of us who demand liberty are feared and ridiculed by weak minded men like Dan Casey who consider themselves intelligent, but are really nothing more than errand boys for the State.

As Samuel Adams once said

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma’s 90th District, discusses Oklahoma’s 10th Amendment Resolution, the Constitution and limits on the federal government’s power, the long-standing abuses of the constitution no matter which administration or party is in power, bailouts and real id as unconstitutional, why it’s urgent to act now, the OK gubernatorial campaign, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the constitution – not the federal government – as the source of law in the United States.

Mentioned in this Show:

Oklahoma Sovereignty Resolution

CharlesKey.com

@ckey – twitter

Facebook Page

Randy Brogdon for OK Governor

There is so much frustration expressed by people when exploring the difficulties in reigning in Washington, D.C. and restoring a government which respects state sovereignty.  This article explores the issues and proposes a plan to force our representatives to do our will.

First, we must recognize and understand the structure of government.  The power within the legislative branch is not distributed equally among the legislators. 

Many people write their legislators, and in many cases, their voices are heard.  In other cases, their voices are lost.  While writing one’s legislator is a good, civic-minded idea, it is not enough.  The only way to prevail is to control your legislators.  To do that, you must know how they work.

Dinosaurs over State’s Rights

Here is an example of how our voices are lost.  Texas’ version of its state’s rights resolution is HCR50.  On April 23, 2009, HCR50 passed favorably out of the Committee on State Affairs, and it currently has enough votes to pass the House.  The problem is, however, that HCR50 is not progressing to a full vote, and even if it reaches a vote on the House floor, the legislative session will end before it can make it through the Texas Senate.

Despite the failure of HCR50’s promotion, we Texans can all rest assured that this failure reflects the many important things our legislators must do first in order to adequately represent us.  For example, on April 30, 2009, the Texas House took up the momentous measure of HCR16 – designating Paluxysaurus jonesi as our new state dinosaur!

So, there we have it.  Designating a state dinosaur takes precedence over reclaiming our state’s rights!  This is the case, even though Texas’ HCR50 has enough support among legislators to pass the House as soon as it is called for a vote.

Know the Power Structure

Not all legislators are equal.  When a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee.  A legislative body usually has several committees operating under different names and composed of different members.  It is important to know the particular committee to which a bill is assigned.

Committee Action

Before a bill will ever be submitted to a vote before the entire house, it must first pass committee.  The committee has a chairperson.  This is basically the leader of the committee.  The chairperson has control over the committee calendar.

From there, you can easily surmise that a committee chairperson can see to it that a bill in his or her committee will never see the light of day.

Assuming the bill passes muster (at the whim of the chairperson,) it will be scheduled for a hearing before the entire committee.  At this point, the focus is on the committee as a whole.  If a majority of committee members favors the bill, then the bill will be reported favorably by the committee, and it will be “eligible” to be voted on by the house.   This does not mean it will reach a full vote.  Keep reading.

So, at this point, you should be aware of the functions of the committee chairperson and the rest of the committee.  You should know who these people are.

There is an important caveat here.  Sometimes, committees will assign bills to subcommittees.  The process works similarly, except now, we have both a subcommittee chairperson and the subcommittee to pass favorably upon the bill before it will even be considered in the primary committee.  If a bill goes into subcommittee review, you should know the members of the subcommittee as well.

Once a Bill is Eligible for Floor Vote

Just because a bill is eligible for a floor vote does not mean it will reach a vote.  Each house has a calendars committee.  This committee is structured very much the same way as other committees.  It has a chairperson and other members.

The only difference is that the calendars committee decides when, and in what order, bills are considered on the open floor of the house.  Even if the calendars committee schedules a bill for vote, it can still insert other bills for consideration before it.  This can effectively kill a bill.  You should therefore know the members of the calendar committee.

The Floor Vote

Once the bill reaches a vote on the floor, it will either pass or not.  So, all of the communicating to legislators that most of us do will only have significance if the bill ever gets this far.  If it does not get this far (due to committee handling), then all the prior talking to your legislator is generally of no consequence.

Therefore, you can readily see that we must influence the committee members, especially the chairpersons, if we are to have our voices heard.

The Life of a Legislator

It is also important to understand the life of a legislator.  At the state level, legislators hold their positions part-time.  Legislators conduct state business only during legislative sessions, which, depending on the state, is conducted each year, or every other year.  Legislative sessions usually last only a few months.  So, that is when the work of the state is actually done.

The Will of a Legislator

Bills are often reported as “authored by” Representative Doe, when in fact, they usually are not.  To use an analogy, it is often said that judges of courts enter orders and judgment.  While “true,” the judges rarely write their own orders.  Instead, judges tell the attorney, in general terms, what they want an order to say.  At this point, the attorney drafts the order for the judge to sign.

Why is this?  Because judges are elected.  They are their own bosses.  If they do not have to do the work, they will not do it.  For them, it is much easier to have someone spoon-feed them the desired product, so that all they have to do is sign it.

Legislators work the same way.  Therefore, we must keep in mind that everything we want a legislator to do, we must do ourselves – with the ultimate goal to be that we will require little more than just a signature or “yes” vote by the legislator.  We must do all of the organizing, recruiting, drafting, etc.

The Plan that will Work

To a legislator, election votes are everything.  The only way to make a legislator do your will is to scare him or her.

It does not serve any purpose to focus blame on the wrong legislator, nor does it do any good to believe a legislator has more power than he or she does.  In other words, if a bill does not pass favorably out of the pertinent committee, you cannot rightfully blame your legislator, unless he or she was a member of the committee with enough influence to make sure the bill survived that committee’s process.

So, rule number one is to make sure we focus on scaring the right people for the right reasons.

Focus at the District Level

Let’s face it.  If a constituent lives in District 1, and the committee chair person lives in District 38, the odds are very slim that the committee chair will really care that much about the opinions of the constituent.  Therefore, to gain power, a movement must start with constituents at the district level.

For example, if a constituent in District 1 wants to influence a committee chairperson who represents District 38, the constituent needs to make contacts, friends and support groups from within the chairperson’s district.  This is the place where getting on the phone and making friends and allies is very important.

Many elections are won or lost within 10 percentage points.  Therefore, at the district level, small blocks of voters can be very, very important.

The influence that can be derived by small blocks of voters is so important that it often paves the way for what people label as “special interest groups.”  The phrase “special interest group” refers to a group that consists of much less than a majority of voters, but it also consists of enough voters to scare their legislator into furthering the group’s interest.

Groups can be easy to form and manage with today’s technology.  Simply using e-mail or tool such as Facebook and Meetup.com can be very effective at coordinating efforts across multiple districts on a state-wide basis.

How to Organize

Now that we know we must focus at the district level, we need to understand how to organize.  The organization is usually given a name.  “Texans for this” or “Texans for that,” or whatever.  The name is not as important as is the concept.  However, the name is very important in that it connotes a group of voters, and the “jingle” of the name is a regular “buzz” in the legislator’s ear.

So, we must start with a name.

What Name?

Who cares?   Often, the most well-conceived of movements will break-down over claims to authorship.  One person wants to do it this way, and another wants to do it that way.

It is important not to focus so much on “who gets to claim the credit in the end” as it is to focus on “in the end.”  So, we should not get bogged down in leadership claims and naming rights.  Just get past this issue of self-interest and get on-board with the program.

Find District Leaders

The next step is to locate a person within each district that shares in the desired goal and is someone you believe has a fair degree of leadership skills and a good work-ethic.  This is not intellectually difficult but does require some time commitment.

How can this be done?   First, you should know how to find out how districts are carved-out in your state.  For example, in the Texas House Representatives, there are 150 legislative districts.  It is not too difficult to use a search engine to find a web page that shows the location of these districts on a map.

In the Texas Senate, there are 31 districts.  This is an entirely different map, and so it should be understood that these districts overlap.

Therefore, in Texas, for example, we must find 150 district leaders to form groups within their districts to influence their respective representatives in the state house.  We must also find 31 district leaders to do the same as regards influencing their state senators.  Just as the districts overlap, so can the district leadership for a grass-roots campaign.

But I Don’t Know Anyone Clear Across the State to Contact

No problem.  The process can work from the inside out.  Often times, we know people who live nearby and who also live in a different district.  For example, if I live in District 38, and if District 39 is a few blocks over, I might likely know someone who can lead that district.

In the same vein, my friend in District 39 might know someone who can lead District 40, which is only a few miles from him or her.   In this way, the recruiting and organizing starts from the inside, and it grows wider, until the state is covered.

A Main Control Center

While the recruiting is going on and district-level groups are being set up, it is very important to have a group of people who are willing to take the time and organize the leadership structure.  This group needs to be responsible for keeping a roster of district leaders, along with their district numbers.  That way, they will know who to contact to monitor progress and receive feedback from that district.   The district leader should likewise keep a roster of the members of the group within his or her district.

With this roster in place, it will be easy to know which districts are still not represented and need to be the target of recruiting efforts.  The goal is to have enough constituents within a district become members or supporters of the platform that these constituents, as a group, have enough power to potentially sway election results.

Remember, at the district level, the group does not need to be very large.  To determine an effective size, all we need to do is look back at the most recent election results.  There, we can see how many people voted for a legislator within the district in question.  (Obviously, not all people vote, and this is why we look at just the number of how many people voted.)

For example, in Texas District 138, for the 2008 election, Dwayne Bohac defeated Virginia McDavid 21,666 to 15,052.  But according to the 2000 Census, the total population of District 138 is 134,167.  Of this number, 98,358 are of voting age (18 or over).

So, it is clear here that Rep. Bohac won by 6,614 votes, which represents only 6.7% of the voting populace for that district.  Had just over half of the margin, or 3,308 voters, gone the other way, the election results would have favored Virginia McDavid.  Therefore, only 3.36% of the people in the district could have swayed the election.  This number is “peanuts” when considering that District 138 is in Harris County, Texas, within Houston, which, as we know, is the fourth largest city in the nation.

And it should be highlighted further that election results are almost always uncertain.  Therefore, as election season draws near, we will find the relative paranoia level at its highest.  While, looking back, it can be seen that 3,308 voters could have affected the outcome in 2008 for District 138, who knows what it will be next time?  Therefore, it would not be surprising at all for a group of say, 100-200, to be enough to actually force their legislator to do his or her best to carry out a particular agenda.  And this is in a district with a total voting population of 98,358!

Make Your Purpose Clear!

This process is not for the timid. It must be clear to the district leaders that their job is to affect policy.  They must be ready to use the influence of their group to oust a representative who does not earnestly try and further the effort.  This must be communicated to the legislator.

Here is an example of how to communicate the plan:  “We have 437 people who have all signed a petition in support of Take Texas Back, which supports state’s rights.  Will you issue a statement supporting our effort?”

In most cases, if proof of this size group is shown to the legislator, or if the legislator otherwise believes that this group really exists in this size, the legislator’s “enthusiastic” support will be forthcoming.  (But recall, legislators don’t like to work.  They must be spoon-fed with the final product to either sign or vote “yes” on.)

If the legislator’s support is not forth-coming, grow the group, and use all of its influence to back an opponent who supports the cause!

Money is a nice tool, but in the end, it is all about votes.  Just get the votes!

In Summary

The State Sovereignty Movement can be won.  It is just a matter of manipulating the legislature, rather than counting on them to exercise common-sense.  If the only requirement was common-sense, Texas would already have formally reclaimed its sovereignty, and the “state dinosaur” would have just had to wait.

Therefore, we must force the legislators to do that which they will not.  It is easy, but it takes some time and organization.

I, for one, have tried communicating with legislators.  It is somewhat effective, but as is clear to me at this point (since HCR50 will not pass both the house and senate this session), talking to legislators is not enough.

It is time we start a grass-roots effort to control our legislature, rather than have them control us!

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas.  His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

The resolution, introduced by Senator Crowe, passed 32-0, and was received by the Louisiana House on 05-12-09.

Here’s the full text of the resolution:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To memorialize the Congress of the United States of America to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt the practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes which are not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted to the Constitution of the United States of America and no more; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government as well as federal mandates are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), thatCongressmay not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some pending with the present administration aswell as fromCongressmayfurther violate theConstitution of the United States of America.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes the Congress of the United States of America that the legislature affirms Louisiana’s sovereignty under the TenthAmendment to theConstitution of theUnited States ofAmerica over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana also demands that the federal government halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United States Congress and to the president of the United States of America and to the governor of Louisiana.

The resolution is sponsored by Senators Keith Faber (R-Celina) and Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland), and cosponsored by Senators Gibbs, Buehrer, Cates, Hughes, Schuler, and Schuring.

Read the full text of SCR13 below:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment signifies that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are often treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal laws directly contravene the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, We believe in the importance of all levels of government working together to serve the citizens of our country, by respecting the constitutional provisions that properly delineate the authority of federal, state, and local governments; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of “dual sovereignty” that retains “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” by the states. The majority of the United States Supreme Court noted in that case (521 U.S. 898, 921-922):

“As [President] Madison expressed it: ‘[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.’ The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’ . . . To quote [President] Madison once again:

‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323″; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals by previous administrations, some now pending proposals by the present administration, and some proposals by Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment restriction on the scope of federal power; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the State of Ohio hereby acknowledges and reaffirms its residuary and inviolable 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; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution serves as notice to the federal government as agent of the states, to end federal mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalty or sanction or that requires states to enact legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature, and each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation.

From the Associated Press report:

Mississippi lawmakers haven’t finished a budget, but they spent hours Thursday debating resolutions to support part of the U.S. Constitution that was long ago ratified and is in no danger of being repealed.

The 10th Amendment says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for states.

Supporters said the resolutions make a statement that the federal government is overstepping its authority on a wide range of issues, from regulating businesses to passing a multibillion-dollar stimulus package.

The House adopted its resolution on a vote of 80-30 after two hours of debate – and it was altered to specify that the resolution shouldn’t be interpreted as an official stance against voting rights. The Senate adopted its own resolution, 25-18, after about an hour and a half. The sponsors of the Mississippi resolutions were Republicans or conservative Democrats.

Full text of the amended House resolution to be posted shortly…

UPDATE 05-08-09: From State Rep Steven Palazzo – a “Motion to Reconsider” the House resolution was entered today, and will require another vote to approve.

UPDATE 05-08-09: A “Motion to Reconsider” the Senate resolution was also entered, but tabled by the Senate.  The Resolution will be transmitted to the House.

Representative Manny Steele, of South Dakota, sponsored his state’s HCR1013, which was the first states’ rights resolution to pass both the Senate and House in a state this year.  Since then, legislatures in eight other states have acted on bi-partisan support and have passed their respective resolutions to affirm states’ rights.  These are:   Alaska (HJR27), Georgia (SR632), Idaho (HJM4), Indiana (SR42), Missouri (HCR13), North Dakota (HCR3063), Oklahoma (HJR1003) and South Carolina (H3509).

Texas’ HCR50 passed committee April 23, 2009.  Sponsoring Representative Brandon Creighton expects the House to pass the resolution very shortly.  In addition, Arizona’s HCR2024 passed committee on April 14, and per Sponsoring Representative Judy Burges, it is expected to pass the House.

In their Announcement, all fourteen Senators and Representatives observe that:

Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C.  Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes.  We believe that the best government is one which governs closer to the people….  The current price of erosion of states’ rights exceeds $11 trillion.  Without the countless attempts in Washington to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs, much of this debt could have been avoided.

Joining Representative Steele in the Joint Announcement are:

Alaska (HJR27)                       (Mike Kelly, Dist. 7, Sponsor)
Passed House and Senate     (Gary Stevens, Senate President)

Georgia (SR632)                     (Chip Pearson, Dist. 51, Sponsor)
Passed Senate

Idaho (HJM004)                      (Lenore Barrett, Dist. 35, Sponsor)
Passed House and                   (Dick Harwood, Dist 2, Sponsor)
Senate                                          (Lawerence Denney, House Speaker)

Missouri (HCR13)                   (Jim Guest, Dist. 5, Sponsor)
Passed House

North Dakota (HCR3063)      (Craig Headland, Dist. 29, Sponsor)
Passed House and                     (David Monson, House Speaker)
Senate

Oklahoma (HJR1003)             (Randy Brogdon, Dist. 34, Sponsor)
Passed House and
Senate

South Carolina (H3509)          (Michael A. Pitts, Dist. 14, Sponsor)
Passed House; Currently in
Senate Committee

South Dakota (HCR1013)      (Manny Steele, Dist. 12, Sponsor)
Passed House and Senate        (Dennis Daugaard, Lt. Governor)
(Tim Rave, House Speaker)

The resolution now awaits transmittal to the House.

Read the full text below:

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

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

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

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 pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING, that the State of Tennessee 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation.

Here’s the final tally:

    YEAS:   73

    Armes              Hickman            McNiel             Sherrer
    Banz               Holland            Miller             Shoemake
    Blackwell          Jackson            Moore              Smithson
    Brannon            Jett               Murphey            Steele
    Christian          Johnson            Nelson             Sullivan
    Coody              Jones              Ortega             Terrill
    Cooksey            Jordan             Ownbey             Thompson
    Cox                Joyner             Peters             Thomsen
    Dank               Kern               Peterson           Tibbs
    Denney             Key                Proctor            Trebilcock
    Derby              Kirby              Pruett             Walker
    DeWitt             Lamons             Reynolds           Watson
    Dorman             Liebmann           Richardson         Wesselhoft
    Duncan             Luttrell           Ritze              Wright, H.
    Enns               Martin, Sc         Rousselot          Wright, J.
    Faught             Martin, St.        Sanders            Mr. Speaker
    Fields             McCullough         Schwartz
    Glenn              McDaniel, R.       Sears
    Harrison           McMullen           Shannon            

    NAYS:   22

    Auffet             Collins            McAffrey           Scott
    Bailey             Hamilton           McDaniel, J.       Shelton
    Brown              Hilliard           McPeak             Shumate
    Buck               Hoskin             Morgan             Williams
    Cannaday           Inman              Pittman
    Carey              Kouplen            Roan               

    EXCUSED:    6

    Billy              Morrissette        Osborn
    Kiesel             Nations            Renegar            

    CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE:    0

Read the full text of the resolution here. (h/t AirForceBrat)

The resolution passed without amendment and is awaiting further action. (h/t Jeff Matthews)

Here’s the full text of the resolution:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

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 pending from the present administration and from congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby 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; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.