Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

[Rex]

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

Full story: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=88218

"The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying "enough" to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There's a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma's bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year."

Full Story: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/05/183354.php

[Rex]

CNN picks up a story on sovereignty. Link to article.

The article is a little more balanced than the initial sentence tends to suggest it wil be,

Republican lawmakers from more than 20 states across the country are willing to take federal funding, but only on their terms.

To begin, this is far from being a Republican effor, but is and should be supported by members of both major political parties. Second, the article fails to observe that the money belongs to the people in the first place. The government takes it from us, then offers to give us back a portion of it, but with strings attached. And in doing so, it pretends it it somehow their money, and that the offer is somehow magnanimous on their part.

[Rex]

Good News and Bad News for the Tenth Amendment Movement
Written by Larry Greenley Wednesday, 04 March 2009 23:59
Link to original story

The past couple days have brought a real mixed bag of results for the Tenth Amendment Movement, also known as the State Sovereignty Movement.

First, the good news. Earlier today (March 4) the Oklahoma Senate passed a Tenth Amendment resolution (SJR10) by a vote of 25 to 17. Since the Oklahoma House had already passed its Tenth Amendment resolution (HJR1003) on February 18, Oklahoma has the distinction of being the first state where both houses have passed a Tenth Amendment resolution affirming its sovereignty over those powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. South Dakota became the second state where at least one legislative body has passed a Tenth Amendment bill when its House passed HCR1013 by 51 to 18 on March 3. The other piece of good news came from Idaho where the House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce a Tenth Amendment resolution by a vote of 13 to 4 on March 4.

Now for the bad news. Today New Hampshire's Tenth Amendment bill, HCR6, based on Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolves of 1798, was voted down by 150-216 on March 4. Unfortunately, opponents of HCR6 were able to portray it as a secessionist measure and thereby discredit it. Fortunately, however, New Hampshire's HCR6 was unique in being particularly susceptible to a secessionist interpretation. The rest of the state Tenth Amendment resolutions are almost identical and very clearly only affirm the proper balance between the states and the federal government within the union as prescribed by the Constitution. The other bad news came from Arkansas where a House committee voted down a Tenth Amendment resolution by a vote of 8-10 on March 4. The committee vote was strictly along party lines with the Republicans all favoring the resolution and the Democrats all opposing it.

Click here for a state-by-state status review of Tenth Amendment resolutions. There are now at least 18 states that have introduced Tenth Amendment resolutions, including Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Pennsylvania and several other states are also considering such resolutions.

Click here to conveniently email your state legislators in support of Tenth Amendment resolutions similar to those already being considered in over 20 other states. You'll be supplied with a blank message to your state legislators. Just use the state-by-state status review mentioned above to learn whether your state has already introduced a Tenth Amendment resolution or whether you need to urge your state reps to go ahead and introduce such a resolution. Armed with this knowledge, you can compose an appropriate email to send.

The overriding good news about the Tenth Amendment Movement is that so many citizens and state legislators in so many states are taking some first steps toward restoring the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government as prescribed by the Constitution. Although these Tenth Amendment resolutions are not legally binding, they are steppingstones toward further legislation that would be legally binding. If we are to restore our constitutional Republic, the starting point must be renewed respect for and adherence to the Constitution. Viewed in that light the Tenth Amendment Movement is very good news indeed.

[Rex]

Dave Nalle at the Republic of Dave has written an excellent article on the difficulties the state sovereignty efforts have met with in some states. Reprinted here with permission.

State Sovereignty Movement Hits Partisan Roadblock
March 8th, 2009

Efforts in more than half of the state legislatures to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and prevent unwanted impositions by the federal government are now running into serious partisan opposition. Most of these bills have been introduced and are supported by Republican legislators and Democrats are doing everything they can to block them and make sure that their states comply with federal mandates issued by a national Congress dominated by their party. They seem more concerned with profiting from their control of the federal government than in protecting the rights of their citizens and being fiscally responsible.

In the last week three states with Democrat dominated legislatures have rejected state sovereignty resolutions. The Arkansas state sovereignty resolution was defeated in committee along straight partisan lines with a 10-8 vote. In Washington the Democratic chairman of the committee on Government and Tribal Affairs killed the bill by refusing to put it on the agenda. In New Hamphire, Representative Daniel Itse's radically worded sovereignty resolution was one of the first entered and one of the most widely supported. Yet last week, with hundreds protesting in the snow and freezing temperatures outside the New Hampshire state house, it was defeated in a 216-150 vote along party lines. The enthusiasm of the citizens of New Hampshire (shown in the video at right) for their Constitutional rights was not enough to wake up Democratic legislators and convince them to vote against unfunded mandates and federal attacks on citizen rights.

In addition to these three states where sovereignty has been blocked, two states (Ohio, Florida) are long shots for passage of sovereignty because they are trying to do it through petitioning their state legislatures. That still leaves 23 states with resolutions in some stage of development or consideration. Of those states, 12 have at least one house of their state legislatures dominated by Democrats, including Oklahoma which has been one of the leaders in the movement. The current trend suggests that none of these states will be able to pass a sovereignty resolution until the composition of their legislatures changes, though there might be a slim hope for Oklahoma and Louisiana where some of the Democrats are more conservative.

That means we're down to 11 states with a reasonable chance of affirming state sovereignty this legislative session. They include Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. Of these, South Carolina, and Texas are the farthest along towards passage and Virginia is probably on the fence, based on the past history of Republicans in their legislature.

It has become clear that there is a coordinated Democrat campaign to oppose the sovereignty movement on a nationwide basis in the state legislatures. Although sovereignty remains on the agenda in more than 20 states, with partisan opposition passage in more than a dozen states is very unlikely. If that many states do pass sovereignty measures it will be mostly symbolic, because with barely a quarter of the states on board, it isn't a big enough accomplishment to send a message which the federal government cannot ignore.

With the economic crisis worsening, federal spending out of control, and the Obama administration targeting gun rights and raising taxes, popular opposition to overreaching government is growing stronger and stronger. Sadly, the power of the ascendant Democrats both at the national level and in so many state legislatures is too great to challenge effectively through legislating state sovereignty or with a few governors taking a stand against excessive spending. It is becoming increasingly clear that if we are to restore government which serves the best interests of citizens and protects their rights, the people will have to demand change from the grassroots on a nationwide basis with a movement so strong that it cannot be ignored or suppressed by the dominant political establishment in the states or in DC.

It is time to put an end to the politics of partisan greed and the ongoing erosion of our rights by whatever means are necessary. If that cannot be accomplished on the grounds of state sovereignty and by state governments it must be done by individuals in the streets of the nation, in the corridors of power, and at the gates of the enemy. As the economic crisis intensifies and the enemies of liberty use it as a pretext to expand their power, we can't afford to sit on the sidelines and hope for the best any longer.


Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at IdiotWars.com.

[Rex]

Articles about the 10th Amendment and are proliferating all over the Internet. Just two weeks ago it was difficult to find one or two per week. Lately I have been seeing more than that each day. Here is an excellent article by Pennsylvanie State Representative Samuel Rohrer, who is also scheduling a State Sovereignty Rally for March 16th. The article was found at the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Necessity for Action
by State Rep. Samuel E Rohrer, PA-128th District

The danger of being number 10 is that no one really knows who you are. George Washington was our first president; but how many can name number 10 off the top of their head? And Sir Edmund Hillary was the first person to climb Everest, but does anyone know who the tenth person was to reach the summit?

And then consider our amendments to the United States Constitution: most of us know the 1st Amendment verbatim, but do you know what the Tenth Amendment says?

“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.”

Sometimes thought of as an afterthought, to “sweep up” anything the Founders may have forgotten, the 10th Amendment today is taking on monumental importance as increasing federal intrusion into state affairs threatens to completely destroy the balance between state and federal power.

In the Federalist Papers, authors Jay, Madison, and Hamilton labored to convince a monarch-shy colonial population that they needed a strong government to preserve a free, cohesive nation. The authors took pains to outline how the Constitutional structure of the government would prohibit the federal government from becoming big enough to overwhelm the powers of both the states and the democratic process.

The 10th Amendment was foundational to this system of checks and balances, constitutionally restricting the federal government to covering issues related to commerce, national defense, the postal system, and the like.

“Power begets power,” though, as the saying goes, and the federal government slowly began expanding its powers. One of the most effective and insidious ways that the federal government has taken over control of state affairs is by first passing a mandate and then offering federal money to states with significant strings attached.

Whether the issue is welfare, Real ID, No Child Left Behind, or health insurance programs, tantalizing packages have been dangled in front of state governors and legislators, promising to stop the budget gap or expand a politically successful program. States have taken the money and over time, the requirements and restrictions on those state funds have slowly but surely changed the direction of state policy.

Instead of developing programs to fit the needs of state citizens and altering them to best use the state resources, programs are instead clumsily built around the federal funding requirements, so the state does not lose a single available dollar. This significant paradigm shift should be a wake-up call to every citizen not only in Pennsylvania, but also across the nation.

Therefore, because the Supreme Court allowed the federal government to offer funds on conditions, states have subjected themselves to Washington. This submission completely distorts the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution, and enshrined in the 10th Amendment.

In order to raise awareness of this improper delegation of power, I have joined with representatives, senators, Democrats, and Republicans from over 30 states and introduced a resolution into the Pennsylvania General Assembly that reaffirms Pennsylvania’s constitutional powers under the 10th Amendment.

This 10th Amendment Resolution (House Resolution 95) is little more than a restatement of the last amendment to the Bill of Rights, reminding state legislatures that the federal government must no longer be allowed to commandeer our rightful authority.

As difficult as it is to believe someone could oppose a resolution as plain as reaffirming a basic tenet of our Constitution, sadly, opposition is too often the case in our state legislatures. This issue, however, is gaining traction among American citizens who are unwilling to sit back while Washington blatantly ignores their voices.

Supporting the 10th Amendment Resolution is a grassroots effort if ever there was one. I encourage you to spread the word and contact your family, friends and relatives, in and out of Pennsylvania, and encourage them to speak up. This issue will not go away—and it gives a voice to those who have grown frustrated and disillusioned with our federal government.

The 10th Amendment Resolution simply yet powerfully affirms our belief in the constitutional structure of our government. Join me today in that affirmation.

Rep. Rohrer will be holding the “10th Amendment Rally for the State of Independence” on Monday, March 16 at noon in the Rotunda of the State Capitol. Please make plans to join him there. Visit http://www.samrohrer.com for more information.

Samuel E. Rohrer is a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (R-Berks). To contact him, visit his website at http://www.samrohrer.com.

[Betsy Ross]

This is all well and good, except that this state sovereignty is unnecessary, and another one of those "shut up" moves by the state legislatures rather than doing what they need to do in order to curtail the federal government and act as "representatives" of the people rather than "agents" of the feds. In Article IV, Section 4 it already asserts the "sovereignty" of the states by "guaranteeing to each state a Republican form of government," and the Tenth Amendment already reinforces that any and all powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people.

This is redundancy, and will serve no purpose unless and until the states actually start suing the federal government for "lack of performance" when they don't provide the revenue or resources for the enumerated powers, or start filing "injunctions" when they overstep their powers and start forcing the state's and people to cowtow to their unconstitutional edicts.

This is nothing more than a move in "word" that will not be enforced by "deed," unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the "negligence" in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties.

Nothing more than more bureaucracy and looking like they are doing something, when actually doing nothing at all.

[Rex]

I agree that it's just official rhetoric and nothing more without action. At this point, however, states are timid to even give lip service to their own rights to self-government. Arkansas and New Hampshire have already killed their resolusions to enforce their own 10th Amendment rights. So, at this point it's a bit like a support group where states are looking at one another and saying, in effect, "you too?" A first baby step is to get a majority of states to have the courage to declare sovereignty, and to have that reported by the major media. Hopefully that will encourage other legislatures and governors to join the movement. My own state representative wrote me that he agrees with sovereignty, and would support it if it were introduced, but didn't mention taking the initiative to be the one to author and sponsor it.

The very least these resolutions can accomplish is to get the public debate started on who has the real power of government anyway: the SOTUS? POTUS? SCOTUS?, or the people? And, it'll get that initial discussion of secession out of the way, which is what most pepole hear when they first encounter the idea of sovereignty and states' rights. Unfortunately, both words "state sovereignty" and "states' rights" have negative connotations from history. "States' rights" was the battle cry of the Confederate states in the 1850s leading up to the Civil War, and "state sovereignty" was the mantra of the southern states trying to defend against Brown v. Education in the 50's. This is neither of those things, and we need to cast off those negative images. Having the debate is the only way to start that process.