A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brainless's picture
Brainless
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 150
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

I found these two document on my nightly crawl through the internet. I am not a US citizen so i don;t know all your laws and only some of your constitution. But if states aare doing this then it not bodes well for the future of the US.

New Hampshire: 

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

And another one in Montana:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/BillPdf/HB0246.pdf

 

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Arizona as well: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

propamanda's picture
propamanda
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 61
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

California seems to have approved a similar (but much less focused / detailed) bill in 1994:

 http://www.uhuh.com/laws/cal10res.htm

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Why does it not bode well for the future of the United States that the states wish to protect their liberties through the same decentralization of power which was originally intended by the constitution?  The United States was never intended to have a national government.  It was, rather, a federation of soveraign states (hence "federal" government). Power was to be kept close to the people.

That the current federal government wishes to function as a national government is not necessarily bad in itself, but it is very dangerous because the necessary democratic protections do not exist for the federal government to function in this way.  It is attempting to do something that it was not intended to do.  For example, the single person in the entire executive branch who is elected is the president.  This is unheard of at the state level, but since the federal government was intended to deal only with states, such democratic protection was not felt necessary, along with many other things.  However since the federal government has expanded its ambit, this has resulted in a large and invincible bureaucracy which is unresponsive to the people.  Using a tool for a purpose other than that for which it was designed is always a poor idea, especially when that tool has the capability to destroy those who use it.

As for the resolution, at least in N.H., it has only been introduced.  It hasn't even made it through committee, much less been voted on.

GDon's picture
GDon
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Posts: 86
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

FYI - Arizona and Missouri also just entered the same (or similar) Bills.

Maybe SCOTUS will need to earn their salary before they roll-over on this.

GDon's picture
GDon
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 2 2008
Posts: 86
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

...and Washington State.

Difficult to have much faith the movement has real traction however.

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

The fact that these bills are on the table says enough. It says that people are losing faith in the Federal government and New Hampshire's in particular shows that people feel the Federal Government is threatening to overstep its bounds. Whether or not they get passed doesn't matter too much because they are just statements. But these are laying the foundation for future trends. I don't think the states' rights issue is going to disappear anytime soon.

watsondog's picture
watsondog
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 20
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Excellent posts people. It's like a ray of sunshine to see the States reassert themselves of their rights - Saying Hey Fed Buddy - not so fast with those ID chips... and our tax money.

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

This is critical. If the economy degrades to a declaration of martial law, it will have to be up to the states to tell the federal leviathon where to go.

Remember, the states, are STATES, not federal districts. I've been waiting, hoping, and praying for this to happen. I want a showdown. Just let's see another 6-10 states tell the federal government to go stick it where the sun don't shine and see what happens. The Sewer on The Potomac has become too corrupt, too brazen, and too authoritarian. It's time again to truly have that right to vote with one's feet. 

This is indeed good news. Now all of us can do our parts by writing our state representatives and senators asking them to draft a resolution re-asserting the rights of the state that you live in. 

Talk is cheap folks. Get writting! 

Susan's picture
Susan
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 22 2008
Posts: 14
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

and Oklahoma

 http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/oklahoma-declares-sovereignty/

ToucanSanctuary's picture
ToucanSanctuary
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2008
Posts: 7
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Could someone post the links for the WA and MO resolutions?  I can't find them through google.

 

TS

prhfs5's picture
prhfs5
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 6
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

This is for ToucanSanctuary....  Washington State and Missouri.   Gotta work on getting Florida on board too!

mpelchat's picture
mpelchat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 10 2008
Posts: 214
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Michigan is in too!!!

House Concurrent Resolution No. 4

www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sjgu5xbql1n5xf45imuuysrm))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/htm/2009-HJ-01-22-002.htm

"House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

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 mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s 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. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation."

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

Just a follow-up on this topic:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=88218

NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

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.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

I'm trying to learn as fast as possible, but I'm unclear about the further proceedings and hope that someone can explain it to me and others.

Wikipedia explains a Concurrent Resolution in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_resolution, but I'm not whether this applies to a House Concurrent Resolution as well.

Also, what is following a House Concurrent Resolution? Who votes for it and when and what is the outcome if it's passed, e.g. what is needed to put such a resolution into effect?

Thanks,

Michael

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

People realize that their voice is ignored and interests are no longer served by the powers in Washington.  In fact, Washington is our biggest enemy - instead of sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, we should be cleaning out the snake pit along the Potomac. 

I am supportive of States standing for their rights and think that this may offer a chance to rehabilitate our nation.  If not, then States rights might be a peaceful compromise.  If Washington and Wall street want to continue down the road to economical destruction, then they should be allowed, or asked to to leave the union to pursue their insanity without bringing the country down.

Razorback21's picture
Razorback21
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2009
Posts: 1
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Don't you think the final straw for a lot of folks was the TARP failing in the House after the calls kept pouring in from the constitutency going 7 or 8 to 1 against, only to be passed in the Senate?  I think people want change, but not a bigger Federal Government and the powers-that-be don't get it.  I applaud those states that have done it so far, good job!!!!!

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

It is indeed surprising to see how apparently blind the Imperial Government is to states' rights and needs. But I have given up the notion that all in Washington are "too dumb" to understand what's going on. At least some of the people there have lined up 10 contingency plans that are re-evaluated daily. Man would I be interested to take a peek at the thought processes going on behind the scenes. At best, they must be walking some sort of calculated tightrope and betting that states won't get too angry before we "return to growth." But at worst, I could imagine a number of pretty dire situations (hint, think about FEMA, Halliburton, and KBR).

What I still fail to grasp is why at least the Congress hasn't truly caught on to this trend and responded, even if the executive has not. One would think that the Congress would not be quite as cohesively corruptible as the executive... It is true that the responsibilities of the Federal House and Senate are different from those of state Congresses, but one would think that a Federal Representative would have a strong sense of awareness of what's going on back at home. Wishful thinking, perhaps...

Thanks to all for updating this thread. This is definitely one that we should be keeping maintained.

 

Mike

P.S. - Rowe Rocked!

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

As there's still no press coverage in Germany (and I doubt there's too much in other countries, if any), I contacted the following TV stations and news magazines for a statement whether they are not aware of it at all or are not allowed to write/talk about it:

  1. ARD/Das Erste (first TV station in Germany ever, public)
  2. ZDF/Das Zweite (second TV station in Germany ever, public)
  3. RTL (private)
  4. SAT.1 (private)
  5. n-tv (private)
  6. Spiegel (one of the two biggest news magazines)
  7. Focus (the second big news magazine)

I'm going to post updates here whenever I get a response.

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

As there's still no press coverage in Germany (and I doubt there's too much in other countries, if any), I contacted the following TV stations and news magazines for a statement whether they are not aware of it at all or are not allowed to write/talk about it:

I received emails from ARD and RTL, giving me links to the editorial offices of their respective magazines and news broadcasts. All other stations and political magazines didn't even reply. I emailed all of the offices from ARD and RTL (a lot) and got a single reply saying, that they receive hundreds of ideas every day and they will come back to me shortly, which never happened.

So much for the free press. But hey, Germany is still occupied territory, so what should I expect? We don't have a constitution and we are not a sovereign state. We are still "managed" by the allies for the 64th year now.

Meanwhile 21 states have signed resolutions or are preparing them. See http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/ for a complete list.

I'm concentrating my activity now to change things in my own country, though I doubt that I have a fair chance. Hope that you do better.

Sincerly yours,

Michael

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...
Quote:

I found these two document on my nightly crawl through the internet. I
am not a US citizen so i don;t know all your laws and only some of your
constitution. But if states aare doing this then it not bodes well for
the future of the US.

On the contrary, I believe this bodes very well for the people of the United States.  The federal government is insolvent fiscally and morally in every way, shape and form applicable. 

State governments may not be too far behind, but at least they are orders of magnitude closer to the people.  This makes them more responsve to the the people, and also allows us to practive 50 different models at the same time - a breeding ground if you will, for competition and innovation.  If you don't like it in your state, you can move.  If you don't like what the federal government does, you have to leave the whole country.

As JRF29 clearly explained, the federal government was never meant to exert the control or hold the purse strings it currently does. Heck, if NH or one of these other states succeeds, I just might move back!

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...
Patrick Brown wrote:

This makes them more responsve to the the people, and also allows us to practive 50 different models at the same time - a breeding ground if you will, for competition and innovation.  If you don't like it in your state, you can move.  If you don't like what the federal government does, you have to leave the whole country. 

This is exactly the way the Founders intended it, and it is a far more practical model as we transition to a world of scarcity. I don't worship the original model of the US blindly. What you have mentioned here, and the model of government that is laid out in the strictly interpreted Constitution would result in greater liberty and prosperity when compared to the disaster we have now.

In my opinion, if our country is to continue with only minor injuries, our Federal Government will have to cut spending and downsize, giving the power back to the states as it was originally intended. If this does not happen, I fear that conflict and civil unrest will be the unfortunate result in an ensuing power struggle. I greatly cherish the principles that our nation was founded upon and I hope that we can return to them. So, like you, far from being upset by these developments, I am overjoyed and I hope that states will continue to assert and defend their Constitutional rights.

Mike

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

See some of the latest states' rights action from Pennsylvania:

 

P.S. Can anyone tell me how to get a video embedded directly in the space here?

Thanks 

Brandon's picture
Brandon
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 145
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...
Mike Pilat wrote:

See some of the latest states' rights action from Pennsylvania:

 

P.S. Can anyone tell me how to get a video embedded directly in the space here?

Thanks 

 

Hi Mike.

The format is:

[ video:URL ]

The brackets are necessary, and in your case, you'd replace "URL" with "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbrXnYJOo&eurl"

Also, I had to put spaces after the first bracket and before the last bracket in order to display the code...you would not have these.  If you forget, there are four bullet points below the area where you type your response at the bottom of this page.  The last bullet point shows the format.

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Wanted to reactivate this thread. I'm looking at http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/ quite frequently, as it is updated whenever something new happens. According to this, there are now 31 states that already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty.

There is absolutely no press coverage in Germany. Has anyone of you heard about it - besides some Internet sites?

I still feel that it is very important and I'm updating my own blog whenever new states join, but it seems that only a few people know about these resolutions. As someone from outside the U.S. I'm not too familiar with U.S. law, but I read much of your constitution and you should be proud of what the founding fathers did. Compared to that, the German "constitution" (still a basic law) is painful and you should do anything to preserve it and to use it to your favor while possible.

In my opinion the United States of America has reached a crossroads. Either freedom and liberty or dictatorship. And whatever it will be will be brought to us people outside of the U.S. as well. I'm sure that the readers of this site are all in for freedom and liberty, but it now seems more crucial than ever to tell anyone about this. These resolutions can be read on the state's web sites, so it's not a conspiracy theory, there's no doubt and nothing else that could stop you from telling your friends, colleagues and anyone else you know. It's as easy as saying "Have you heard about the fact that 31 states are so sick about the federal government that ...". It's a good talk for lunch and it should interest anyone. I think that this could be a good starting point to lead people into the other topics that we want them to really pay attention to.

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

/

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

I don't know if anyone has heard of Adam Kokesh, but his blog has video coverage of Liberty rallies in New Hampshire that were taking place to support the New Hampshire sovereignty resolution. Here's his page, scroll down a little to check out the relevant videos. Very encouraging!

http://kokesh.blogspot.com/

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

I hope I'm not drifting too far off topic here when I mention that there is now a group organized called the "Constitutional Congress 2009." See the site here: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

Methinks the Liberty movement isn't dying anytime soon...

 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

States rebel against Washington


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p02s01-usgn.html

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

These two threads deserve a link to this one :-

When Is It Going To Be Enough, America?

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/26562#comment-26562

Thomas Paine.....Already Posted?

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/thomas-painealready-posted/15333

Best,

Paul

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on ...

Now Texas(though to be fair, Texas probably does this as an annual ritual)

 

 

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

HCR 50 Reiterates Texas’ Rights Over Powers Not Otherwise Granted to Federal Government
April 09, 2009
addthis_pub = 'baylis';

  Email this pageEmail    Print this pagePrint

Video Player

var so = new SWFObject('http://governor.state.tx.us/scripts/mediaplayer.swf','mpl','300','188','8');
so.addParam('allowscriptaccess','always');
so.addParam('allowfullscreen','true');
so.addVariable('height','188');
so.addVariable('width','300');
so.addVariable('file','rtmp://governor.state.tx.us/vod/');
so.addVariable('image','/multimedia/photos/2009-04-09-res50-standby.jpg');
so.addVariable('id','2009-04-09-10thAmendment');
so.addVariable('captions','http://governor.state.tx.us/video/timedtext/12232/');
so.write('player');

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton
and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of
states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I
believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size,
its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with
the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here
today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our
country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and
spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will
free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our
Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the
scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers
and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that
Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not
otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also
designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states
to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires
states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or
repealed. 

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

To view the full text of the resolution, please visit:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm.

 

Michael Höhne's picture
Michael Höhne
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 16 2008
Posts: 119
Texas Sovereignty Resolution Passes Committee

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/23/texas-sovereignty-resolution-passes-committee/

House Concurrent Resolution 50, introduced by Texas State Representative Brandon Creighton passed out of committee today.  The vote was 10-2 with 3 not voting.

The resolution passed without amendment and is awaiting further action.

Much more information can be found on http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments