States Asserting Their Sovereignty
February 4th, 2009 by Admin
With our Democratic Congress and President slowly eating away at our Constitutional rights and "changing" the way our government intrudes into our lives and business, some states are fighting back. Bills are currently working their way through Congress that impose weapon and ammunition standards on states, forbid states from selling their own land, force states to comply with energy and emissions standards, and even a push to give state voting rights to D.C. residents – a change that would require a Constitutional amendment and possibly other challenges.
New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Missouri and Washington are just some of those states doing just that. Other states are sure to follow suit with their assertion of 10th Amendment rights, which state:
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.
New Hampshire's House Concurrent Resolution 6 states that "any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."
Acts that would cause the state to invoke this extreme measure include:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition
This is notable and important because all too often we wonder what can be done about a federal government out of control. Not only would a state legally be able to declare its sovereignty, but also vote to rescind it's Representatives and Senators from D.C.
Arizona's HCR 2024 is also providing notice to the federal government to back off noting that "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." This is something I've been harping on for a few years now, both here and on the radio. Because of these violations, Arizona declares the following:
1. That the State of Arizona 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.
2. That this Resolution serves 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.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that 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.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution 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 President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.
Missouri is particularly perturbed by President Obama's vaunted "Freedom of Choice Act" that he's trying to push through Congress. This act "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health." This is an obvious infraction upon state's rights and led to Missouri's assertion of sovereignty.
Missouri House Resolution 212 states:
Whereas, Barack Obama, President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new Administration is to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote – rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official, or any person acting under governmental authority, that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right…in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information"; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future…
Because of this and other efforts by our newly appointed Socialist-minded government, "the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our 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."
Washington State makes it clear in their resolution that states "are not subordinate to" the federal government, quoting Constitutionalists as Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton. Tired of being considered "agents of the federal government", House Joint Memorial 4009 also declared Washington State's sovereignty.
That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
Retired Army Colonel – and American Patriot – Harry Riley tells us we can't just stop there. "The next step is up to us," he says. "[we have] to demand my State, your State to take the same action…….will you do it? Contact your State Representative and demand a similar resolution to NH, MO, WA, and AZ be introduced in your legislature….do it today."
Phone calls are going out to my Texas and Alabama representatives the moment I hit "publish" on this post. It's time we stand up to the encroachment of our rights by the federal government against the states by Repugnicans and Dumbocrats alike!
Posted in Military Perspective
All such state laws, if enacted, would be illegal and of no affect.
BTW, I think it hilarious that you criticize Obama for trampling civil rights, quite an accomplishment given he has been in office for only two weeks, yet fail to mention the disaster that GWB wrought on the Constitution and civil rights during his tenure as king.
Critical Facts… You say these laws would be illegal… but what is the basis of all our laws? The Constitution.
When Obama, or any other leader, expands the federal government beyond its Constitutional limits, is the federal government and President who is acting illegally.
And, btw, if you notice, the post is critical of more than just Obama. It is critical of both parties and past actions as well as those promised by Obama. These laws simply seek to restore a Constitutional balance.
You might find reading the Constitution eye-opening. You should try it.
Critical Lack o' Facts, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how this would be illegal please.
Isn't this ironic? Every time we invoked Clinton, we got the "that was the past" response. Look where we are now, eh? What about Bush? But, Bush did worse! Bush, Bush Bush! My, how the tables have turned on party of hypocrisy (well, the greater of two evil parties anyway).
Federal preemption.
Federal preemption only applies when federal law conflicts with state law. The Constitution, the "supreme law of the land" specifically dictates the authorities and powers of the federal government. In most cases of "federal preemption" the problem was states enacting laws that violated the Constitution or federal law that was already on the books.
The problem remains that the Federal Government is trying to pass laws they have no power to enact! For that reason, the states have every right to assert their sovereignty.
It's an interesting premise that I can't see the federal government winning in the end.
cj:
I have not given it a lot of thought but, with the exception of voting rights to DC residents, strong arguments can be made (for the remaining examples provided in para 1 of the top post) that any such legislation implicates US commerce and, therefore, Congress could properly legislate those issues – e.g., guns and ammunition – under authority of the Commerce Clause.
Except that the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is itself unconstitutional.
Say, let's really get it straight, the states are passing a re-affirmation of their rights according to the constitution that – if the Federal Government were to VIOLATE the constitution, they (the states) would follow the constitution by asserting their rights granted in that document.
Wow. Thank you so much for sharing this information! I am so glad to see the fight for our nation continuing!
Thanks for the info! I am a Washington State resident and was not aware of this legislation. I am happy to say that one of my district representatives was a co-sponsor. I have already emailed him my thanks and asked what individuals can do to become involved in the issue. I will never wear a military uniform, but I stand proud next to all who do and fight for our beloved nation in my own way.
Btw, love the blog! Keep up the great work and God Bless!
The source for all law is nature/god/creator (whatever you want to call it). Man created the laws that seem to be in question here. We the people consent to being governed and as such the laws are allowed by the people's consent. Absent the people's consent, anarchy would be the next form of government, but anarchy isn't bad. Imagine a four-way intersection without stop signs. That describes anarchy. No established rules, but movement would necessitate some sort of order to be understood – Anarchy is any interaction you have that isn't defined by rules. When you meet someone for the first time – Anarchy. And I'm sure you do just fine.
Anyway, I am VERY happy to see states asserting their rights and protecting the people. If this goes well, we can get hold of our government again and reign them back into the limitations of the very law (document) which created them in the first place. The very same law (document) that every servicemember and elected politician has sworn an oath to preserve and/or protect, the Constitution of the United States of America.
I fear if this doesn't move forward we will see a violent result, which will include the enactment of an unlawful police state and the deaths of many wonderful Americans.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
~Thomas Jefferson
Hear, hear!
Anarchy's looking better and better, more and more rational. Federal government looking more and more rapacious and far more threatening. Give us Liberty.
This isn't sounding so good and I'm agreeing with CJ in that in doesn't make a difference who's in charge. So you are affirming that a state can take away a mandate that the federal government issues if it interferes with an existing state provision? If a state votes to legalize gay marriage, can this supercede a federal mandate explitely saying otherwise?
NY-David
It is states' rights issue. All rights NOT specified in Constution belong inherently to the people. "The People" live and vote in the states
CJ–Thanks for posting. Great work!
For those who are asking questions/not understanding this thread. Do us all a favor and sit down and read the constitution, the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments real quick…it will really enlighten you.
Scary thing is that the Dem. controlled legislature is really going after things big time. A bill was recently introduced to require registration of all firearms within two years. The bill would also ALLOW police to search WITHOUT A WARRANT for illegal weapons…..now tell me that isn't BS.
By the way. A constitutional amendment would require a convention. That could be a dangerous thing…once the convention kicks off, any topic that someone wants to raise can be brought up. The gathering is not solely limited to the matter for which it was convened.
The last constitutional convention in Illinois removed the right of recall and the right of petition. Almost impossible to redress grievances – voters are bound and gagged.
Now the Illiois powers-that-be (who just moved to Washington D.C.)want another con-con.
Wonder what rights they're after this time? Oh, I know, it's private property.
as i said a while back God HELP and Bless the USA.
You bet.
There is a stirring in the deep water, and it is not pretty. Remember Sri Lanka?
We live in such potentially turbulent times. A Tsunami is beginning to look trivial.
Bring it on.
I love this,,finally people are waking up
to the corruption of big time government!
Yes G.W wasn't the greatest, but Barack and
his fellow libs have already had as much
corruption in his mere 3 weeks as Bush did in
8 years ! Why do you think they're pushing
through this stimulus without anybody getting
a chance to read it first ! Not to mention
that half of Obama's 'associates' are all
America haters and terrorists!
stimulus is 1400 pages and no one really knows all of the content. They haven't had enough time to read all of it. WOW are we in trouble. And people are backing out of jobs after 3 weeks,,,, what does that say.
I,of, by and for the people have the previlege and honor of being backed by the original constitution. I am a citizen of it. It gives me rights and responsibilities. I shall honor it. I shall obey constitutional law.
I, not of, by or for the special socialist interests am not subject to their unconstitutional laws or unlegislated executive orders (dictatorial law). It is my duty to not observe their laws.
To observe the socialist demon-crat's laws would to be a traitor and trample on and dishonor the spilled blood of our founding fathers.
I obey only the laws of representatives following the dictates of the constitution. That is the true meaning of democracy.
To bankrupt you, take your arms and ensure continued democrat control of government means you and your progeny will forever be economic slaves of their 'rule by the few' socialist one world order.
Please forgive my verbosity. To get a good insight to what is really going on, check out the numerous excellent articles by canadafreepress.com. Thank you.
If the States decide to take this to the next level and prohibit such unconstitutional federal activity with in their bounty will the U.S. army follow orders to wage war upon the State, it's people, and it's national guard?
We been here before with South Carlina's Nullification crises(1832), and that's what the federal government was preparing to do before congress effectively back down.
Will American Federal solders take up arms against their own people, their States, there bothers to enforce Federal Unconstitutional tyranny?
Will we the people have to fight the U.S. Army to preserve our rights?
I can tell you for one that I will never raise my rifle against any American for standing up against the federal government on behalf of the Constitution. My oath is to the protection of that document, not the federal government.
I read awhile back, can't remember where, but the states would have authority to recall their soldier's back from Iraq, etc. to protect his/her territory.
God Bless America.
The U.S. is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Both parties have been chipping away at the constitution for a long time. Who cares whether they are republicrats or democrans? The evil bankers rule the whole thing anyway. They are the original "green" party. You want to gain control of our country again? Abolish the Federal Reserve. See evilbanker.com it's a great website.