A reminder to the feds, that the United States is made up of individual States; it’s not a federal authority broken up into political subdivisions.
$11 trillion ‘micromanaging’ price sparks explosion in sovereignty movement
A movement to reclaim for states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution is exploding across the nation, with 35 states already acting or at least considering such proposals – and one state lawmaker estimating the nation as a whole could save $11 trillion in coming years if it would succeed.WND reported not long ago when the number of states with lawmakers considering such sovereignty efforts reached 20.Now, according to the Tenth Amendment Center,such provisions have been launched in at least 35 states. They all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “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.”
As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington’s interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension. Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation. But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.
States may make whatever laws they wish (consistent with their State Constitutions) except as prohibited by the US Constitution.
Only Laws made by Congress, which are pursuant to the Constitution, qualify as part of the General Government Law of the Land.
2+ Million State Citizens March On General Government!
The Sovereign State of Arizona recently made a law which provides for the cooperative enforcement – with the federal government – of federal immigration laws throughout Arizona. The People of Arizona are suffering terribly from massive Invasions of their Southern Border; and because the federal government refuses to repel the Invasions, the People of Arizona are forced to defend themselves.
NEW YORK – While the Obama administion has pushed through $Trillions Of Spreading The Banker’s Debt around, which 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.
Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by trying to nationalize the National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against rogue U.S. Federal forces should the need arise.
There can be no better evidence than the 2010 Census. The states that lost House seats — because they’re shrinking, relative to the nation — had taxes 27 percent higher than the ones that gained seats.
Of the seven states that don’t have a personal income tax, four (Texas, Florida, Nevada and Washington) account for eight of the 12 seats apportioned to the fastest-growing states.
New York and Ohio lost two more seats. Other losers — down one each — are Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana and Iowa. What do they all have in common? High taxes. Texas, with the second lowest taxes in the nation, gained four seats, Florida picked up two and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington state each gained one. All have low taxes. The states that lost seats ranked an average of 24th in taxes and had an average tax burden of $2,267 per capita (weighted more toward the states that lost more than one seat). The states that gained seats ranked an average of 39th in taxes and had an average tax burden (weighted) of $1,788 — 27 percent lower than the losing states.
People vote with their feet and flee to low-tax states. It’s not the climate; it’s the taxes.
In New York, the city grew from 7.3 million in 1990 to 8 million in 2000 to 8.4 million in 2010 — but population upstate shrank dramatically. Some 1.7 million people left New York state in the last decade, the largest exodus any state experienced. Upstate New York is dying, killed by high taxes.
The New York City metro area can grow despite high taxes. It’s the historical center for immigration from overseas, a glittering attraction for migration from within the country and the foremost global city. But upstate has no such offsetting attractions.
Consider Buffalo. From half a million people in 1960, it has fallen to a quarter of a million. It’s lost half its population in 50 years.
The trend is unmistakable: The “losing” states drove out their high-income citizens (and middle-income jobs) with heavier tax burdens. As New York and other high-tax states confront their budget difficulties, they need to be mindful of this trend — lest they wind up taxing their states into oblivion.
LESSON SHOULD BE LEARNED FROM THE FAILURE OF NEW YORK
Rangel, facing ethics charges in Congress, has proposed the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18-42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the nationaldefense and homeland security.”
REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D., N.Y.): He is being “investigated by the House Ethics Committee in at least four areas, including his reported failure to properly report income taxes on a Caribbean villa in the Dominican Republic; use of four, rent-controlled apartments in Harlem; questions about an offshore firm asking Rangel for special tax exemptions; and whether Rangel improperly used House stationery to solicit donations for a school of public affairs named after him at City College of New York,” Fox News summarizes.
The plan also authorizes “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”
“May Obama be d—–,” he wrote. “It reinstitutes the draft, and is for both males and females … There is no ‘opt-out’ – if you are not ‘fit’ for actual military service, or are a ‘conscientious objector,’ then you are shunted into ‘civilian service’ which is pretty much anything the ‘president’ says it is.”
WND reported when a copy of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama’s specific references to the new force.
According to the copy of Rangel’s plan, which has been assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel even though it lacks cosponsors, it specifies that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes nationaldefense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”
“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specifies.
It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.
The exceptions provide that the term of service may be extended if the “member” needs to “compensate for any time lost to training for any cause” or “for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in the line of duty.”
It gives the president the far-reaching authority to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title,” including what types of “civilian service” are required, “standards of satisfactory performance,” “penalties for failure” and “such other matters as the president determines necessary to carry out this title.”
Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civiliain service … as the president may prescribe.”
The group Operation Sit In said it is coordinating information to link up those who “have the time to go to D.C. at the drop of a hat to keep the Senate from passing the Universal National Service Act … with those who would like to go to stop it, but cannot afford to lose their jobs by taking off with no notice.”
National Director Larry Richardson said, “Most of those who have the time and freedom of time to go are out of work because of the current economy, and therefore are short on funds to go. So we match those who still have jobs with those who do not, and with everyone doing a little, no one has to do it all.
“We also are arranging for people who live fairly close to D.C., (within 50 or so miles), to let us park our cars on their property, at home or business, so we do not have to worry about them being towed while we are in D.C.,” he said.
“We need every PATRIOT to step up and help in this,” he said.
A spokesman for Rangel’s office, Emile Milne, told WND that nobody knows what such a plan would cost, but presumably those in full-time service to their country as civilians would have to be paid, how many people would be conscripted or other details.
“It would have to move through committee,” he said. “These questions … certainly would be addressed by the relevant committee.”
He said the discussion in Rangel’s office is that those in the civilian corps would work in “education, health care, they could work in our ports, various aspects of security.”
He also said the idea has been a long-term goal for Rangel.
WND reported earlier when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars.
Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people.
That bill includes a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.”
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
President George Washington Structured The Militia System To Prevent Treason And Tyranny By Public Officials!
George Washington takes the oath of office at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan, April 30, 1789.
On September 17, 1787 George Washington was the first to sign and accept the Constitution even though it had no Bill of Rights. It was Patrick Henry with his great speeches and lectures who in 1788 forced an agreement which promised that continued ratifica- tions of the document depended upon a Bill of Rights to be forthcoming. In 1789 Washing- ton took office and was faced with the arduous task of pioneering the first presidency including the structuring of the militia system. By January 1790 the influence Patrick Henry had over him became quite apparent. When Washington chaired the 1787 Constitutional Convention, provi- sions had been made for the defense of the country against invasion and for stifling rebel- lions, but there was an insuf- ficiency of safeguards to be applied against tyranny brought on by public officials.
By 1790 Washington began work on his “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia.” By now he was more able to see the weaknesses in the Constitution. He openly discussed the threat of tyranny emanating from within the government. By then, Patrick Henry’s wisdom was spread throughout the 13 original states, and it was inculcated as the basis for the policies and functions of the militia. Henry perpetuated the people’s liberty. He sustained the ultimate authority of the people. Washington well under- stood the need to safeguard the nation from its foreign enemies. In his “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia” he
Preface
undertook to warn about the dangers of domestic enemies: tyranny in government.
Washington himself took the farmers out for practice, and he utilized the knowledge and experiences of his generals and other valuable officers in the War for Independence by having them instruct and train the citizens (the whole people) in the techniques of soldiering, and the maintenance of an ‘energetic national militia’.
His “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia” was communicated to the Senate, on the 21st of January 1790. This lengthy Plan was permeated with the proposition that it is the direct duty and responsibility of the people themselves to guard against tyranny from within government.
Washington declared that the purpose of the militia was “to oppose the introduction of tyranny.” He had come a long way from the days when he accepted the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.
To view Washington’s statement in the context in which it was delivered, please look over the following excerpt taken from Pages 7-8 of an old document published by Gales and Seaton in 1832 entitled “American State Papers – Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, from the First Session of the First to the Second Session of the Fifteenth Congress, inclusive: commencing March 3, 1789, and ending March 3, 1819”.
This excerpt is a part of Wash- ington’s lengthy Plan No. 2 of 1790. While he also made re- ference to the prevention of invasion and rebellion, Washing- ton said that “the well informed members of the community (the people) were meant to be the real defence of the country”; and “the virtues and knowledge of the people would effectually oppose the introduction of tyranny.”
He warned that “the government would be invaded or overturned, and trampled upon by the bold and ambitious” — meaning people in our own country who operated without adherence to vital principles. The absoluteness of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a basic principle. Unless the right to arms is absolute, the people cannot remain the ultimate power. The Bill of Rights confirmed that we possess many other rights beside the absolute right to arms. All of the other rights for the preservation of their own existence, depend entirely upon the absoluteness, the force, and the reasoning that have shaped the Second Amend- ment. Washington agreed with Patrick Henry on the purpose of the militia: It was to “oppose the introduction of tyranny.” Make no mistake about it: The prime reason for the Second Amend- ment is prevention of tyranny in government.
Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today its the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King Georges actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance — perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that weve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants — has made us easy prey for Washingtons tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans characteristic spirit of rebellion.
Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
You might ask, “Isn’t the 10th Amendment that no-good states’ rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?” That’s the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they’re liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which 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.”
New Hampshire’s 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: “That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.
Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn’t obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.
In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled “State Sovereignty Act.” Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that’s a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the “Federal Tax Fund” and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.
The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.via States Rebellion Pending – HUMAN EVENTS .
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”AGJ
AMERICAN FEDERAL FORCES STRETCHED TO BREAKING POINT – RUSSIAN TROOPS HEADING HERE TO HELP BRITISH OPERATIVE OBAMA TO SUCCEED IN QUELLING STATE UPRISINGS. RUSSIA ATTACK ON SOUTH OSSETIA/GEORGIA WAS PRACTICE DRILL FOR TEXAS OR ANY OTHER STATES IF THEY ATTEMPT TO SUSCEED. ALASKA IS IN GRAVE DANGER FROM THIS BANKING CARTEL PLAN FOR NWO.
Despite tensions over the deployment of Patriot missiles, Russia and NATO are cooperating with increasing closeness, especially in military training.
This comes as part of collaboration on military training exercises within the framework of Russian-NATO relations, which includes cooperation on broader issues like fighting terrorism and drug trafficking.
Launched in 2004, the joint exercises will resume for the first time since the conflict in South Ossetia two years ago that severely strained relationships between Russia and NATO.
The positive trend was also reinforced by the presence of NATO troops from the US, Britain and France taking part in the Victory Day Parade on May 9 in Russia this year.
Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:
* Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
* Gun rights prevail
* The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
* Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
* The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
* The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
* Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
* Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
* The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
* Full Opinion is here.
* It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
* The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.
The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies to state and local governments as well. The case, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, involved a challenge to the City of Chicago’s gun control law, regarded as among the strictest in the nation. The justices did not strike down the Chicago law directly, but remanded the case to a lower court for review, where it appeared likely to be struck down under today’s decision.
The ramifications of the opinion will play out in the gun rights vs. gun control debate going forward. This case (McDonald v. Chicago) was filed the day after the Heller decision was announced back in 2008. It will be interesting to see what new cases get filed given the results of this case. The gun rights lawyers are taking a step by step approach in their fight for the right to keep and bear arms.
This is pretty much what was expected. It appears Justice Thomas is the only one with the guts to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause which would have had far-reaching implications for law outside of the gun rights world. More later as the analysis begins.
Last year, GM CEO Rick Wagoner “voluntarily” stepped aside when Washington took over his company. BP is “voluntarily” setting up a $20 billion escrow account. And now, states are being pushed to “voluntarily” adopt national education standards and tests.
It all began when the Obama administration used its $4.35 billion Race to the Top competitive grant fund as an incentive for states to adopt standards under development by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (one of the “education blob” groups that protects the status quo against parent-empowering reforms). Initially, the competition was enough of an incentive to get 48 states – all but Alaska and Texas – to go along with the idea of national standards. Alaska and Texas chose not to apply for Race to the Top funding because of the provision requiring adoption of national standards. Texas Gov. Rick Perry stated that the Obama administration’s requirement that states adopt national standards “is an effort to undermine states’ authorityto determine how their students are educated, and is clearly aimed at circumventing laws prohibiting national standards.”
Now other states are expressing concerns as well. Two more states – Minnesota and Virginia – have decided not to take part. Both Minnesota and Virginia argue that their state standards are stronger than the proposed national standards supported with federal dollars.
But if the Obama administration has its way, states might not have a choice in the matter. The U.S. Education Department recently released a “blueprint” for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. The blueprint language indicates the administration will try to tie $14.5 billion in money for low-income school districts to a state’s adoption of national standards.
While it was one thing for states such as Texas to eschew $4.35 billion in Race to the Top money, it will be nearly impossible for states to turn down their share of $14.5 billion in Title I funding. “Voluntary” once again rings hollow.
Proponents tout national standards and tests as a way to improve academic achievement. For half a century, the federal government’s role in education has continued to increase significantly with no positive impact on student learning. Yet, national standards proponents see this new federal role in standards and testing as the answer. But proponents are wrong to conclude national standards would improve American education. Here’s why:
Misconception #1: National standards are necessary so parents can understand how their children compare with other children across the country. The information parents need is already available. State tests let parents know how well their children have mastered the curriculum. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, currently administered to samples of students in each state, provides an external audit of state tests. If transparency about that data has been insufficient, it does not merit a national standards and testing regime. It calls for better transparency and accountability to parents.
Misconception #2: National standards would make American students more competitive with their international peers.While it’s true that many of the countries that outperform the United States on international tests have national standards, so do most of the countries that score lower than the United States. Even when it comes to state standards, the relationship between academic performance and the quality of those standards is inconsistent.
Misconception #3: National standards are necessary because state standards vary in quality. While it’s true that some state standards are better than others, the same pressures that drive down state standards would likely plague national standards. For that reason, national standards will tend to decline toward the average among states, undercutting states with higher standards, such as Massachusetts. Ultimately, the goal of uniformity would result in the standardization of mediocrity.
National standards would also further remove parents from their children’s education. Instead of being able to petition their local school boards or state leaders for changes in academic content, parents would have to lobby bureaucrats in Washington, DC, if they wish to see changes in what their child is learning.
This is perhaps the most worrisome part of the shift toward national standards. If imposed, parents and taxpayers will no longer be able to retain one of their most significant tools for education reform: the power to shape their schools’ academic content, standards, and testing.
Instead of moving toward a system of rigid national standards, which would represent an unprecedented federal overreach into education, states should empower parents with information about school performance and increase transparency about academic achievement. And ultimately, parents should be able to use that information to choose a school that meets their child’s needs. We know what works in education, and it begins and ends with parents–not the federal government.
A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United StatesPresident Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face “immediate” arrest for the crime of treason.
Lawmakers in Montana contend courts should decide whether Congress has overstepped its authority in a dispute over a state exemption from federal regulations for guns made and sold in the state.
“Should Congress enact a law that appears to conflict with the guidance in the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act], the courts may then determine whether Congress has acted within the scope of its delegated powers as limited by later amendments,” an amicus brief on behalf of Montana legislators, said. “The courts may then determine the extent to which Congress’s enactment has abrogated the state’s execise of power within the same sphere.”
It seeks a declaration that the federal government must stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms.
While Montana was the first state to adopt such legislation, six other states already have followed suit. South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Utah, Idaho and Arizona also now have Firearms Freedoms Acts on their books, and Alaska has plans awaiting the governor’s signature to become law.
Gary Marbut, chief of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said another two dozen states also are in various stages of considering such plans.
The brief, submitted by Bozeman, Mont., attorney Jennifer Bordy and Jeffrey Renz of the University of Montana School of Law on behalf of state legislators in Montana, said the law is a “truism.”
“It is the Montana legislature’s expression that the mere fact that a manufactured good is a firearm or a firearm accessory does not automatically subject it to federal regulation.”
“The law … is intended to allow Montana citizens to engage within their state in constitutionally protected activity without burdensome federal oversight and regulation for their solely intrastate activities,” the brief argues.
“It is questionable whether Congress’s authority under its conditional spending power or its power to regulate interstate commerce extends to MFFA firearms,” the argument continues.
It cited a 1939 Supreme Court ruling that states “are as independent of the general government as that government is of the states.”
“Where a power had not been granted exclusively to the national government or, where generally granted, had not been exercised … the states retain freedom to legislate,” it argues.
“Of course the power to tax is the power to destroy… and it is without question that should the U.S. Congress wish to tax firearms, whether they are in the stream of commerce or not, it is free to do so…. Nevertheless the power to tax for revenue … is different from the power to regulate by means of a duty, excise, or impost.”
“There is nothing in the MFFA that should offend the powers of the national government,” it said.
It also explains that, “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”
The federal supremacy clause, therefore, has no impact “because only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution constitute the supreme law of the land.”
“To the extent that Congress has usurped states Ninth and Tenth Amendment powers with the federal courts’ blessing, the issue should be revisited in a case just such as this – where a state legislature has passed a specific limited exercise of its reserved powers to protect and strengthen the rights of citizens,” it said.
Montana’s plan is called “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”
The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.
The federal government has threatened gun dealers with penalties if they fail to follow the federal regulations for intrastate gun deals. And it has demanded that the Montana lawsuit be dismissed, explaining it has the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
According to the Firearms Freedom Act website, such laws are “primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the ‘commerce clause,’ with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise.”
When South Dakota’s law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator said it addresses the “rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.”
Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.
“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he told WND earlier. “When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws.”
WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation. Officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”
The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.
Why is the Senate rushing to pass their mammoth health care takeover plan before Christmas and before anyone has had time to read it? Because they don’t want any of us to know what’s in it!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought off support for his 2,000+ page health care takeover bill, and apparently will pass the $2.5 trillion ObamaCare plan through the Senate with a vote planned for Christmas Eve.
Meanwhile, instead of shining the light of truth on this socialist experiment, the left-wing media are applying a full-court press to sell ObamaCare. They swoon over Reid and Obama, while ignoring or marginalizing those who oppose a government takeover of health care that will gut Medicare and bankrupt our country.
Why the rush? What happened to the promise of transparency? We have a right to know the dirty details hidden in this bill before the Senate votes.
These are questions the so-called “news” media should be asking as they aggressively turn over every rock and shine a penetrating light into every nook and crevice of this monstrosity of a health care plan …
But no, the headlines and news stories vilify the opposition for using “delay tactics” while heroic liberals “race against the clock” to pass this “historic” legislation.
Don’t buy the media spin and lies!
The time is NOW for citizens to collectively rise up and demand the media report the real truth about health care “reform” plans that will almost assuredly destroy our quality of care, provide federal funding of abortion, and take our economy to the very brink of destruction!
The Media Research Center is calling on ALL Action team members to take immediate action in two very important ways:
+ + Action Item 1: Alert Your Friends
Please forward this important message to 30-40 friends urging them to click here and add their names to our petition demanding the media report the truth about ObamaCare.
ObamaCare stands to affect every American, young or old. That is why it’s imperative that millions of Americans make themselves heard right now, and why we need your help in rallying and mobilizing tens of thousands more citizens!
Right now the MRC is finalizing a last-minute petition delivery to the major news outlets — calling them out and demanding they report the truth in this health care debacle!
A just-released Zogby poll measured the public’s outrage at the “railroading” of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s health care bill. An astounding 84 percent of Americans believe the bill was crafted to be so long so that earmarks and other nefarious details could be hidden and voted on before the public has a chance to see them. This whole process has been disgraceful!
+ + Action Item 2: Call Your Senators
Call your Montana Senators and demand they read this bill before they vote on it.
Again, the American taxpayers and our children are on the hook for ObamaCare. We are the ones who will be forced to enroll in this plan. We are the ones who will lose our right to make our own personal and private health care decisions. We are the ones who will watch helplessly as the federal government absorbs another one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
We are the ones–along with our children and grandchildren–who will be forced to pay for this monstrosity!
We have the right to know what is in this bill and we expect our lawmakers to read it before they vote on it!
Thank you for standing with the MRC.
David Martin
P.S. Again, forward this message to 30-40 friends urging them to click here and sign our petition demanding the media report the truth about ObamaCare.
+ + Help us reach our $30,000 fundraising goal, so we can maintain our frontline position in the battle to fight liberal media bias and preserve Free Speech Rights. Click here to make your best tax-deductible gift today.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has set the stage for a major vote Monday morning at 1:00 AM – one that would require the support of 60 Senators. That would, if all goes according to Senator Reid’s plan, set up a late-night Christmas Eve vote on final passage. Senator Reid also used a rare procedure to block any further amendments from being offered, debated or voted upon.
When it comes time for Senators to cast their vote at 1:00AM Monday morning, shortly after Sunday Night Football ends and most Americans are in bed, they will have had less than 38 hours to understand a 383-page amendment that introduces several new concepts into the health care debate, including:
A scheme that gives the Office of Personal Management immense power in administering what amounts to a multi-state public plan;
How much a state “opt-out” of abortion coverage in the legislation erodes the long-standing Hyde-amendment;
The budgetary impact of ELIMINATING the physician reimbursement fix; and,
Multiple new taxes, federal regulations and sweet-heart deals aimed toward certain states like Nebraska.
It is important for Americans to understand the process being used by the Senate. Barring any procedural snags (of which there are many in the Senate’s complex rules and precedents), the debate is likely to play out as follows:
Monday, 1:00 AM – Vote to invoke cloture (i.e. end debate) on the manager’s amendment. 60 votes are necessary.
Tuesday, 7:00 AM – Vote to approve the manager’s amendment. A majority vote is necessary.
Tuesday, 8:00 AM – Vote to invoke cloture on the original Reid substitute amendment (the 2,000-page bill). 60 votes are necessary.
Wednesday, 2:00 PM – Vote to approve the Reid substitute amendment. A majority vote is necessary.
Wednesday, 3:00 PM – Vote to invoke cloture on the underlying bill. 60 votes are necessary.
Thursday, 9:00 PM – Vote to approve the underlying bill (i.e. the Senate’s version of Obamacare). A majority vote is necessary.
