We can take the state conventions on June 2nd if we are organized. We have to start working and we have to start NOW. On June 5th we need the focus to be on delegates! We need poll volunteers to blanket the states. Dress nice and politely ask poll goers to please support the “whatever slate.” Tell them we are for smaller government and less spending and would like their support. Oh and please keep this post bumped for awareness and share your thoughts.
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.”
At 3:11 On The Video Timeline, 564 Delegates Is Mentioned.
With everything else going on in the world, you may have missed a piece of news coming out of South Dakota. It seems that a few legislators in that state have introduced a bill that would require every one of South Dakota’s citizens over 21 years of age to own a gun.
The Tenth Amendment Center
The resolution claims “sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”
If passed by the House of Representatives, Ohio will become the 8th state to have passed such a resolution. Other states that have reaffirmed their sovereignty are Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
While sovereignty resolutions do not carry the force of law behind them, supporters say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country towards constitutional government.
Charles Key, state representative from Oklahoma and author of that state’s sovereignty resolution, compared these resolutions to a cease and desist notice a landlord gives a non-paying tenant.
“If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center. “First, you serve notice. That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government. And there defintely will be follow up.”
The follow up that Rep. Key is referring to has been popping up all over the country. Legislation that calls upon the Jeffersonian principle of “nullification” has already been advancing a number of causes, and some success has been gained, too.
A state-level rebellion to the Bush-era Real ID act has rendered the law virtually null and void. Thirteen states have passed various marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws. Two states have passed laws nullifying some federal gun regulations.
Groups in multiple states are pushing their governments to withdraw their state’s guard troops from Iraq and elsewhere. And people in up to 10 states may have the opportunity to vote on state constitutional amendments effectively banning national health care.
The long-term success of all these efforts remain to be seen, especially with a Federal Judiciary which has not often been too friendly to the Constitutional intent of the Founders and Ratifiers.
But, many supporters point to the growing success on issues like Real ID and Medical Marijuana as examples which prove that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government has no option but to back off, with or without judicial approval.
Read the full text of SCR-13 below:
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws directly contravene the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, We believe in the importance of all levels of government working together to serve the citizens of our country, by respecting the constitutional provisions that properly delineate the authority of federal, state, and local governments; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of “dual sovereignty” that retains “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” by the states. The majority of the United States Supreme Court noted in that case (521 U.S. 898, 921-922):
“As [President] Madison expressed it: ‘[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.’ The Federalist No. 39, at 245.
This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’ . . . To quote [President] Madison once again:
‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323″; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals by previous administrations, some now pending proposals by the present administration, and some proposals by Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment restriction on the scope of federal power; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the State of Ohio hereby acknowledges and reaffirms its residuary and inviolable sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution serves as notice to the federal government as agent of the states, to end federal mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalty or sanction or that requires states to enact legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature, and each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation.
- Weekend Reflections: Republic States Tell feds To Back Down On Obamacare ~ With 5 Years Jail Time, For Anyone Attempting To Enforce. (politicalvelcraft.org)
- City Police Do Not OWE A Duty To Protect American Citizens: Only The Constitutionally Elected County Sheriff Does! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit Says the Tenth Amendment Center (prweb.com)
- Lawmakers In 20 More States Move To Reclaim Sovereignty! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- America’s Forgotten Holiday: Constitution Day is September 17th (prweb.com)
- “The States” Have De Facto Control Over The General Government: States May Nullify U.S. Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Weekend Reflections: Hank Williams Jr ~ “We Know What We Need. We Know Who To Blame.” ~ Peter Fonda ~ Obama is a ‘F – king Traitor’. (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Knowledge Is Power: Plenary Power Is False (indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com)
- Ohio Voters Amend Their Constitution To Outlaw Obamacare Mandates (forbes.com)
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.”
The brief was filed just days ago in a lawsuit that was brought against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont.
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.”
Handguns from Freedom Arms in Wyoming
“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.
- States Declare War On Obama! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Anarchy X: The Tenth Amendment (mnsho.wordpress.com)
- Oklahoma Challenges Obama’s Illegal Employer Tax (cato-at-liberty.org)
- GOP Says Many Federal Aid Programs Are Unconstitutional (addictinginfo.org)
- 2012 DNC and GOP Platforms – and the United States Constitution (subconch.com)
- Is Constitution Day a Celebration or a Memorial? (veteran-patriot.com)
- GOP Rep. Burgess Suggests Medicare Is Unconstitutional (thinkprogress.org)
- Tenth Amendment: The Government is Not Your Boss (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
- Republican Congressman: States Can Ban Birth Control, But Not Foie Gras (thinkprogress.org)