by Dave Nalle
You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.
In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:
“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.
The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough” to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.
There’s a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma’s bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.
Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.
It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.
The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:
“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.”
and
“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.”
What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.
Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire’s bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullifcation which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii’s proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.
As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.
Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at IdiotWars.com.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Very well researched and written article, thanks Dale.
I am all for the States standing up against “unconstitutionality” no matter from which direction it comes from. However, I question the Constitutional truth of States Rights when speaking/writing to the Citizenry on the subject. I think I see a manufactured hiding place for the Citizenry to hide from citizen’s Duty in Citizenship hoping or expecting the States will correct the federal government. From that hiding place the Citizenry will continue reelecting Incumbents (Lawmakers) to the House of Congress and doing so every two years. The States do not elect Federal Representatives.
Unconstitutionality prevails for two basic reasons; the Constitution is not enforced by the “Enforcer” and the Enforcer does not know it is the Enforcer, or simply doesn’t care. The Citizenry, not the States, is the Enforcer of the Constitution (on government. Local, State & Federal) and constitutionally the Ballot Box is the only force against government the Citizenry has.
Then, when mentioning (to the Citizenry) the Constitution, I feel the same about quoting what someone says (Jefferson, for instance) when the quote is not from or even related to what is written in the Constitution. Such quotes denounce the Constitution and give the Citizenry another place to hide from the reality of its true constitutional role in controlling government.
Allan
February 10th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Why is this not being covered in the “news” or even on talk radio? Is it the fear of what is to come if these bills pass? Are people that afraid? I feel like a crazy person… talking about a conspiracy..yet I know when I go to the states websites that this is really happening! I have been trying to post on FOx news and other websites. Im being censored.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Mary,
My information indicates U.S. major News (Print, Hollywood, TV) is owned or controlled by America’s enemy, Israel to be exact, and that enemy controls Congress too.
Good propaganda is 90% true and propaganda is about all we get from our enemy. Our churches have capitulated too.
Reestablishing Constitutional America rests entirely on the back of the U.S. Citizenry and none other. It will be 2010 before we can do, force, anything “constitutional” toward regaining our Rights and Freedom.
Allan
February 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Mary,
Fox News, Glenn Beck ,covered this today. Thats how I found out about it.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
C.A. - that’s great news! Beck has done some great things lately. Do you know if there’s any video clips available online of him talking about this? Should be posted here if available..
February 13th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Whoppee!!! About time states exercise to reject a government takeover. This is still America with rights, not a government controlled socialist state.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Allan,
We the people can effectively vote in more than just elections. We also sit on juries. Any one of us can vote the non-enforcement of a law that our conscience tells us is unconstitutional. And, that vote will be binding in that case. If it’s done in enough cases, it will be effective.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Jack,
That is true, a citizen Juror can with impunity (if mouth kept shut) vote not guilty thereby nullifying an unconstitutional law and or an unjustly applied law, but nullification does not repeal a law. Only Lawmakers can repeal a law.
I have no problems with a Jury nullifying such mentioned laws. There are a couple of problems with jury nullification though; Judges and Officers (Lawyers) of the Court tamper with and stack the jury and Jurors know not the difference nor know an unconstitutional law when they hear or read one. Jury nullification is a citizen force to be used against government “legislation” and is not a force “directly” against a Lawmaker; where the ballot box is a force for all Voters to be used “directly” against Lawmakers.
History proves we are not going to see a positive change of direction of government until the People educate themselves about the Constitution and the Duty in Citizenship. The ballot and jury boxes (two) sum up the Duty in Citizenship. The duty in citizenship is not a duty to government but is a duty to each other – citizen to citizen.
Allan
February 17th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Allen points out something that’s extremely important here - nullification. this is essential not only in the Jeffersonian model of States nullifying unconstitutional federal legislation, but also in our juries.
To learn more about jury nullification, I strongly recommend visiting the Fully Informed Jury Association
February 19th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Yes, we can change all this at the ballot box…provided our government hasn’t compromises that as well.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 am
The ballot box is completely ineffective as a way to preserve liberty.
Merely choosing our oppressors every few years is not freedom.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Michael is right; no matter who gets voted in these days, they mostly either are or soon get recruited into the elitist control freak class running government. I’m all for trying to get common sense folks elected but such candidates are rare and difficult to identify. Nothing less than a legal revolt offers hope. It will need an educated pool of jurors (one out of twelve can hang a jury in many cases); a cadre of patriot defense attorneys; and brave folks willing to resist and risk prosecution. As Samuel Adams said: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
February 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I would love to know how a fed law can override a free state law ….who wrote these laws ……the feds when did i get to vote on them….never i wish ohio would join the fight against this maddness who ever heard more spending will get you out of debt and all the lies about being able to read the bills yeah if you can read 1 page per second because thats the time they give you when they spend trillions of our dollars
February 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Joe, great question. there’s nothing in the constitution that authorizes such activity. And, if you’re concerned about congress not even reading bills, I can strongly recommend that you support DownsizeDC’s “Read the Bills Act“
February 25th, 2009 at 10:09 am
that why we have the 2nd ammedment guys! one of the founding father said it was more for the purpose of allowing citizens to forcefully take back control of the nation. i’m not saying that that is the action we need to take..yet. but that is really why is there and hasn’t been removed.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Dear Allan:
I beg to differ with your statement, “the Ballot Box is the only force against government the Citizenry has.” You forget that if all peaceful means fail to right our grievances, there’s the 2nd Amendment. This amendment provides for the citizens ability to use force other than the ballot box.” And don’t try to tell me the citizenry cannot defend or prevail against the US Military because a large portion of our military will join with the citizenry - many will be high ranking officers who will bring their entire TOE with them (Cannons, Tanks, .50 Cal auto machine guns, APCs, etc. etc.) The military take an oath to “support and defend the US CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign or domestic.” The DO NOT take an oath to blindly obey the supposed POTUS. The military are ynder NO OBLIGATION to carryout unlawful orders which violate the US Constitution (e.g. confiscating weapons from the citizenry would be the most quoted example).
Since most of the fighting will be in highly populated areas, I seriously doubt any military members who violate their oath and obey an unlawful order will be allowed to use mass destruction devices such as bombs or artillery etc. because the collateral damage to the populace would create even more anger and rebellion. Additionally, the “freedom fighters” would be able to disappear into the populace much like the Islamic Extremist currently do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To repeat, the Ballot Box is NOT the citizenry’s “only” force that can be used against the feds!
Of course, we all hope it doesn’t come to that but it could!
February 28th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Oh, by the way, the ballot box has been compromised. I don’t know anyone (and I’ve been in sales for over a quarter-of-a-century so I know a lot of people) that has confidence in our voting system these days. It has been corrupted by groups such as ACORN et. al.
The ballot box as a “force against government” has been nullified.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Good point, Palladin. While the US military is certainly powerful, much of it will be null and void in a citizen’s uprising. The use of tactical nukes will never happen, the Navy will not be a factor. Air Force pilots wouldn’t bomb American cities. The military certainly has no love lost for the liberal journalists and professors who support flag burning, nor the liberal congressmen calling for military investigations and integration of gays. The National Guard is comprised of local citizen/soldiers who would immediately revolt against an unconstitutional federal government.
Faced with a war of attrition against a well-armed citizenry, the military would oppose the Obama regime. Most of the career politicians would flee the country with the money they have stolen from We The People. While there would still be riots and civil unrest, most of that would occur in large cities and along the Mexican border. Armed citizens in the suburbs and militias in the rural areas would be able to keep the peace fairly well.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Just for your information SC. is in the fray. The bill has passed the lower house and is now in the State Senate where it is said to be heavily favored.
To touch on something said above. Second Amendment rights are one of the things listed in the bill.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment sounds like real “Change”. Not those repackaged Bush policies that Obama calls “Change”(Keynesian economic policies, hawkish foreign policy, illegal spying on citizens, etc.)
March 5th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Comrade, So you don’t like what the Government is doing? then stop voting for the Government. You go to the polls, and you don’t even know that you are being asked by the proletariat to vote Yes, or Yes. Both parties are big Government Nazi Socialist Central Planners. Wake up. STOP VOTING - as all you are doing is encouraging them.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
When OBushma calls your house, and tells you to “put on this brown shirt uniform” you will gladly do it. And you will follow the orders to arrest and burn your neighbors in ovens. That is the way it is. You put a uniform on a man, and he will do unconscionable things to anyone without the same uniform. Rationalizing that “they are different. I need to arrest them, seize their guns and children, because they don’t have the brown shirt on……”
March 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
For too long, Americans have allowed their politicians to interpret and bend the rules of the Constitution.
Our government representatives have taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution and their State Constitution.
Denying the passage of this resolution would demonstrate the disregard of these representatives loyalty to the oath and the people of this great state.
Not passing such resolution demonstrates the denying of the US Constitution and the State Constitutions.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am
JLB, you make a great point. For decades and decades, people in the US have allowed politicians to bend or break the rules of the constitution - ostensibly for good reasons. i.e. helping the poor, security, and the like.
But, what most are not realizing is that when you allow politicians to bend the rules, and you allow it for a long time, eventually you end up with politicians, and an entire government…that feels and acts as if there were no rules at all.
I believe that’s pretty much where this country is today.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
This is all well and good, expect that this state sovereignty is unnecessary, and another one of those “shut up” moves by the state legislatures rather than doing what they need to do in order to curtail the federal government and act as “representatives” of the people rather than “agents” of the feds. In Article IV, Section 4 it already asserts the “sovereignty” of the states by “guaranteeing to each state a Republican form of government,” and the Tenth Amendment already reinforces that any and all powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people.
This is redundancy, and will serve no purpose unless and until the states actually start suing the federal government for “lack of performance” when they don’t provide the revenue or resources for the enumerated powers, or start filing “injunctions” when they overstep their powers and start forcing the state’s and people to cowtow to their unconstitutional edicts.
This is nothing more than a move in “word” that will not be enforced by “deed,” unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the “negligence” in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties.
Nothing more than more bureaucracy and looking like they are doing something, when actually doing nothing at all.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Betsy, keep in mind that action takes time. We’ve got a few generations of mis-education about the nature of the federal government to turn around here. I believe John Adams said it best:
“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
March 30th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I don’t know how you you can take back your country but I hope you do it soon. The rest of the world is wondering why you as a people have not put a stop to it yet. Where are the American free the people riots?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Everyone, please read the book, “Un intended Con sequences” by J ohn R oss. It’s a fictional account of the gradual usurpation of American’s rights based on historical evidence and suggests a grassroots strategy to regain our Republic without the need for firefights in the streets which would only endanger innocents and children. Then write your legistraitors and Executraitors and suggest they read it as you’re genuinely concerned with their future welfare considering all the nut cases around.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Betsy wrote, “This is nothing more than a move in “word” that will not be enforced by “deed,” unless more energy is put into confronting the state legislators also on the “negligence” in doing their proscribed functions when the feds are either out of line, or themselves negligent in their duties.”
I take an even more dim view; I think the movement will backfire because for the most part these declarations simply say, in effect, “Give us enough money to carry out your whims, and we’ll do whatever you ask.”
New Hampshire’s resolution is worth emulating but most of these others are just words, as Betsy says. And the legislators can’t even get the “words” passed.
Sorry for being a pessimist but it’s in my genes.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:34 am
Unless and until the state’s start acknowledging the questionable status of the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act, and call for the IRS to cease and desist harassing their citizens, these actions have been undertaken before by the states in order to attempt to quiet the masses.
The Ninth Amendment actually precedes the Tenth….which is why the 16th is also questionable. In other words, it preceeds the 16th in legal authority which left any and all provisions not in the original Constitution to the people and that 16th Amendment should have been placed before the people prior to the states having ratified it in the first place. This was assumed by the founders after providing the Bill of Rights - that their provisions for indirect taxes would remain unless and until the people decided to amend it.
The states unilaterally gave up their voice and power when they ratified the 17th, 16th and Federal Reserve Act giving all power and the purse strings to Washington - and the people are now suffering “double jeopardy” in taxation - and even triple jeopardy at the municipal level.
I don’t see much changing unless and until those amendments are rescinded, since contrary to all representations made by the states - the states are in bed with the Feds on many of these issues. It is the state which petitions the federal government for those work visas….while claiming they are just as upset by the insourcing and outsourcing and the jobs lost to Americans - it is THEY who have steadily been requesting increases in them. The feds are merely providing them due to the petitions of the states.
The American public seems to be totally unaware of just what is going on here. Those amendments afforded the state’s a “way out” of citizen unrest by blaming the “foreign” government - the feds - and they like it that way.
Ever tried writing them on any of those Bill of Rights issues? They will claim it isn’t within their power since they are under “federal mandates” to enforce those laws - under threat of removal of funding.
As long as Washington controls the purse strings, nothing will change. The state’s are now no more than lobbyists at the federal trough, as are most of the municipalites. When they get their revenue - do they reduce your state or local taxes? Are any of the sums that the state’s receive from the feds included on the budgets and balance sheets? Of course not, otherwise they wouldn’t have those sums in order to feed to their campaign buddies at the state level.
It’s a game, and Americans don’t see how the noose has been progressively placed around the citizen’s necks by BOTH state and federal government acting hand in hand.
In after the housing boom, when they were getting all that excess property tax revenue - especially in California and the Sunbelt States, they are whining about their revenue shortages - just where DID all that money go?
March 31st, 2009 at 3:46 am
The problem with “jury nullification” is this (since I am an ex-paralegal), the jigg has been fixed on that also, at least in my former home state of Arizona. The attorneys rarely give that jury instruction that informs the jury that they have the power to examine the facts AND the law and thow it out if it doesn’t fit the circumstances, or is questionable in it’s Constitutionality. Judges don’t like it because it removes their power and authority - and judges really do like having that power and authority undilluted by the juries.
Also, as with the now low level DUI “social” drinking taxes throughout the nation, they have been moved from civil to criminal violations but the Supreme Court - in another of their abridgements - in a Nevada case several years ago determined that the Constitution didn’t mean what it said, and that jury trials were not due citizens in ALL CRIMINAL MATTERS, simply those in which the sentence was greater than six months. They used the “catch all” reason of “in the interest of public safety” as their reasons for the “insertion” of new words into the Constitution. But the founder’s did place those words in there in order to protect the rights of the accused more than anything else. As one of them said: Better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man spend a day in jail. That’s how strongly they felt about denying American’s their freedom. And now America has the highest prison population in the world.
So that is why there are now 13 levels of punishment for low level DUI offenses throughout the nation and lifetime records for .08 readings - which is a level that is less than your average hit of cough medicine. And why there are more and more homeless now each and every year, the fines now on such violations are so great, as are the increasing fines now for speeding and other violations.
And actually, in every and all traffic violation the crime is simply “reckless endangerment.” These legislators have to justify their own existence, and even run over sessions in order to get those per diems and expense accounts. With all that is going on now in the border states, Arizona spent legislative sessions on such things as petitioning the federal government for a National Day of the Cowboy.
This is where your money goes, friends.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:48 am
The Tenth Amendment movement actually is nothing more than redundant, as I said.
Article IV, Section 4 states that the feds guarantee a Republican form of government. The Tenth Amendment already exists - so why are we petition for an amendment that already exists in the first place? I just don’t get it, I guess.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:35 am
Louisiana Senator A. G. Crowe has pledged to introduce legislation on this as well.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Why do we petition for state government to do what’s right? Because they aren’t right now. So we need to push them in the right direction. The more positive feedback they get from constituents on this issue, the more likely they will be to get some courage and stand up for the constitution…
May 18th, 2009 at 6:55 am
You might want to check out the information revealed at http://www.tax-freedom.com
It is of course, all related to the federal intrusion on the State’s sovereignty.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m getting a bit tired of statements like this, seen all too frequently in the cybersphere:
“…the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.”
Drop the vendetta against the Dems and spending. Let’s admit it: the Republicans have outspent the Dems by an astonishing margin. The Dems at least make no pretensions that they aim for limited government.
We have a one party system: oneworldguvmintparty #1 and oneworldguvmintparty#2. This party doesn’t give a rip how the US is bankrupted and destroyed; fiscal destruction at the hands of Fascist Corporatism will do just as well as fiscal destruction at the hands of the Nanny State.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:51 am
But Maggie, the public schools taught me, that we have to vote? It is our civic duty. Now go vote. You can choose Yes, or Yes.
Until people realize that Central Planning is the enemy, and not abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc… We will continue to be run by Big Government Communist Central Planners. The Nazi Central planners in the GOP laughed at Ron Paul.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Do you realize some of these 20 states are waiting after Quebec to actually try to secede? Maybe you don’t understand why I’d mention Quebec in the first place but Quebec has been contemplating at secession for what, thirty years?
Let’s hope that the next Premier of Quebec will come from a sovereigntist party so we can secede… no, that won’t work. The best bet for us Quebecers (and these 20 states, by extension) would be a Bloquist government in Canada. However, the Quebecer Bloc does not run outside Quebec only because they fear the massive vote-splitting they’d cause.
If you don’t know what the Quebecer Bloc is, it is a center-left (or far-left, depending on where you are) party that advocates Quebec’s sovereignty at the federal level. Outside Quebec, though, it’s primarily known as a party that stands up to protect the provinces’ rights.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am
No, I don’t know much about the movement in Quebec, but I’m pretty confident in saying that any secession calls in the US are really quite small. Not that I’m opposed to people having self-determination….just saying there isn’t much of a call for it yet. Will be interesting to see how things pan out. Stop by and let us know how things progress up there.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:58 am
I think you nailed it right as to why any of these 20 states would wait after us to try seceding (peacefully this time around): because the Quebecer call for secession is much larger than it would be in any of these 20 states. In regards to sovereignty, Quebecer political strategists often use the “thirds” model, i.e. 1/3 of the population is made up of staunch sovereigntists, 1/3 is made up of the hardcore federalists and the last 1/3 can go either way.
I believe that NH has a larger secessionist call than most of the other 19 states. Besides, NH sovereigntists and QC sovereigntists complain about the exact same things on at least one issue (the federal government encroaches on provincial/state power.)
July 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Just learned about your website through Fox Nation. This appears to me as the best way ro real in big federal govt. As I understand 2/3 of states come on board the tax code can be vetoed at the federal level. Very powerful movement!!!!
July 15th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
do you think SOTOMAYOR will let us form a TENTH AMENDMENT RESERVATION for real Americans?
August 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Please, Everybody, look at this video - Finally the Truth shown, simply and completely - first it leaves you numb - but then at least you won’t run around in circles not knowing where to start….
May God be with us…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqzXGYXaTKs&feature=related
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think the states ought to get together and draft a Constitutional Amendment clarifying their rights and negating those laws that have violated states rights over the years. It’s the only way to really take back our country.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Gordon, that Amendment already exists - it’s the 10th! That’s the one that says - the only powers the feds can exercise are those in the Constitution.
Why work on a national level to get another amendment passed when they don’t follow the ones they have already? Work on a state level to resist and nullify unconstitutional laws - you’ll be far more effective if you do.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’ll say it again: State Sovereignty has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment, which simply reflects “respective delegation–” i.e. the People of each state **delegated** certain powers to the federal government, as listed in the Constitution, while reserving the remainder to their respective state governments or to themselves. However all sovereign power remained VESTED in the People of each state– and ONLY in the People of each state: delegation, in contrast, is not surrender, since a “delegate” is simply a DEPUTY by definition, i.e. an assistant. A delegate CANNOT be the sovereign.
Therefore, state sovereignty pre-dates the Constitution entirely, back to 1776, when the states recognized each other mutually as sovereign, free and independent states (i.e. sovereign NATIONS); the only respect in which the 10th Amendment regards state sovereignty, is the fact that it notes that all federal powers were **delegated,** not “surrendered” in any way.
Some, like Yale Prof. Akhil Amar, believe that the federal government has the right to use force against a state’s popular majority; however this is entirely FALSE. The USA is NOT a single nation, but a free and voluntary republic of independent sovereign nations.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Likewise, states can “reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution,” as much as they like; it won’t matter a whit of difference. The federal government simply maintains that *all* of its federal laws, are well-within its Constitutional delegations of power; and if the federal Supreme Court concurs with the other federal branches, then the states will have no means to redress their claims to the contrary.
Madison made clear in his 1800 “Report on the Virginia Resolutions,” that “However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
These “parties to the constitutional compact,” were the Peoples of the individual states. Unless they have the sovereign authority to clarify and revoke their delegations of power to state and federal governments alike, then the Constitution is a paper tiger which can safeguard nothing; for both state and federal governments alike will simply claim that their laws are 100% constitutional and just.
This has been their modus operandi ever since the War Between the States, at which point the walls began closing in with regard to individual liberty, as the United States began facing World Wars, taxation of private income, and control of private transactions such as banking, lending and other finance under the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the SEC– completely apart from any allegations of fraud or other actual wrongdoing. This is all possible only by state and federal claims of a right to use force against a state’s popular majority– which is in full violation of national sovereignty, but which is subverted via suppression and control of mainstream media, academia and other thought. See my website for further info.