States Seek To Regain Their Sovereign Power From The US Government!

[darrels joy]

States Seek To Regain Their Sovereign Power From The US Government! By J.D. Longstreet
February 12th, 2009

Lawmakers in 20 states are pushing to regain their states sovereignty from the US Government under the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution!

We warned this was coming many months, even years ago, in this very space. Many readers gave me grief saying that I had no idea what I was talking about, that I was blowing smoke, that I was a dumb ole redneck looking to secede from the Union. None of that was, nor is, true. The fact is that I live in the real world where people are not afraid to speak their minds.

Some months (possibly even years) back, I pointed out to readers there was information that indicated there were, at that time, 22 active secessionist movements within the United States. That information was brushed aside. So, we come to today.

Today we have lawmakers, in the state legislatures of at least 20 states, introducing bills to assist their states in re-establishing their constitutional sovereignty from the Federal Government. The federal government has just become entirely too overbearing as strong central governments always do. You might even say… as our current federal government has become.

There is an excellent article on this HERE.

Now, as an amateur historian, very amateurish, I stress, I have spent a good deal of time studying the period in the early to mid 1800’s when the US had reached a point similar to the one we find ourselves at today.

You see, by 1860 the Gross National Product of the southern states of America was three times that of the northern states. The southern states were providing well over 60% of the money necessary to keep the US afloat. The US government was demanding more and more of the southern states and simply would not listen when my southern ancestors complained about it to the Congress. Finally, the southern states threatened to leave the Union and set up their own country. The US Constitution did not; repeat… did not … forbid the secession of any state, at any time, for any reason. (The Articles of Confederation did bar secession unless all the states seceded. Not so, the Constitution which followed.)

Eleven states, plus parts of two more states, left the US and formed the Confederate States of America with a Constitution, a Congress, a President, an Army, a Navy, a Marine Corp, and a land area several times larger than that of the 13 original colonies when they left the Mother Country to form their own nation.

Unfortunately, the history of what happened next, over the next four years of war and then the abomination called reconstruction, has been rewritten to favor the Federal Government’s side of the dispute and it has given a permanent black eye to my region of the country. I maintain that the south would be a separate, prosperous, country today had my ancestors not been dragged back… forced back… into the Union at the point of a bayonet… all quite illegally.

I expect that many of you will be will be surprised to learn that the Federal Government was created by the states to act as a agent of the states, taking direction from the states. That has all been changed today.

Today the states take orders from the Federal Government, which was originally meant to be an inferior agency. Some people around the 50 states are beginning to wake up to this fact and when enough get riled up, there will be hell to pay… all over again.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

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.

Now, you can argue this point every which way from Sunday, and it has been. But, when the smoke clears away, the tenth Amendment makes it absolutely clear that the Federal Government is limited only to the powers granted to it in the Constitution. It says so… right there in the tenth amendment!

To see that the Federal Government has exceeded it’s authority all you have to do is look around you.

We, the people, are swamped with rules, and regulations, and laws handed down by the Federal Government that are smothering the states and draining our state treasuries, just as the Federal Governement did before the American Civil War. It is plain to see that the states and the Federal Government are headed for some kind of confrontation … and it won’t be pleasant.

I am convinced that the Congress we have seated today, and the President in the Oval Office today, will do more to bring about the dissolution of the United States than any government since that of Lincoln in 1860. We warned, even before the President was sworn in, that his government would over-reach. They began almost immediately. The so-called “Stimulus Bill” could well be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington (state). Some analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, and Pennsylvania. We recommend you read an article titled: “State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing.” You’ll find it HERE.

No less than James Madison, himself, one of our Founding Fathers, wrote in “The Federalist” the following: “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.”

Interestingly, James Madison was one of the chief writers of the US Constitution. I think it is safe to take his word as an authority on what it meant.

The plain fact is… as one state lawmaker has said… the states are tired of being treated as branches of the Federal Government. The profligate spending by the Federal Government and those unfunded mandates dumped on the states are strangling the states… just as they did to the Southern states in the 1800’s.

We Americans don’t know our own history. America has a couple of generations of Americans who believe history started they day they were born. Those of us, who have studied the past, see the warning signs flashing all around us. We are headed for a constitutional crisis, which may tear the country apart. And I am not writing of this recession, which is nowhere near as bad as the current government would have you believe. I am pointing to a power struggle between the “creator”(the states), and the “created” (the federal government).

This Americans, who do know their history, know, all too well, that America is in another situation very similar to the one over which she fought the American Revolution and, approximately 80 years later, the American Civil War.

Am I worried? You’d better believe I am worried!

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/...er-government/

[darrels joy]

HCR6 (2009)

Affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles.


Status: HOUSE: IN COMMITTEE (Details)
Length: 2382 words.

House	Public Hearing	Exec Session	Floor Vote
	2009-02-05 13:00:00 LOB 203	2009-02-12 14:00:00	(unscheduled)
Senate	Public Hearing	Exec Session	Floor Vote
	(unscheduled)	(unscheduled)	(unscheduled)

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274
09/01
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3
COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
09-0274
09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General 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; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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 that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and
That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and
That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.




http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view?bill=HCR6&year=2009

[darrels joy]

US States Declaring Sovereignty - Challenging Federal Excesses- UPDATE
Posted by Harry Riley on February 6, 2009 at 7:00am
View Harry Riley's blog
Patriots,

It appears America's freedom loving masses are beginning the march back to Republic principles, stripping the greedy, self-serving politicians of the Federal government of their pork barrel.

While the incestuous political apparatus of the national system has been concentrating on filling their trough to overflowing with "stimulus" funds for their benefactors for decades, America has finally concluded the "out of control" federal government must be challenged, and stripped of constitutional excesses.

Several US States have now claimed sovereignty under the United States Constitution 10th Amendment...New Hampshire, Missouri, Washington, and Arizona are in various stages of declaring their sovereignty from usurpation levied by the federal government in violation of the US Constitution.

More to come on this but essentially several States have/are giving notice they will no longer accept federal levies, statutes, demands, etc. from the Federal Government that infringe on States Rights, as enumerated in the US Constitution.

Read the Arizona State resolution by clicking here ; the New Hampshire State resolution by clicking here ; about the Missouri State effort by clicking here ; the Washington State effort by clicking here and now Oklahoma by clicking here and now Montana is piling on click here, and Michigan click here.

Additional information regarding grievance petition submission....click here to watch a video

Patriots from all States have been sounding a serious alarm for at least a decade over the US Federal Government exceeding it's Constitutional authority that has been occurring for decades...it has finally reached a point where America has been driven to servitude by a greedy, ruthless oligarchy controlled by the few....citizens have been searching for the "national movement" that will rein-in the Federal Government...Thank God it is surfacing in our US State legislatures.

Now, that many courageous States Rights legislators are standing up for Republic principles, it's up to us........it's up to the citizens that have been denied rightful representation to rise up in support of our State legislators who are "standing in the gap" for citizens who have had no voice for too long.....

Here's an example of the media coverage we need....click here

The next step is up to us.......to demand my State, your State to take the same action.......will you do it? Contact your State Representative and demand a similar resolution to NH, MO, WA, and AZ be introduced in your legislature....do it today.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/p...ates-declaring

[darrels joy]

State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-ninth Legislature First Regular Session 2009

HCR 2024

Introduced by Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

A concurrent RESOLUTION

claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.


(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)




Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America 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, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment 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 has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm

[darrels joy]

Missouri's federal “Freedom of Choice Act” that Obama supports would classify abortion as a fundamental right in the same category as the right of free speech and the right to vote.


Attention Missourians! Missouri Sovereignty!

Posted February 4th, 2009 by OFallonBrent I just got home from a meeting so I apologize for the late notice.
I got a call from my State Rep today, Cynthia Davis. She is asking for our help. This Wednesday, Feb 4 at 8am she will be putting forward a resolution for Missouri sovereignty. This will be presented in the committee she chairs. She is using the Federal Freedom of Choice Act "which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote - rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution" as the basis for her resolution.
She would like anyone who can make it to speak in support of her resolution. There is a competing resolution that opposes the FOCA but does not have the 10th Amendment language declaring Missouri sovereign. She would like us to make the case for adopting the 10th amendment version.
This will be a great opportunity to stand up for a Missouri liberty issue as well as making friends with a key State Rep. She is also planning on running for State Auditor in 2010.
I know this is late notice, but its as much as I could give you. If anyone can make it to Jefferson City in time, please do.
Here is the text of the resolution.
--------------------------------------------------
House Resolution 212
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
Whereas, Barack Obama, President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new Administration is to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote - rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official, or any person acting under governmental authority, that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right...in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information"; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate more than 550 federal and state abortion-related laws, laws supported by the majority of the American people; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would specifically invalidate the following commonsense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of Missouri :
(1) Section 188.027, RSMo, which requires written and informed consent prior to an abortion;
(2) Section 188.028, RSMo, which establishes the requirements and procedures for the performance of abortions on minors;
(3) Section 188.029, RSMo, which requires a determination of viability prior to an abortion;
(4) Section 188.036, RSMo, which prohibits abortions performed with the intent to use fetal organs or tissue for transplant, experiments, or for money;
(5) Section 188.039, RSMo, which requires a twenty-four-hour waiting period prior to an abortion;
(6) Sections 188.205 and 188.215, RSMo, which prohibits the use of public funds and public facilities in the performance of abortions;
(7) Section 188.250, RSMo, which prohibits aiding or assisting a minor in obtaining an abortion;
(8) Section 197.032, RSMo, which allows hospitals and medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortions;
(9) Section 565.300, which creates the crime of infanticide; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act will not make abortion safe or rare, but will instead actively promote and subsidize abortion with state and federal tax dollars and do nothing to ensure its safety; and
Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act will protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion-on-demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
Be it further resolved that this resolution serve 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
Be it further resolved that all compulsory federal legislation which 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; and
Be it further resolved that the Missouri House of Representatives further declares
our strong opposition to the federal Freedom of Choice Act and urge the United States Congress to summarily reject it for the following reasons:
(1) It seeks to circumvent the states' general legislative authority as guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(2) It seeks to undermine the right and responsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy;
(3) The protection of women's health through state regulations on abortion is a compelling state interest that should not be nullified by Congress;
(4) Its enactment would nullify numerous laws of the State of Missouri that the Missouri General Assembly and the people of Missouri strongly support; and
Be it further resolved that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for Governor Jay Nixon; Barack Obama, President of the United States ; the President of the United States Senate; the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.
Offered by Representative Cynthia Davis , District No. 19

www.dailypaul.com%2Fnode%2F81555

Jefferson City – The Missouri House voted on Wednesday to approve a resolution urging members of Congress to reject the Federal Freedom of Choice Act. The measure passed by a vote of 116-40. Dick Aldrich reports from the State Capitol.

[darrels joy]

H-1028.1 _____________________________________________

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 4009

_____________________________________________

State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By

Representatives Shea, Klippert, Condotta, Kretz, Anderson, McCune,
and Kristiansen
Read first time 01/30/09. Referred to Committee on State Government &
Tribal Affairs.
1 TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
2 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
3 REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
4 UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
5 SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE'S
6 LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
7 We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of
8 the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully
9 represent and petition as follows:
10 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
11 States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the
12 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
13 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
14 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
15 power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the
16 Constitution of the United States and no more; and
17 WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers
18 between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as
19 one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and
p. 1 HJM 4009
1 WHEREAS, James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said,
2 "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.
3 Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and
4 indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external
5 objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The
6 powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects
7 which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,
8 and properties of the people."; and
9 WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not
10 "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are
11 "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is
12 the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.";
13 and
14 WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people
15 will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium
16 between the general and the state governments." He believed that "this
17 balance between the national and state governments forms a double
18 security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their
19 rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed,
20 they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional
21 limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between
22 them."; and
23 WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
24 that the federal government was created by the states specifically to
25 be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states; and
26 WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as
27 agents of the federal government; and
28 WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
29 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
30 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.

31

United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply
32 commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
33 WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and
34 some now being considered by the present administration and from
35 Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
36 NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:
37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under
HJM 4009 p. 2
1 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
3 by the Constitution of the United States; and
4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal
5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of
6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective
7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its
8 constitutionally delegated powers.
9 BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately
10 transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United
11 States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
12 House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker
13 of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the
14 United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of
15 Washington.

--- END ---

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...overeignty.pdf

[darrels joy]

BILL SUMMARY
1^st Session of the 52^nd Legislature

Bill No.: HJR 1003


Version: Introduced


Author: Representative Key


Date: February 9, 2009


Impact: $0





Bill Summary





Research Analyst: Arnella Karges





The introduced version of HJR1003 resolves that:


· the State of Oklahoma claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;


· the joint resolution serves Notice and Demand to the federal government to stop all mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers;


· all federal legislation that requires states to comply due to threat of penalties or requires states to pass legislation otherwise suffer loss of federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and


· copies of the joint resolution be sent to the President of the U.S., the President of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Speakers and Presidents of each state's legislature in the U.S., and each member of Oklahoma's congressional delegation members





Fiscal Summary





Fiscal Analyst: Marilyn Anderson





HJR 1003, as introduced, serves notice to the federal government that the State of Oklahoma claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and demands that the federal government cease and desist mandates to states that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.





Fiscal Analysis





HJR 1003, in its current form, has no significant fiscal impact.





Long Term Fiscal Considerations





None

House Fiscal Director

[darrels joy]

2009 Montana Legislature
Additional Bill LinksPDF (with line numbers)
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "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; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE."

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution 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 that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

NEW SECTION. Section 7. Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.
(2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

NEW SECTION. Section 8. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

NEW SECTION. Section 9. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

- END -

---

Latest Version of HB 246 (HB0246.02)
Processed for the Web on February 12, 2009 (3:27pm)

New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
See the status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

[darrels joy]

Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

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

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

30 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [January 22, 2009] [No. 2

Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

(page 30/31 of 48)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21r...-01-22-002.pdf

[Keith_Hixson]

I was surprised that both liberal and conservative states are taking this line. Very interesting! I thought some of his opinions on the Civil War weren't quite accurate.

Keith