States asserting the 10th amendment

February 5, 2009

This is interesting, 16% of the nation are asserting there tenth amendment rights. Come on Texas and Tennessee join in the fray.

February 5, 2009

We need to push our local state reps and senetors to go for it.. I am in!

G27 · February 5, 2009

This is interesting, 16% of the nation are asserting there tenth amendment rights. Come on Texas and Tennessee join in the fray.

I have no idea what this is referring to, but anytime we move back towards the 10th, it's good.

Sadly, I believe it's going to take pitchforks and torches to make the Feds stop wasting our tax money on all the unconstitutional programs they have (which accounts for probably 75% of the federal government)...

February 5, 2009

your percentage is probably correct.

February 6, 2009

Sorry everyone went brain dead maybe this will help.

this could possibly lead to the civil war rumors we've been hearing about on alternative net radio like alex jones/rense/cliff high-webbots et al etc. **even the john titor netlore mentioned this back in 2001

In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring sovereignty, including:

Washington

[link to apps.leg.wa.gov]

New Hampshire

[link to www.gencourt.state.nh.us]

Arizona

[link to www.azleg.gov]

Montana

[link to data.opi.mt.gov]

Michigan

[link to www.legislature.mi.gov]

Missouri

[link to www.house.mo.gov]

Oklahoma

[link to axiomamuse.wordpress.com]

Hawaii

[link to www.hawaii-nation.org]

G27 · February 6, 2009

Wow, that's VERY nice to see.

Wonder if we can get this stated in Tennessee...

February 6, 2009

I would be willing to bet we could if we rag our legislators enough.

Hmm.,maybe not rag them,but show them the support being gained in the other states and how vital it would be for them to keep their jobs in Tn.

February 6, 2009

I cant get any links to work and cant verify by the states web site ? I did get Washington to come up. Would be nice to have the bill . This is great if it moves the FED in the right way.

Edited February 6, 2009 by 2HOW

February 6, 2009

What it means, basically, is that the US federal government is authorized to exercise onlythe powers which are specifically granted within the Constitution; Nothing more but certainly nothing less.

Over time, this fact has been forgotten.

Really, it would behoove us all to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen, especially for states such as TX and AK. With some states already acting on their own behalf for determining what they will prosecute or tolerate, often completely contrary to Federal law, it makes me wonder why Kommifornia isn't at the top of the list.

I'm all for citizens with pitchforks... I really am... but that doesn't have to mean seceding or declaring sovereignty and is not everything the 10th is really about. In fact, I think we should speak out against mutiny, especially being as we 2nd amendment rights-bearers are a voting minority. But maybe my "Ben Franklin approach" is already smelling stale... maybe things really are too far gone to be handled diplomatically?

midtennchip · February 7, 2009

Keep in mind that New Hampshire passed this resolution, but most of the others are just proposed resolutions (hopefully they will get passed). However, if you actually read the NH resolution (see below), there are several things I would like to see changed (they say "further infringements" and "further limitations," like the ones that the feds already have are okay ). Nevertheless, a resolution is one thing. Actually doing something about it is another. Unless they are going to kick the FBI, federal judges, and US attorneys out, the feds will continue to enforce the federal laws the resolution condemns.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

February 7, 2009

Keep in mind that New Hampshire passed this resolution, but most of the others are just proposed resolutions (hopefully they will get passed). However, if you actually read the NH resolution (see below), there are several things I would like to see changed (they say "further infringements" and "further limitations," like the ones that the feds already have are okay ). Nevertheless, a resolution is one thing. Actually doing something about it is another. Unless they are going to kick the FBI, federal judges, and US attorneys out, the feds will continue to enforce the federal laws the resolution condemns.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Incrementalism works both ways.

February 7, 2009

Note that none of this has been picked up by the networks or major news papers. I think someone is trying to keep this under raps. If this catches on it would be bad ju ju for our corporate government and the f**king UN.

February 7, 2009

I suspect any state that doesn't bow to the will of our Dear Leader will have federal funds withheld.

oldogy · February 7, 2009

I suspect any state that doesn't bow to the will of our Dear Leader will have federal funds withheld.

You are so right. Just look at how the feds handle air quality issues.

oldogy

February 7, 2009

I suspect any state that doesn't bow to the will of our Dear Leader will have federal funds withheld.

You are probably right but this is the only way short of a war that states can once again attain the rights under the 19th amendment. Look at Illinois and Kalifornia who have thumbed their collective noses at the feds for years over harboring illegals. I don't know that the federal government wants to start chastising states over the 10th amendment. If they do it will become a legal battle that the feds can win only by doing away with the 10th amendment.

Mark@Sea · February 7, 2009

"State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman covers this situation nicely.

As for states 'doing their own thing', they are doing that now. Constitutionally speaking, a CCW issued by any state should be honored by every other state. We know this isn't the case now - how do you figure it'll get worse?

The tenth puts specific limits on federal abilities. It is why Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, because nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate substances. This changed with FDR, who packed the Supreme Court.

The NFA doesn't allow the Feds the right to ban full-autos, it simply puts a tax on them. Frankly, if anyone were to go before a SCOTUS that could read the constition (which also states that the power to tax shall not be used to ban) then the 86 manufacture ban would go *poof* as being completely unconstitutional. The mechanism that Congress and ATF use to prevent the manufacture and registration of full-autos is refusing to accept and process the required taxes for issuing the tax stamp. Illegal as heck.

So nowadays, the tenth is honored more in the breach than in fact. It is why all the BS that congress enacts as legislation includes a finding that the subject of the legislation affects interstate commerce. About the only right granted the Feds that has any real impact on the states is the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Federal gun control laws? Enacted because the firearm "moves in interstate commerce". Controlled substances? Controlled because they "move in interstate commerce". To ban whiskey required a constitutional amendment 80 years ago, yet today banning "assault weapons", growing tobacco, or regulating cold medicines is done at the whim of the congress because it "moves in interstate commerce".

By all means, enforce the tenth amendment! Force congress to jump through the constitutionally mandated hoops required of it.

They won't, though, and this New Hampshire legislation is just spitting in the wind - a notice, if you will, that they've had enough of the BS.

G27 · February 7, 2009

You are so right. Just look at how the feds handle air quality issues.

Well, what's worse is the EPA is unconstitutional, just like the DOE (energy), the DOE (education), the FDA, the BATFE, etc, etc.

If the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the right to the Fed Gov, then it belongs to the state or the people.

We're so far away from the original constitution that our governors have less power than the president!

NuTcAsE · February 8, 2009

It may be all for naught, but I just got an e-mail from my rep. asking for the text of the legislation. There ain't nothing gonna happen if we sit on our asses and don't stand up for ourselves.

February 9, 2009

Here is the full and growing list of states who are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

For details on the particular bills and resolutions introduced by the above states, check out the following: