Comment:
Robert Reckmeyer
September 3, 2009
It is time to take ACTION and utilize our Constitution to bring the Federal Government (Officials) to Justic for their crimes against humanity, Kennedy, Iran Contra, CIA Crack Cocaine, Perpetual War Doctrine, 9/11, Iraq, Central Asia, Nicaragua, Vietnam and on and on.......
We need to assert our States Rights Under the 10th Amendment.
RR
Posted by sakerfa on August 30, 2009
THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF THEIR AGENCY CONTRACT
[Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]
“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.”
I don’t believe that it gets much more concise than that.
For years now the point that I’ve attempted to drive home on this as well as other forums, is that we need to get a ground-swell of people POUNDING the Constitutional facts INTO Congress. An overwhelming call, from the people with special emphasis on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, which trumps all extra-constitutional Federal power… They are in breach of their Article 4 Section 4 “MANDATE” in the Constitution, that the federal government control the border, during times of INVASION! This popular ground-swell would force the feds to stop the “bankrupting of the states.” The cost of this war on terror, and the influx of illegal aliens, and the threat of a North American Union… are all De-Facto UNCONSTITUTIONAL “UNFUNDED” FEDERAL MANDATES!!!
[Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
We all know the logistics of border enforcement and even deportation is well within our means. The problem is getting the politicians off of their dead posteriors! The real enemy are not those poor Latinos and Mexicans… at least not completely… though a few well timed altercations could turn this into a horrible mess which is exactly what the big boys are hoping will happen! Then they could dispense with the Constitution all together and we would really be in the soup! NO, the REAL enemy is in Washington, Ottawa, Mexico City, and the Globalist UNITED NATIONS in New York… fueled by the lust for power of their masters in London and the Banking capitols of Europe…
We must stay COOL and use the tools that the Founders Fathers gave us with resolve… we must remain vigilant… Remember, The WAR on TERROR, the Illegal Alien Problem, the SPP/NAU, and so on, are ALL DE-FACTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES THAT ARE BEING FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Y’all got that, right?
We… have resolutions in 1/3 of the states through the adoption of a 10th Amendment re-affirming Resolution that demands the accountability of the feds by Constitutional chapter and verse for any federal mandate! In the cases spelled out above, the feds cannot show anything but that they are in unconstitutional BREACH of CONTRACT!
The power against this rests in the states, and with We the People… a majority of states put the feds on notice between 1994-1996 with…“The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution!” It stated, if mandates didn’t pass Constitutional Muster, chapter and verse, which included adequate funding… there would be FIRINGS in Washington… The resolution states, with all certainty, that WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES understand what the Constitution and specifically 10th Amendment means, and exactly what it says!
…to be continued.”
_________
Now we all know that the “Federal Powers that be” are great at parroting the laws, but most of them, are not willing to live by it. Thus it will require the direct intervention of the PEOPLE through the States. As I mentioned before, one third of the states have the up to date reinforcing power on the books to force this issue against the feds… and a ground-swell of popular support is all that is needed. All we as individuals need is the understanding of what power I am talking about… So here it is… and please read the entire Resolution… thanks…
Here are scans of the 2 pages of the Colorado State 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution HJR-94-1035. These scans are of the Xerox copy I received from the Sponsor, Rep. Charlie Duke of the original document just after it was signed. You will notice the “blackened” Colorado State seal in the lower right-hand corner of page 2 … if you remember the old Xerox machines, they wouldn’t copy shiny things real well … overexposed them so to speak, from the reflection. The State Seal was stamped onto an attached circular star-burst of *glistening gold leaf* … After all the work we went through to get this passed, the finished product was most impressive indeed!
Below the two scanned pages, is the printed text since the original document may be a bit small to read. The bottom line is, it was adopted in at least one of the legislative houses in half of the 50 States!
Click on the image to see full size…
Here is the text:
STATE OF COLORADOBY REPRESENTATIVES Duke, May, (et al.)ALSO SENATORS Roberts, Ament, (et al.)
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 94-1035
WHEREAS, The 10th 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 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of powers defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 1994, the States are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the Colorado General Assembly without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 prior administrations and many now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Fifty-ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, a sovereign Republic, the Senate concurring herein:
1. That the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.2. That this Resolution shall serve as Notice and Demand that the federal government, as our agent, is hereby instructed, effective immediately, to cease and desist, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its Constitutionally authorized powers.
Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and each legislative house of each State of the United States of America, and Colorado’s Congressional Delegation.
signed) Charles E.Berry, Speaker of the House of Representativessigned) Tom Norton, President of the Senate
signed) Judith Rodrigue, Chief Clerk of the House of Representativessigned) Joan M. Albi, Secretary of the Senate
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/10th-mnd.shtml
This Resolution was signed and adopted on April 21, 1994… Colorado was the first state then, yet with the help and good faith of State Representative, and then State Senator Charles R. Duke… the next 2 years involved spreading the word to the rest of the states working within their legislatures on the grass roots level. This work was truly a grass roots effort it involved literally thousands of individuals in all 50 states, and many different grass roots organizations which included, Dr. Gene Schroder and Al Jenkins of the “American Agricultural Movement” (AAM), the folks at the American Indian Movement” (AIM), the “Council on Domestic Relations” (CDR) Geri Worley and Jackie Patrue’s organization that had a unparalleled phone and fax network, along with the “Committee of Correspondence,” they were the internet of that time and kept everyone informed. Events, and fundraisers were organized by Jim Abbott and the “10th Amendment Committee,” as well as booking Representative Duke on local and national evening and late night talk radio… like I said there were so many individuals and grass-roots organizations working on this it was an incredible thing to behold… The question is, today in the age of the Internet, can we muster that kind of organized support.
Unfortunately a majority of the American people never saw this all in action… because … as always has been the case over the last century or so, the major media is owned by the established order, so little or nothing was ever said about it on the Main Stream News!!! …
This is why it behooves all you folks out there to get your nose out of O’Reilly and Limbaugh’s tush, and supplement your news diet with some less controlled sources. It is not hard to find alternatives in news and information that will tell you the real story behind the stories… and Alex Jones and GCN give a full eye-shot at what is really going on!
…to be continued…___________
Here is a synopsis of the chronology of how this incredible 10 Amendment Sovereignty RE-AFFIRMATION document came into being …
It started in Colorado in the fall of 1993 when the direction of the Clinton police state was seen in full bloom with the obfuscation of the first and utterly botched World Trade Center bombing… when the Tower did not come down the news INSTANTLY filled with the BATF storming the church of the Branch Davidian sect of the 7th day Adventists, in Waco Texas. First came the BATF attack, the stand off, and then the 51 day siege began… complete with wall to wall coverage on all the networks and the World Trade Center bombing went back burner for over 2 months…
Colorado State Representative Charles R. Duke of Monument, originally from Arkansas but a Colorado resident for many years knew the excesses and avarice of Clinton in the days while he was the governor of Arkansas… Charlie held out little hope that the Country could withstand even 4 years of the kind of Clinton policies that gutted Arkansas.
Charlie knew that as President, Clinton would completely destroy this nation and the method that he would use would be federal mandates, disguised as do-gooder policies, … and many, many, executive orders. It was then that Charlie struck upon the idea of a 10th amendment Resolution, a re-affirmation of Constitutional LAW that would absolutely mandate that the federal government show Constitutionality, for every line of every clause of each mandate they sent out to the state’s. This re-affirmation of the 10th Amendment demanded that the feds show Constitutional jurisdiction, before it could be implemented by the state.
At that time Charlie Duke was a little-known State Representative, he had no staff to speak of except for one part-time college student and a close friend Mary Anne, who could only be there on Mondays. I heard Charlie speaking on a local talk radio show and called the station and talked with him on the air.
In that conversation after listening to his idea, I told him that I would do what ever it took to see that his 10th amendment resolution would spread across the land as a counter to the horrors that we had seen in the months before at Waco, the WTC in New York, and at Ruby Ridge Idaho. This was in February of 1994 … By March 1st… I was Charlies Aide…
At the beginning of the 3rd month of session of the 59th Colorado State Legislative Assembly, the first of March 1994, my work began … My background was in the Constitution, yet I answered phones, answered questions from walk-ins, read and answered letters, and explained to reporters and other news-people what the 10th Amendment resolution truly meant to this country. I scheduled radio appearances for Charlie, I weeded out the agents provocateur, from the bonafide constituents, that were to see him. From the time that Charlie introduced the resolution in the House and the last week of April, he was featured on close to 80 local and national radio programs, with a huge boost when he was the guest on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell. the phone and the fax machine never stopped from that point on. I spent a lot of time on the radio in raising awareness during that time as well as in correspondence and lobbying for this incredible document 16 hour days were the norm during that time for sure.
On April 21, 1994, after months of wrangling votes, HJR-94-1035, The Colorado 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution was passed by both Houses and signed by the President of the Senate Tom Norton, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Charles Berry … It was witnessed by the secretaries of both house offices and the Gold Seal of the State of Colorado was affixed. I received a photocopy of the document from Charlie that day … it was my birthday…kind of a birthday present…
By the beginning of the 1995 Legislative session the office was brimming with new intern’s, each one “troll-screened” and each was endowed with “Constitution Savvy.” For the next 2 years we lobbied state Senators and Representatives throughout the Republic, touting the virtues of this 10th Amendment Resolution, until it was finally heard, and/or adopted, by at least one house of the state’s legislature in 47 of the 50 states! In 15 of the states, it was adopted in both houses and then sent to Washington, putting the feds on notice. A copy was also sent to the White House to put the main perp of the government excesses’… William Jefferson Clinton on notice as well!
Most folks have never heard of this movement … primarily for the same reason that we’re not hearing much about the SPP/NAU on mainstream news with the exception of Lou Dobbs … It has been hushed up. Make no mistake about it, one third of the states in this union have a contemporary, strident re-affirmation of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW on the books as a result of this movement in the mid ’90s… and if exerted will put an end all this federal usurpation right now, if the people will just claim their birth-right. The federal government is our agent created by Constitutional Contract made by the people through the states that created the central government. When this federal agent no longer performs the state and the people’s bidding within the confines of the Constitution … Well you know the story… The feds are in breach of constitutional contract and must be reined in, or removed.
When I sign a contract with an attorney he becomes my agent… in exchange for my money, I expect representation from him that lives up to the contract… What is happening here is that the federal government has been taking our money yet is working for the other side…
Well, it looks like the 10th amendment Resolution may finally get to do what it was designed to do … whip the federal government back into shape … Constitutional shape that is, if we will only use it!
…to be continued…
_____________
All Right… Here we go here are a couple of the resolutions I mentioned above!!!
All of the states that adopted the 10th amendment resolution following Colorado’s lead in 1994… either adopted the same resolution or resolutions with even tougher language … remember these resolutions were a firm demand to the federal government to cease and desist unfunded federal mandates … The amount of money it is costing the states now, to care for these illegal aliens is in the hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars nationwide and threatens to bankrupt the states! The illegal alien problem promoted by the greedy failure of the federal government to secure our southern border is a de facto UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATE!!! The states that have adopted the 10th amendment resolution have ALREADY put the federal government on notice and it is time to call the fed’s bluff!
I will began with the resolution introduced in 1995 by the sovereign state of Arizona!
SJR1001 – 421R – S VerReference Title: state sovereignty; federal mandates.
A JOINT RESOLUTION
DECLARING THIS STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND DEMANDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STOP MANDATES THAT ARE BEYOND ITS POWERS.
Whereas, the 10th 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 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
Whereas, the scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, in the year 1995, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the Arizona Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 United States Constitution. Therefore
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure serves as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
2. That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this Resolution to the President and Vice-president of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the President of the Senate of the United States, each Member of the Arizona Congressional Delegation and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States.LINK
*******
Here’s Florida’s 10th Amendment Resolution, as introduced in 1995.
Florida’s 10th Amendment ResolutionHOUSE BILL hb0031dHCR31
House Concurrent Resolution
A concurrent resolution instructing Congress to cease and desist mandates beyond the scope of its authority under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREAS, the 10th 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 10th Amendment defines the total scope federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more, and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the by the states specifically to be an agent of the states, and
WHEREAS, today in 1995, the states are in fact treated as agents of the Federal Government, and
WHEREAS, numerous resolutions have been forewarded to the Federal Government by the Florida Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the Federal Government, and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and
WHEREAS, the Vice President of the United States, in the Report of the National Performance Review, has recommended that unfunded mandates imposed from Washington, D.C., be cut, that Congress refrain from imposing new mandates, that an executive order be issued to limit the use of unfunded mandates in legislative proposals, regulations, and policies, and that the executive order will narrow the circumstances under which federal departments and agencies may impose new mandates, 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 now pending from the present administration and from Congress would further violate the Unted States Constitution, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE SENATE CONCURRING:That the State of Florida hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all other powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the Federal Government by the United States Constitution, including at least sovereignty over its people and its natural resources, and that the Federal Government, as our agent, is hereby instructed to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope and authority under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representative, the President of the United States Senate, and each house of legislature of each state of the United States of America.LINK
To be continued…
__________
Here is an article from 1994 by a long time Constitutional American Patriot and Goldwater Republican, and my favorite columnist. Notice the very first thing on the list of Western 10th Amendment grievances, the feds shirking their Article IV, Section 4 constitutional responsibility….
States Rights Rebellionby Patrick J. BuchananJuly 23, 1994
Once again, the spirit of John C. Calhoun stalks the land.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, arereserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.” Soreads our long-forgotten 10th Amendment. Seizing on thisamendment, Western states — fed up with federal despotism– are attempting a rollback of federal power and a rebirthof states’ rights.
Illegal aliens, unfunded federal mandates, control ofland, guns — these are the issues driving a gatheringnational rebellion.
California has filed suit demanding the United Statesassume full cost of educating, medicating and imprisoningillegal aliens. The U.S., says California, has ignored itsconstitutional duty to protect California from invasion,allowing her to be overrun by a million illegals everyyear.
Alaska — whose governor, Walter Hickel, won election asthe candidate of a party advocating secession — has fileda $29 billion suit charging the U.S. with locking up 100million acres of Alaska’s land in violation of the compactby which Alaska became a state.
Colorado has passed the 10th Amendment resolution orderingthe U.S. to “cease and desist, effective immediately,mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionallydelegated powers.
In Montana, Sheriff Jay Printz refused to enforce theBrady law mandating background checks on gun buyers. He hasneither the time nor manpower, declared Sheriff Printz,adding, “We like our guns in Montana… It’s not unusualfor a person to have 15 guns or more.”
In Billings, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell ruled infavor of Printz, striking down that part of the Brady law.Under the 10th Amendment, ruled the judge, the federalgovernment cannot force states to allocate resources tocarry out federal responsibilities.
In Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack filed suitagainst Brady, saw his suit upheld, and became a folk hero,leading a parade of 20,000 in a protest against gun laws inMedford, Oregon.
Sheriff Mack has a book coming out in September [1994],“From My Cold Dead Fingers,”which he says, “gets intothings like Waco and Bernhard Goetz and how government’sown documentation shows that the safest way to defendyourself is with a gun.
Like the Sagebrush Rebellion of 15 years ago, this revoltout of the West threatens to decimate the Democratic Party.
It is being driven by miners, ranchers and loggers who seea way of life being destroyed by judges and bureaucrats. Itis backed by elected officials fed up with being ordered tomeet the mandates of Congress and by taxpayers enraged atbeing robbed of property rights by federal agencies withoutjust compensation.
Beltway elites may scoff, but this rebellion is growing.One day it will manifest itself in acts more dramatic thana handful of sheriffs refusing to carry out Brady. InColorado there is talk of the state withholding federal gastax revenues from Washington and spending the moneydirectly on state highways.
In Catron County, N.M., rhetoric about “taking backAmerica” has taken on real meaning. When the Forest Servicecurbed timber harvests to protect the habitat of Mexicanspotted owl, and started reviewing whether cattle grazingwas endangering the range land, county officials drew uptheir own plan for managing the land. Forest rangers whotried to cut ranchers’ livestock grazing permits werethreatened with arrest.
“The Forest Service has been run off at gunpoint,” saysSusan Schock, a silver City, N.M., environmentalist.“They’ve turned the forest over to the county.”
“If we didn’t have the plan, there would have beenbloodshed,” says rancher Dick Manning. “Things have gottento that point.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who is prosecuting Mr.Clinton’s “War against the West,” chuckles at the“sovereign nation of Catron County.” But Catron’s defiancehas inspired a nationwide “county movement,” enlistingcounty and state governments in the battle againstenvironmental regulators
People for the West!, a new grassroots organization, callsfor increased, not diminished, development of the 500million acres of federal land. It now has 30,000 members,has doubled its chapters in the last year, and claimscredit for the Senate filibuster that forced CommissarBabbitt to retreat from his proposed hike in grazing fees.
Whose land is it, anyway? that is the question. Andsupport is building behind a movement to have most of those500 million acres of federal land turned over to thestates, leaving decisions about the use and preservation ofthat land to the people who care most about it — thepeople who live on it!
The 10th Amendment rebellion is a cause that populists andconservatives ought not only to get behind but out in front of.
JTCoyoté
___________
I have dug up a treasure trove of documents… I would never have thought there would still be this much pertaining to this movement, but lo’ there is….I am now searching the Internet for corroborating documents, I have plenty more in hard copy from years ago, but am only posting what I can find links for…
What is below is a progress report from September 20, 1995 that shows the state’s that had passed joint 10th Amendment Resolutions as well as those who had it in one House or the other of their Legislature. And finally those who had introduced it at the time of the report.
10TH AMENDMENT STATE SOVEREIGNTY RESOLUTION
CURRENT STATUS (9/20/95)
RESOLUTION PASSED General Assembly, both houses, (joint or concurrent resolutions) of:
Colorado Hawaii MissouriCalifornia Pennsylvania MichiganMontana Arkansas IdahoIndiana Alaska KansasAlabama Nevada Maine
Senate & House in Illinois HR-0279, 95th General Assembly, however not as a joint resolution.
* House only in Oklahoma and Louisiana
* Senate only in Kentucky
* INTRODUCED IN:
Ohio – Rep M. Wise and Sen DrakeMinnesota – Rep Lynch & Sen HansonWisconsin – Rep PorterConnecticut – Sen Crisco, Jr. & Rep ChaseVermont – Rep. MaslackArizona – Rep GroscostIowa – Rep Hurley & Sen BorlaugOregon – Sen R. JohnsonTennessee – Rep FowlerTexas – Rep. TaltonS. CarolinaNew JerseyFloridaWashingtonNebraskaN. DakotaGeorgiaNew MexicoMarylandMississippiNew HampshireWyomingUtahW. VirginiaNew MexicoNew YorkAlabamaN. CarolinaRhode IslandVirginia
* Many of the above states’ legislative sessions had ended prior to thetime of this update. Some states have two-year sessions. If theResolution did not pass before session’s end, generally it will have tobe re-introduced. Contact us if you need assistance.LINK
PS, Many of the links in this thread have been removed from the web over the last few months but most have been backed up as pdfs on a data base I do not attach to the web… if you are interested in any of the docs, contact me by PM… JT.
________
One of the first questions that gets asked when this kind of lawful protest by the state’s comes up is the Supreme Court’s stand… I believe it is possible for the court to rule unlawfully against the People and the states given that the Supreme Court has been totally co-opted by the rogue feds. However, the Constitution says nothing that makes the supreme court the final word on constitutionality, especially when 38 states, by independent resolution and reasoned argument, challenge the Court, the Congress, and the Executive… To quote Thomas Jefferson:
”…on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carryourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect thespirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may besqueezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable onein which it was passed.”
On 10th Amendment Sovereignty question, the Supreme Court will have to rewrite 500 years of “English Grammar” and 300 years of “English dictionary’s”, to come down on the side of the globalists.
It is pretty hard NOT to see that the feds are in VIOLATION of the following article, by promoting Democracy over a Republic, as well as this illegal invasion, the unconstitutional war, redefining the 2nd Amendment, the Banker Bail-out, and the list goes on…
Art. IV Sec. 4 clause 1 of the Constitution…“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”
Then if each of the Sovereign States standing on it’s people’s sovereignty demands that the feds show, article, section and clause where they have the Constitutional authority to impose upon the people an invasion, and then mandating the states to feed and house the ILLEGAL invaders…This has cost the people of Colorado over $135 Million since 2004 alone… in other words, the court would have to change the meaning of the grammar and meaning of the words of this article in the Bill of Rights…
The 10th 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.”
Always have food, water, and ammo on hand… and then get your friends and your state to stand in enforcement of the LAW against this criminal federal government which includes many in it’s courts, and demand that your state declare its’ SOVEREIGNTY with the Tenth Amendment Reaffirmation as the CONSTITUTIONAL precedent… This is NOT secession… it is Constitutional re-affirmation using the 10th Amendment as the power. If 38 of the states did this… which is the over-riding 3/4 super-majority needed to force compliance, the feds would backdown… right now!!!
This is not a call to over throw the Constitution at all but to boot out and incarcerate a whole bunch of a’holes that have perverted it, which may include some in the courts!
Coyoté
________
The States screwed up big time when they gave the federal government the ability to tax income. This gave the Feds control of the purse strings. Now, the Feds are the master of the States because they can deprive the States of money that is rightfully theirs in the first place.
Just think, if the federal government had to submit a budget to the States for approval and funding, do you think the Federal government could get away with even 1/10th the amount of BS they get away with now?
Just as an example, Congress just voted a pay raise for themselves. Does anyone think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that pay raise would be approved by a majority of the states? Hell no!
And what would be the sense of lobbying efforts if the Federal legislators were unable to grant multi-billion dollar tax breaks and contracts to the clients of the lobbyists?
The 10th trumps the income taxing 16th Amendment… the States reserve the power of the purse strings… When we get 34 or more states to exert their SOVEREIGN RIGHT…not in a compact… but individually, with the balls to say “We will not allow you to Bankrupt us, which Oklahoma has rekindled…When the states stand fast and say we will be holding back the “federal” money til’ you do your Constitutional JOB… By the aegis protected and claimed by this state, pursuant the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Ratified in Convention and made part and parcel of the organic Constitution of the United States of America on December 15th 1791″… this must be done as individual states,
NOT AS A CONVENTION OF STATES!!!!!!
The government empowering 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th amendments were not ratified in convention, therefore can be repealed, much like the the Volstead Act that created the Prohibition 18th Amendment, was repealed by the Blaine act that became the 21st Amendment. It would require a full-blown constitutional convention to alter the 10th amendment however, or any of the Bil of Rights, which the globalists have been trying to incite for decades, which would be required in order to open the organic Constitution and Bill of Rights to change.
Our bottom line power as states and people is Article 2 of The Bill of Rights… You know the one with the word Militia in it… the State People’s Army so to speak… the ones who are all in foreign lands now… because we were made to believe that the National Guard meant Militia… State Guard would be the Militia…For home defense ONLY. The powers that be have used the lowest common denominator against us, using DEMOCRACY as their buzz word… “Honey, do I smell toast burning?”… There is no way that the National Guard is the militia… I don’t care how you slice it, burnt or not.
Now you can understand why Clinton and the Clinton/Bush clones in the governors offices these days have dissolved our State’s Militia’s… It Started with the bombing at OKC under Clinton, the demonization of our lawful Militias… Colorado governor Bill Owens defied the Colorado State Constitution by failure to name and appoint state militia Officers in 1999…. how many other states have had their militias destroyed, in the wake of the mid-1990s war on the lawful state militias, and homegrown Constitutional patriot groups by the Clinton administration.
“THIS WAS A STEALTHFUL COUP… A CALCULATED TAKE OVER OF THIS COUNTRY!!! Can you see…?? I hope so….
_______
So what is the next step… in light of Oklahoma’s move toward sovereignty??
I live daily in wonderment at the power of God’s infusion of righteous reasoning, among Free Men in Liberty’s Light. Our founding documents are truly divinely inspired.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you all to a good friend, who can tell you more in fewer words than I about the 10th Amendment Resolution he first introduced in Colorado back in 1994.
Here is the author of the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, Retired Colorado Representative and Senator… Charles R. Duke
Quote from: Colorado State Senator Charles R. Duke
Implementing the Tenth Amendment:State Sovereignty Resolutionby Colorado State Senator Charles R. Duke
In the many discussions across several states, questions have arisen concerning exactly how the “Tenth Amendment Resolution” will help. A few have also wondered, “What’s Next?.”
Some insight might be gained if we look at the reasons the Resolution came to life. This discussion is primarily intended for legislators, but can be useful for those of you who are working to have it introduced in your state. It may help in your discussions with legislators who you are asking to sponsor or support the resolution.
The principal motivation came from the myriad of federal mandates which have been placed and are planned to be placed on the states. State legislatures feel they have little choice but to implement these mostly-unfunded mandates and pass the cost for implementation to the state taxpayers. For most state legislators, this is a very frustrating dilemma.
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. Article IV, Section 4 says, “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”.
We have, through apathy and lack of will, allowed federal legislators and bureaucrats to assert their will over us and commandeer our funds for their own use…. most of it today outside the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
When a state passes this resolution proclaiming its sovereignty, that state may then claim exemption to most federal mandates under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was what happened with New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). The federal government was attempting to mandate that the State of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal. New York pleaded they were exempt from the mandate under the Tenth Amendment and the court affirmed the Tenth Amendment protection. Thus, by having proclaimed sovereignty, a state is in the position to select those mandates they will follow, now by choice, not by edict.
A sovereignty resolution does not preclude any state from participating in any program they choose, but the proponent may no longer claim, “It’s a federal mandate. We have to do it”. Each state legislator, in compliance with his/her oath of office, must then examine closely before passage, the Constitutionality of any law being considered.
Needless to say, the feds may be unimpressed with a statement of sovereignty and attempt to impose economic sanctions against the state, as has become their pattern over the years. In anticipation of this, each state should also create escrow funds for each federally-funded major program. That is, the states will collect the major sources of federal funds, such as gas tax and income tax, in behalf of the federal government and make monthly disbursements to the feds from these escrow funds… but only if the funds are to be used for purposes which are allowed in the Constitution.
The cost for maintaining this flow-through operation can be borne through the short term interest gained from the escrow accounts. It is easy to see the savings that are possible when the bureaucracies established on the federal level to dole out funds to the states are no longer needed.
Additionally, the tremendous tax burden on all Americans can be eased because of the decreased spending. Should the feds then decide to place economic sanctions, generally meaning the withholding of certain funds, the state could then simply stop making the monthly disbursement to the feds and retain the funds in the escrow accounts. When the matter is resolved, and it certainly will be, the disbursements could continue.
This approach also allows the placing of surcharges on those federal payments in order to pay for the cost of implementing federal programs. The exact mechanism for creating these funds will vary from state to state, but the idea is fairly universal. In most cases, the funds in question properly belong to the state in question to begin with. There are those who believe there is no such quantity as “federal funds” in the first place. Every dollar disbursed by the feds originated somewhere through the sweat of someone’s labor.
The sovereignty proclaimed by the state simply inserts the authority of the state, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, at a point to re-assert control which should never have been given over. This measure will then relieve the pressure of frustration from a federal government wildly out of control and move the decision process much closer to the people.
Should the feds decide to utilize their hired guns — the judicial system — in order to coerce obedience, sovereignty again allows the state to ignore orders of the court. The feds will not, in my opinion, go to more forceful coercions beyond the court system for fear of triggering their ultimate demise. They do not want this and neither do we. We are perfectly within our rights to proclaim protection from federal oppression by our United States Constitution. It was created with exactly these protections in mind.
How to achieve successful passage of the 10th amendmentState Sovereignty Resolution in your state
The following will suggest a few ideas you may want to use to introduce and assure the success of the passage of the 10th Amendment-State Sovereignty Resolution in your state. Every measure in any state legislature must be introduced by the legislators for that state. The resolution needs a prime sponsor in the House of Representatives, a prime sponsor in the Senate and as many co-sponsors as can be enlisted.
Ordinarily, a legislator who would be interested in a strong Tenth Amendment stance will have an interest in other patriot issues such as Constitutional rights and freedoms, a balanced budget, the right to keep and bear arms, honoring veterans and our American flag, and opposing federal mandates. If you don’t know who these might be, visit or call your state capitol and ask for a status sheet. This is a document that gives the name, number, status and usually the prime sponsor of a bill. Look for key words common to a patriot’s vocabulary, such as those mentioned above.
Then, contact those legislators and discuss the resolution with them. If the legislator you contact has no interest he will generally know another who shares our views and interests. Be certain of the legislator’s stance on patriot issues before you ask him or her to be the prime sponsor. Some legislators will agree, or even ask to be the prime sponsor for the express purpose of inflicting fatal damage to the resolution. Needless to say, these legislators are not our friends and should be avoided.
Now, let’s say you have found a legislator who is acceptable and who has agreed to be the resolution’s prime sponsor. In many states, measures are first assigned to a committee for hearing. This is usually the place where public input is allowed and sought. If possible, find co-sponsors who are on the committee to which the resolution is likely to be assigned… the Chairman of that committee would be excellent. If you have a committee chairman who opposes the resolution, regardless the number of co-sponsors, the resolution could die in that committee as it is the Chairman who decides whether or not to call a measure for vote.
Usually a prime sponsor can ask for an alternate committee assignment if the most probable committee assignment is determined to be a hostile committee. Your prime sponsor should know the likely committee of assignment and the names of the members of that committee. The Committee Chairman can also tell you who the influential members of that committee are. Supporters of the resolution in your state can help the prime sponsor by contacting the members of the committee and asking for their favorable consideration. Be polite. Most legislators lead a fairly demanding lifestyle and a little courtesy will go a long way towards insuring the successful passage of the resolution.
Make preparations to have people from your state testify at the committee hearings. Positive citizen testimony is worth a great deal. Regardless of your anger at the direction your government is going, speak instead of the brighter future that lies ahead for those with the courage to reclaim our freedom as secured by our Constitution. Your prime sponsor will also know the ins and outs of measures in your state. Follow their lead, but offer and be willing to help the process along. The stakes are high (potentially losing our Country)…. and the reward is great.
Locate the talk show hosts and columnists in your area who express patriot views. Contact those hosts and columnists and solicit their help in your effort. This should not be difficult, as this subject is of keen interest across America and will generate listeners and readers. The Tenth Amendment is fairly easy to understand and explain, but the implications of its assertion are far-reaching. Some in the media will see that and be glad to lend their support. Finally, enlist your friends, family, neighbors, other groups and organizations to assist you in contacting every member of your state legislature to encourage their support. Pay particular attention to those who refuse, for they are major contributors to the problems facing America. There is strength in numbers.
Take strength from the knowledge that there are those who also love their country and are active in their own states.
Take courage from the spirit that founded our Country.
United in this strength and courage America can and will be once again the great nation which our forefathers envisioned.
LINK
–Oldyoti
__________
Here is California’s 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, adopted on August 29, 1994.
California’s Resolution on the 10thAsserting State’s Rights under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights
This bill was approved and chartered.
The original was found at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_44&sess=9394&house=S
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
INTRODUCED BY STATE SENATOR DON ROGERS
April 13, 1994
WHEREAS, The 10th 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 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall 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 its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.
********
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_44&sess=9394&house=SBILL NUMBER: SJR 44 INTRODUCED 04/14/94
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senators Rogers, Ayala, Bergeson, Beverly, Boatwright, Campbell, Dills, Hill, Hurtt, Johannessen, Kelley, Kopp, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, McCorquodale, Mello, Peace, Presley, Wright, and Wyman (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Andal, Baca, Boland, Bowen, Bowler, Brulte, Cannella, Conroy, Cortese, Costa, Epple, Ferguson, Frazee, Goldsmith, Harvey, Hauser, Haynes, Hoge, Honeycutt, Horcher, Johnson, Jones, Katz, Knight, Knowles, McPherson, Morrow, Mountjoy, Murray, Pringle, Rainey, Richter, Statham, Takasugi, Tucker, Weggeland, and Woodruff)
APRIL 14, 1994
Senate Joint Resolution No. 44 Relative to the 10th Amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SJR 44, as introduced, Rogers. 10th Amendment.
This measure would declare the state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and demand that the federal government cease and desist mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers.
Fiscal committee: no.
[This bill was approved and chartered on August 29, 1994.]
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/cal10res.htm
__________
Then there was this attack on the 10th Amendment as reported in ‘98 by The American Policy Center. http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/clintonexecutive.htm
Clinton Executive Order “REVOKES” 10th Amendment
By Tom DeWeese
During his six-year reign of terror, Bill Clinton has signed no less that 254 Executive Orders. To date, not one has been challenged by the United States Congress. Congressional silence has led Clinton to stronger, bolder action in his carefree drive to fulfill his liberal agenda.
But no previous action has come close to that taken with the signing of Executive Order 13083 entitled “Federalism.” On May 14th, with the stroke of a pen, Clinton rescinded Ronald Reagan’s own E.O. 12612 on Federalism. At the same time, Clinton also sliced the Constitution’s 10th Amendment into unrecognizable pieces.
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan took a bold step to repair the damage to the Constitution and our political system. From Supreme Court decisions to power-seeking bureaucrats, the federal government was roaming far from its Constitutional borders. Reagan sought to rein it in by producing an Executive Order that would reestablish the power of the 10th Amendment, which gives states sovereignty and power over all but those clearly defined duties of the federal government. That concept is called “Federalism.” Reagan’s E.O. defined Federalism by saying it “is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.”
But on May 14, 1998, Bill Clinton set out to do away with all of that. Like Reagan’s document, Clinton’s E.O. 13083 begins like a definition of the 10th Amendment. The document lists a host of duties and rights empowered to the States and their individual citizens. But then it goes into a list of nine broad and vague exceptions wherein the federal government might be “justified” in taking federal action because of “matters of national or multi-state scope.” (See the enclosed block for the complete list of “exceptions”).
This incredible grab for power lets federal bureaucrats decide if a state has “adequately protected individual rights and liberties.” It 10th Amendment is about to be thrown out with the bath water. Is anybody listening? Where are the protests from the nation’s fifty state governors who have just had their jobs reduced to ribbon-cutting ceremonies? Where are all the elected members of the fifty state legislatures? When will the United States Congress finally stand up to Bill Clinton, who, in their absence, is busy appointing himself dictator?
FINALLY, CONGRESS IS TAKING ACTION
Well, finally, there are signs that Congress intends to respond to the blizzard of Clinton’s Executive Orders. Congressman Mac Collins of Georgia has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 299. His bill is designed to stop Executive Order 13083 and, in a sense, reinstate President Reagan’s vital E.O 12612. Congressman Collins’ Resolution will state that it is the “sense of Congress that the constitutional principles of federalism (the division of power between the Federal government and the governments of the States) should be upheld, protecting the rights of the States, localities and individuals.”At this writing, Congressman Collins’ Resolution has at least twenty-three co-sponsors, with more being rapidly added. In addition, it now appears that House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gotten behind the bill and is helping to move it along. In fact, the plan now is to completely bypass committee consideration of the bill and to move it directly to the house floor for a vote.
However, the bill must then move to the Senate for similar action. If this action is not completed before August 12, 1998, Clinton’s Executive Order will go into effect. The only way to stop it then will be by a veto-proof, two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. On the Senate side, Senator John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, is also adamantly opposed to E.O.13083. Perhaps simultaneous action can be taken in both houses, hurrying along the process. These actions mark the very first time that congressional initiative has been so vigorously undertaken in response to a Clinton-signed Executive Order. But time is growing very short.
To succeed, there must be a massive outpouring of protest from across the nation. Along with the protests of enraged citizens, governors and state legislators from all fifty states must also immediately join the protest, through letters, phone calls and even lawsuits against this Clinton power grab. They are the ones who will lose their powers. And they are the ones who will carry the most weight in the battle to persuade reluctant Congressmen to support H. Con. 299 to rescind Executive Order 13083.
Many, including the American Policy Center, have criticized the Congress for capitulating to Bill Clinton’s every whim. But Congress is starting to wake up to the dangers of Clinton’s blizzard of Executive Orders. Now is the time for us all to join forces and help congressional leaders stop this shredding of the 10th Amendment.
Here is the draconian 9th and 10th amendment killing Executive Order Bill Clinton signed on May 14, 1998… this was a brazen attempt at amending the Constitution by the executive, as things played out over the next few months however it was nullified by Executive Order 13092, and defunded by the Omnibus appropriations Bill of 1998. It needs to be rescinded however, completely destroyed!
EO 13083 FederalismSuspended by EO 13092
Defunded by an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of 1998.
This EO trash the 9th and 10th Amendments on Federalism.
EO 13083 has been nullified and replaced with EO 13132.
Also see
List 13083 for background and references.
Sources:http://library.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/web_fetch_doc?dataset=Plain-Dataset-ExecutiveOrder&db=ExecutiveOrders&doc_id=189&query=all+by+clinton
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=5434322857+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
The White House Virtual Library
Executive Orders
FEDERALISM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Birmingham, England)
For Immediate Release May 14, 1998
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
FEDERALISMBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “State” or “States” refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.
(b) “Policies that have federalism implications” refers to Federal regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States.
(c) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:
(a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances.
(b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the Constitution.
(c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power of the States.
(d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly.
(f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.
(g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility of — and should encourage opportunities for — States, local governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:
(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles.
Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action.
(b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments only after determining that there is constitutional and legal authority for the action.
(c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion.
(d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including:
(1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State’s boundaries.(2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs.
(3) When there is a need for uniform national standards.
(4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.
(5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties.
(6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States.
(7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities.
( When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations.
(9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 4. Consultation.
(a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of State and local governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
(b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, unless:
(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or local government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or
(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,
(A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with representatives of affected States and local governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency’s position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and
(B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by States or local governments.
Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers.
(a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.
(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.
(c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor.
(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.
Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
Sec. 7. General Provisions.
(a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
(b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 (”Regulatory Planning and Review”), Executive Order 12988 (”Civil Justice Reform”), and OMB Circular A-19.
(c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked.
(d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of this order shall complement the Executive order entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” being issued on this day.
(e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998.
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/eo13083.htm
JTCoyoté
__________
WASHINGTON STATE DECLARES SOVEREIGNTY!!!
2009
———————————————————- ———————-
HJM 4009 – 2009-10
Claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
H-1028.1
____________ _________ _________ _________ ______
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 4009____________ _________ _________ _________ ______
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular SessionBy 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, AND2 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF3 REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFTHE4 UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE5 SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE’S6 LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:7 We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of8 the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled,respectfully9 represent and petition as follows:10 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United11 States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the12 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to theStates,13 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“; and14 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal15 power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the16 Constitution of the United States and no more; and17 WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers18 between the national and state governments and is widely regardedas19 one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science;andp.1 HJM 40091 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 and4 indefinite.The former will be exercised principally on external5 objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.The6 powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects7 which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,liberties,8 and properties of the people.“; and9 WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not10 “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are11 “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.The one is12 the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.“;13 and14 WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people15 will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium16 between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this17 balance between the national and state governments forms a double18 security to the people.If one [government] encroaches on their19 rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.Indeed,20 they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional21 limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between22 them.“; and23 WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means24 that the federal government was created by the states specificallyto25 be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;and26 WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as27 agents of the federal government; and28 WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the29 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and30 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.
31 United States, 112 S. Ct.2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply32 commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states;and33 WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and34 some now being considered by the present administration and from35 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 underHJM 4009 p.21 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States overall2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federalgovernment3 by the Constitution of the United States; and4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitutionof6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its8 constitutionally delegated powers.9 BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately10 transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United11 States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker ofthe12 House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and theSpeaker13 of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the14 United States of America, and each member of Congress from theState of15 Washington.
— END —p.3 HJM 4009http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009#documents
JTCoyoté
________
NEW HAMPSHIRE DECLARES SOVEREIGNTY
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
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.
JTCoyoté
_______
Oklahoma’s 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1003 By: Rep. Charles KeyAS INTRODUCED
A Joint 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; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.
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 says, “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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the State of Oklahoma 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.
THAT this 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.
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.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed 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 of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.
HJR-1003 [/center]
JTCoyoté
__________
Here is Alaska’s State Sovereignty Resolution SJR-95-7 that was adoptedon February 14th 1995.
BILL: SJR 7SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATESBILL VERSION: HCS SJR 7 (STA)
TITLE: Relating to mandates imposed on the states by the federal government. SJR 7
Relating to mandates imposed on the states by the federal government.BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States states:
“The powers not delegatd to the Unites States by the Constitution, not 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 United States Constitution 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 for the states; and
WHEREAS today, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment; and SJR 7 and
WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 2 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that the Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative ["and regulartory" - left out of Alaska] processes of the states; and
WHEREAS a number of proposals now pending before the Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS numerous resolutions addressing various mandates imposed on the states by federal law have been sent to the federal government by the Alaska State Legislature without any response or result; and
WHEREAS the United States Constitution envisions sovereign states and guarantees the states a republican form of governmentp; and
WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power to act on behalf of SJR 7
WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power to act on behalf of state Citizens as the power of government is moving farther away from the people into the hands of federal agencies composed of officials who are not elected and who are unaware of the needs of Alaska and the other states; and
WHEREAS the federal court system affords a means to liberate the states from the grips of federal mandates;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by that constitution; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, imposing mandates on the states that are beyond the scope of its constituitionally delegated powers; and be it
FURTHER RELOLVED that the Governor is respectfully requested to examine and challenge by legal action on behalf of the state, federal mandates contained in court rulings, federal laws and regulations, or federal practices to the extent those mandates infringe on the sovereignty of Alaska or the state’s authority over issues affecting its citizens; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska’s sister states are urged to participate in any legal action brought under this resolution.
COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable Al Gore, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; to the Honorable Ted Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; and to the governor of each of Alaska’s sister states.
(Link 1) http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?session=19&bill=sjr+7&submit=Display+Bill
(link 2) http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2917/wep.html
–Oldyoti
____________
Here is Nevada’s 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, SJR-95-1,adopted April 28, 1995.
State of NevadaSenate Joint Resolution No. 1
Introduced by Senators Rhoads, O’Connell, James, McGinness, Lowden and Regan
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states 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
WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment confirms that the scope of power of the Federal Government is no more than that which is specifically enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The power of the states, as stated in the 10th Amendment, indicates that the Federal Government was created by the several states specifically to act as an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, By requiring the various states to carry out certain federal mandates, the Federal Government is demonstrably treating the states as agents of the Federal Government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal mandates may be in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, and may, therefore, infringe upon the powers reserved to the states or to the people by the 10th Amendment; and
WHEREAS, In the case of New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), the Supreme Court of the United States stated that the Congress of the United States may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states, and that Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Numerous proposals from previous presidential administrations and some now proposed by the current presidential administration and Congress may further violate the 10th Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JOINTLY, That the State of Nevada hereby claims sovereignty pursuant to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution serve as a notice and demand to the Federal Government, as the agent of the State of Nevada, to cease and desist immediately the enactment and enforcement of mandates which are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States as presiding officer of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and each member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation; and be if further
RESOLVED, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage and approval.
ADOPTED BY THE SENATE—March 1, 1995ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY—April 28, 1995
http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/25.15/
JTCoyoté
___________
In light of the killing of HCR-6, the New Hampshire State Sovereignty Resolution, in committee on Friday, 13 February, I think it is a shot across the bow for people who are thinking this is going to be an easy fight. The globalist powers have minions within the states and have been placing them in key positions for decades now.
Don’t get me wrong this doesn’t mean that we should give up the fight, it means we should arm ourselves with information and spread the word even more furiously than we have in the past. Remember just because a sovereignty resolution is introduced in a state legislature doesn’t mean the state is out of the water, it must be passed by both houses of the state legislature first.
Once this happens, we you move within the state to put teeth into the resolution by passing what has been referred to as the State Sovereignty ACT. The Sovereignty Resolution merely puts forth the state’s intent to abide by the Constitution to the letter, and expects the federal government to do the same. The State Sovereignty ACT however spells out the specifics which includes the penalties the federal agents will have sanctioned against them by the state.
Here is a copy of a State Sovereignty ACT that was introduced by Representative Charles Key of Oklahoma back in 1995.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1ST SESSION OF THE 45TH LEGISLATURE (1995)
REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
Representative Howard Cotner, Chairman Representative Ron Langmacher, ViceChairman
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1874
SUBJECT: State Sovereignty ActAUTHOR: Representative Key
PROVISIONS:
1. Creates the State Sovereignty Act.
2. Declares legislative intent that the U.S. Congress does not havethe right under the federal Constitution to withhold from the States thebenefits of federal taxes through unconstitutional mandates. States that theState of Oklahoma reasserts its claim of sovereignty.
3. Defines terms used in this act. Creates the “Federal Tax Fund” inthe state treasury which shall be an escrow account. Specifies that anyinterest carried on the deposit of monies in the Fund along with any civilpenalties associated with this act shall remain in the fund and shall notrevert to the General Revenue Fund of the state at the end of any fiscal year.Provides that such interest shall be used to pay any necessary administrativecosts incurred pursuant to this act and any excess interest and penaltiesshall be transferred to the State Transportation Fund.
4. Requires any person liable for any federal excise, income or liquoralcohol tax to remit the Lax to the Oklahoma Tax Commission for deposit Intothe Fund.
5. Requires the State Treasurer to transfer at the end of each monththe monies held in the fund less any interest earned to the Internal RevenueService in payment of the tax obligation of those persons who remitted the taxto the Oklahoma Tax Commission.
6. Provides that if the federal government imposes any sanctions onthe state for failing to enact legislation required by federal law which the0klahoma Legislature deems to be unconstitutional. the State Treasurer shallnot transfer any taxes held in the Federal Tax Fund. Provides procedures forthe transferring of the monies if the sanctions are lifted within 90 days.Provides that if the sanctions are not lifted within 90 days, the state shallimpose a surcharge on the monies in the fund to be used for payment tocontinue highway project funding.
7. Specifies that any person who fails to comply with this Act shallbe subject to a civil penalty in an amount equal to 150% of the tax owed foreach day the person fails to comply.
8. Provides that this act shall apply to federal taxes to be collectedafter June 30, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE July 1. 1993 Emergency Clause
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 45th Legislature (1995)
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 1874 By: Key
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
An Act relating to revenue and taxation; creating the State Sovereignty Act;Providing short title; providing definitions; declaring legislative intent;creating the Federal Tax Fund; providing for interest earned on certainmonies; providing for remittance of certain taxes by certain persons;providing for transmission of certain monies to State Treasurer; providingcertain duties of State Treasurer regarding transferring of withholdingcertain funds; providing for certain surcharge; providing for civil penalties;providing for deposit of Certain Penalties; providing for act to apply tocertain taxes collected after certain date; providing for codification;providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE 0F THE STATE OF 0KLAH0MA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the OklahomaStatutes as Section 50200 of Title 68, unless there is created a duplicationin numbering, reads as follows:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “State Sovereignty Act”.
SECTION 2, NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the OklahomaStatutes as Section 50201 of Title 68, unless there is created a duplicationin numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that the Tenth Amendment of the UnitedStates Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being thatSpecifically granted by the federal constitution and no more. The Legislaturerecognizes that the United States Congress has the right to lay and collecttaxes under the federal constitution. The Legislature finds, however, that theCongress does not have the right under the federal constitution to withholdfrom the States the benefits of those taxes through unconstitutional mandates.
B. The legislature further finds that the most unconstitutional mandatesprohibit Oklahoma from implementing programs of excellence that would exceedfederal expectations. Oklahoma has significant technical expertise in resourcemanagement in the areas of air, earth and water, but the persistent threat ofsanctions renders that expertise ineffective.
C. In light of the continuing unconstitutional withholding of the benefits ofthe taxes, the State of Oklahoma hereby reasserts its claim of Sovereignty.
SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the OklahomaStatutes as Section 50202 of Title 68, unless there is created a duplicationin numbering, reads as follows:
A. As used in this act:
1. “Person” means natural persons, corporations, Partnerships, limitedliability companies, associations and other legal entities;
2. “Excise tax” means any tax that forms a component of the highwayusers tax fund;
3. “Income tax” means any tax imposed by the federal government on anyincome earned by a taxpayer; and
4. “Liquor or alcohol tax”, means any tax imposed by the federalgovernment on any beer, liquor, wine or similar alcoholic beverage.
5. There shall be created in the State Treasury the “Federal TaxFund”, which shall be an escrow account. Any interest earned on the deposit ofmonies in the fund along with. any civil penalties assessed pursuant tosubsection F of this section shall remain in the fund and shall not revert tothe General Revenue Fund of the state at the end of any fiscal year. Theinterest earned on the deposit of monies and any civil penalties shall be usedto pay any necessary administrative costs incurred pursuant to this act andany excess interest and penalties shall be transferred to the StateTransportation Fund.
C. Any person liable for any federal excise, income or liquor or alcohol taxshall remit the tax when due along with the federal taxpayer number of suchperson to the Oklahoma Tax Commission for deposit into the fund.
D. All monies collected pursuant to Subsection C of this section shall betransmitted to the State Treasurer who, as a fiduciary agent, shall credit thesame to the Federal Tax Fund 0n behalf of the person that remitted the tax.
E. 1. Except as provided in Paragraph 2 of this subsection, the StateTreasurer shall transfer at the end of each month the monies held in theFederal Tax Fund less any interest earned on the deposit to the InternalRevenue Service in Payment of the tax obligation of those persons whoremitted the tax to the Oklahoma Tax Commission. As part of the transfer, theState Treasurer shall identify the federal taxpayer number and amount receivedfrom each person who remitted any tax to the 0klahoma Tax Commission.
2. If the federal government imposes any sanctions on the State ofOklahoma for failing to enact legislation required by federal law, which theLegislature deems to be unconstitutional, by withholding or reprogramming anyfederal-aid monies from, among other things, highway construction to highwaysafety or other programs, the State Treasurer shall not transfer any taxesheld in the Federal Tax fund but shall retain the monies in the fund untilsuch time as the sanctions are lifted. If the lifting of the sanctions occurswithin ninety (90) days, the State Treasurer shall transfer the amounts heldin the fund to the Internal Revenue Service within ten (10) days of thelifting of the sanctions. If the sanctions are not lifted within ninety (90)days, the state shall impose a surcharge on the monies in the fund to be usedfor payment to continue highway project funding,
F. Any person who fails to comply with this section shall be subject to acivil penalty in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of thetax owed for each day the person fails to comply with this section. Any civilpenalties assessed under this section shall be deposited into the Federal TaxFund established in this section,
G. The act shall apply to federal taxes to be collected after June 30, 1995.
SECTION 4. This act shall become effective July 1, 1995.
SECTION 5. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the publicpeace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist by reasonwhereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after itspassage and approval.
45-1-6461 Jar 1/31/95
__________________________________________________
Here is some commentary on the ACT by the CDR, (Council on Domestic Relations)
FORCING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION
As you have now read, the 10th Amendment / State Sovereignty Resolutionreasserts the state’s sovereign position and demands that the federalgovernment comply with the terms of the Constitution. What if the FederalGovernment chooses to ignore the demands of the Sovereign States?
As an example of what comes next, consider this: Fieldmarshall Rommellost the African Campaign not because he was out gunned or out manned – heran out of gas. His mighty Panzer Division came to a halt for lack of fuel.The fuel line that runs to Washington is the steady stream of our tax dollars.
Now consider this: If you rent a house or apartment and your landlorddoesn’t comply with his end of the lease by fixing the plumbing or thefurnace you can lawfully pay your rent to an escrow account and, therefore,force him to hold up his end of the contract.
Since the federal government has not complied with the terms of itscontract (the Constitution) with us, then perhaps we can, with the assistanceand under the direction of our states’ legislatures, have any number of ourtaxes paid into a state administered escrow account. These types of taxescould be any combination of Federal Excise taxes, Income taxes, SocialSecurity Taxes, etc., etc.
Simply stated, “Until you comply with your contract with the AmericanPeople, the escrowed tax dollars will be held by the various states.” Federalcourts will not have jurisdiction in these matters as they are agents of thedefaulting party – the Federal Government.
The following bill passed the Oklahoma House “Revenue and TaxationCommittee” unanimously on Tuesday, February 7th, 1995. Since then, itunanimously passed the House and was expected to pass the Senate with littleproblems. However, the act was not called for vote in the Senate before thesession ended (3/30/95) so it is dead and will have to be reintroduced. Thebill’s sponsor is Representative Charles Key, House of Representatives, Stateof Oklahoma, Room 508, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
Council on Domestic Relations
–Oldyoti
________
What most folks don’t understand, is that just because a state “introduces” the 10th amendment state sovereignty resolution doesn’t mean that it has declared sovereignty… it must be passed by a majority in both houses of their legislature first, to be adopted.
You folks who live in the states listed below, do not have to go through this process because the 10th amendment state sovereignty resolution has already been passed by both houses of your legislature… and has been languishing from disuse in your state law books or almost 15 years.
These resolutions were passed in these states, between April of 1994, and September of 1995. I am searching my old files for the bill numbers from that time, when I was in the Colorado State House working to get this resolution passed in all the states. As I find them I will post them here next to the state to which they pertain.
The reason this is important as a time saver. These resolutions do not sunset which is to say they do not go out of date. Since they have been passed and adopted in these states, these states have already declared and reaffirmed their state sovereignty under the 10th amendment. So all you have to do is get you and your friends to call your State House with the bill number and tell them to dust it off and use it.
We don’t have much time, and if your state has already passed this thing then that is one state we don’t have to concentrate on… I don’t know how else I can impress upon you the urgency of the situation given the facts in the news and the horrible strides the globalists are making in brainwashing the people under this new messianic President.
These states have already adopted the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution in both houses of their legislature and the measure is adopted and on the books.
Colorado HJR-94-1035 Hawaii MissouriCalifornia SJR-44 (1994) Pennsylvania HCR-272 MichiganMontana SJR-3 (1995) Arkansas IdahoIndiana Alaska SJR-7 (1995) KansasAlabama Nevada SJR-1 (1995) Maine
JTCoyoté
__________
This was ferreted out by Route24 as per Alex’s info on the air today 2/18/09…(2009 Resolution)
TEXAS HAS JOINED THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT!!
INTRODUCED IN TEXAS
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm
81R5789 MMS-F
By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50[/b]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONWHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to theUnited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to theStates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”;andWHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope offederal power as being that specifically granted by theConstitution of the United States and no more; andWHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendmentmeans that the federal government was created by the statesspecifically to be an agent of the states; andWHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treatedas agents of the federal government; andWHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of theTenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; andWHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people ofthe United States of America and each sovereign state in the Unionof States, now have, and have always had, rights the federalgovernment may not usurp; andWHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union aRepublican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment states that“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall notbe construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”;andWHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in NewYork v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may notsimply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of thestates; andWHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrationsand some now pending from the present administration and fromcongress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;now, therefore, be itRESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texashereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to theConstitution of the United States over all powers not otherwiseenumerated and granted to the federal government by theConstitution of the United States; and, be it furtherRESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federalgovernment, as our agent, to cease and desist, effectiveimmediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of theseconstitutionally delegated powers; and, be it furtherRESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation thatdirects states to comply under threat of civil or criminalpenalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislationor lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be itfurtherRESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward officialcopies of this resolution to the president of the United States, tothe speaker of the house of representatives and the president of thesenate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of theTexas delegation to the congress with the request that thisresolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as amemorial to the Congress of the United States of America.
JTCoyoté
__________
Thanks to Scribbler, we have a transcript of theAlex Jones 2/16/09 interview with “yours truly” on the history of the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement.
//transcript begins sometime into the third hour of the 2/16/09 broadcast//
AJ: JTCoyote is Cherokee-Choctow and he got involved back in ’93 with Charles Duke, a representative out of El Paso county, Colorado. And he worked with him to help get the 1994 resolution passed in the 59th session of the Colorado State Legislature in ’94. That work also became a four-year fight for the Constitution (again). And we’ve got the original bill here and also some of his work. He does some great postings up at prisonplanet dot com forum. So I wanted to introduce him because Colorado, to my knowledge, was the first state to pass a 10th Amendment resolution saying, “Look, feds, you can’t be in here telling us what to do.” And now we see 21 states and growing that are saying “no” to FEMA camps, “no” to gun control, “no” to banning homeschool, “no” to forced conscription. So this is one of the biggest, strongest solutions we’ve got but it’s up to you the people to get these bills introduced in your legislature. How do you do that? You get copies that you like from other states. Read over them Do some research. We have them all listed at infowars dot com. We’ve had now over the last few weeks a whole bunch of State Reps here on the air. I’m going on Coast to Coast AM tonight to put the call out. We’re doing that but I wanted to get JTCoyote on with us. Sir, great to have you with us.
JT: Hey Alex. Good to be on. Thank you very much.
AJ: You bet. This is a short segment but introduce yourself. Explain what happened in ’94 that then got picked up in Oklahoma and California. And now we’re seeing a massive resurgence of this.
JT: OK. Well, I’m Cherokee-Choctow, but there’s a smattering of German, French, and Irish in there too, Alex. And so the name kind of stuck since I was a kid. So, away we go. But in 1993, I was listening to a talk radio show, a local show here in Colorado, and a little known Senator named Charles Duke…at that time, he was a Representative…came on the air and was discussing a method for eliminating federal mandates which are these federal laws that come down and mandate the states to do certain things, funded or unfunded. And he had hit upon a 10th Amendment resolution. And I heard this. And growing up in Colorado, you know, I’m a dairy farm boy, I got the southern Baptist religion, the Constitution and Bill of Rights along with my morning pancakes in the morning before I went to school. So I understood the essential truth about the Constitution and that is that it is a contract between the states. It is not a contract with the federal government. The federal government was created by that contract.
AJ: That’s right. This is key. The states do a deal with themselves to constitute the federal government and the minute it becomes destructive, they can dissolve it.
JT: Exactly. And that’s what we’re engaged in here. It’s marvelous to see. In 1993, I called the Senator…err…Representative…he became a Senator.
AJ: Yes.
JT.: Anyway, I called him on the air. It was November 11th, 1993 (it was February 23rd of ‘94, nerves…). And I told him then I would do anything I could to help him because his plea for support is a lot like yours is. It is heartfelt and it was right out of the urgent necessity that people realize that we cannot go this way alone. It would take the whole //crosstalk//
AJ: That’s right. It was the first big explosion against the globalists was that with Ruby Ridge and the torching of Waco. That’s why they didn’t bomb //crosstalk// to then demonize patriots in ’95 where they’d also passed similar things. And now here we are again with an even bigger explosion from the seeds you and others planted.
JT: Yeah. And the thing is, they had to do that. I mean they needed something to obfuscate the fact that we were doing it. Patriot groups and lawful state militias too, Alex, were involved at the state level. Lawfully doing what the states are supposed to do and the feds couldn’t have that. They blew up Oklahoma City as sure as I’m talking to you.
AJ: JTCoyote, stay there. We’re gonna come back to you. Break down the key history of this. Stay with us.
//break//
AJ: We are back live. Going right back to our guest here in just a moment. This is a major chink in the dragon’s underbelly armor. People can say, “Well it’s too hard. How do we get the states to do it.” 20+ are already moving to do it. Quite a few of them passed it saying, “Look, it’s illegal, feds, for you to come in here and federalize everything and to tell us you can confiscate our guns and the rest of it.” Wyoming is close to doing it. Also Montana house measure would change gun rules saying the fed’s laws don’t apply there. Just like with marijuana laws. Even if you don’t smoke marijuana, it has hundreds of medical uses. And they have these doctors prescribing it in California and, was it, 14 other states. And the feds try to swoop down and block that but they’re failing in court over and over again. So that’s another victory for state’s rights. Second amendment, marijuana, it doesn’t matter. So we’re going to get to that in just a moment. //show notes and sponsor plugs edited// OK. Going back to JTCoyote. JT, break down the history of the states, the basics, how you were able to do this, you and just some volunteers and the State Rep in Colorado and how that was the model. Now, it passed in Colorado. Colorado still violates its own law doing what they do. But the point is it’s there and that idea was then picked up by other states, then it went dormant, and now it’s 10 times, 20 times bigger than it ever was before and growing very, very quickly right now. And how successful it will be will count on the people. Please continue.
JT: Well, you have to understand the time frame. We were just coming off of the heels of Ruby Ridge. And it was obvious to most of the people in the community, in the patriot community, that this was a pretense for something bigger. And then, the whole thing with the World Trade Center bombing…the first one, that killed 12 people and injured dozens…when it failed, they had something set up in the media already and the BATF went into the church in Waco and the 51-day siege started which took everybody’s eyes off of the World Trade Center. Now, we can do some interesting things with that. The point is that Representative Duke, being from Arkansas, knew that Bill Clinton would make George Bush look like a piker. And he understood what kind of problem the country would have; given Clinton’s policies in Arkansas all those years he was Governor. He turned it into the poorest state in the union. So Charlie was coming into work in the fall of ’93 and said a little prayer and it came to him. The 10th Amendment was the way to go. And then he went on the air. I told him, “Hey, dude. I’m ready. Let’s do this.” And January 1st, (March first… get your dates right yoti!) I was his only aide. (his only full time Aide… he had a part time college student one day a week, and a friend, Mary Anne, came in on Mondays… so for all intent and purposes), He had no staff at that time, so I did everything. Which means I set up his radio appearances, everything. Answered questions from the press. We started with the local talk shows and then it soon branched out. And in 1994, early ’94, about January, (April 8 ‘94, actually) he was on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell before Art Bell became a flying saucer nut. And then it really spread. By the time…
AJ: Oh, and I’m about to be on tonight. Again, it’s that bushfire point, 16 million people. What a responsibility I’ve got this evening being on there. But again, history repeats itself. Let’s continue.
JT: And by that time he was on Roger Fredinburg. He was on all the local shows. In a period of less than…oh, from the time we started in session, the 1st of January, until it was passed in the Colorado State House, Charlie was on probably 80 radio programs both national and local. And that was the way we did it. We didn’t have the internet. The internet at that time, in 1993-’94, was…well most of us didn’t even own a computer.
AJ: And that’s why Bill Cinton came out and said, “We gotta shut down talk radio.” Limbaugh. When Limbaugh is an establishment front man to neutralize conservatives. They’re actually worried about the regional syndicated shows and the local shows. The truth was getting out at the time and they wrote government memos. Now Hillary’s back. Barack Obama’s back. All these Senators are back saying they…Bill Clinton said they wanna shut down talk radio again where you can’t have your political opinion. Just amazing because they’re still worried about it.
JT: Same group of scoundrels, Alex. Same group. And they knew they had to do something because it was growing that quickly. By the time Oklahoma City went up on April 19th, ‘95, the 10th Amendment resolution had already been introduced in 47 state legislatures. And you didn’t hear a word about it on the media. The media wouldn’t even touch it. But the alternative media was moving like mad. Local radio talk shows, the fax network between them, KNUS knew what WOAI was doing. So, across the nation, it was kind of the precursor to the internet using talk radio and //crosstalk//
AJ: And the militia movement exploded. People found out that UN treaties had been signed. Bill Clinton went on MTV and said, “We are gonna have gun confiscation.” Janet Reno said, “First we wanna register. Then we wanna confiscate.” They were on record. Just like Attorney General Holder, who was the Deputy then, Attorney General. Just like all these guys are in there now are on record for total gun bans. The same thing. The people are getting wise. Will the feds stage a false flag to try to…oh, see, the feds are good. Somebody attacked them. The American people are bad. It’s American Al-Qaeda. They’re secretly training police and military that right now. Or will we back them off from staging a terror attack because we’ve exposed false flag terror?
JT: Exactly. It’s curious. Even back then we had problems. Kinda like what they had in New Hampshire recently. That won’t stop Itse and the boys. They’ll go back at it again. Just like we did. We had defeats. But we also had major victories. And, right now, there are 15 states that have it already on their books. Trying to find them on the internet is a little difficult sometimes. But I have that thread running which is on the radio show page at the prisonplanet forum. And I would be remiss if I didn’t say hello to all my friends over at the prisonplanet forum, probably the greatest bunch of researchers that the infowar has ever put together in one spot.
AJ: Yeah. Your handle is JTCoyote. And your avatar is William Travis, Colonel William Travis. Remember the Alamo. And it says, “Our 10th Amendment sovereignty resolve will defeat the new world order.” And it says, “The law is clear, the feds are in breach of contract, the law is quite clear.” And you’ve done great research here, a lengthy post. I’m gonna get Kurt Nimmo, in the State’s Rights section he’s building for the show tonight on Coast to Coast, to take the key areas out of this page and get that posted as a link as well as a resource. Let’s go over the states that already have this on the books.
JT: OK. Colorado was first. Then, believe it or not, Hawaii. Hawaii came in right after Colorado did, then Missouri. Missouri has it passed in both houses and copies sent to the President, Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate. All of these…they are on the books. California finally passed it in August of ’94. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Montana…
AJ: Hold on, I’m writing these down. Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania…
JT: Michigan, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Big Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada…
AJ: OK. I lost count there. Colorado, Hawaii, you got links to these up there. //lists states//
JT: //lists previous states// and Maine. And those, as of 9/20 of ’95 which was September 20th of 1995, had it passed through both houses of their legislature and had sent copies to the feds putting them on notice.
AJ: And then the feds bombed Oklahoma City to teach everybody to love them, and that’s on record. Oh, aren’t they good guys? We gotta stop these evil state’s rights people. So that’s why they were so concerned and carried that out. And, so see, you have 15 states already did it. But now there’s 20. The 21st is Texas, but it just has the power to do it already on the books. So 20 that have introduced it again but with stronger language about martial law, gun confiscation, forced draft, banning homeschooling, saying “no” to the feds. This is very, very exciting. How do we get these 15, where it’s dormant, how do we get them to start enforcing this?
JT: This is also in that same thread. It’s the very last post in that thread. It has to do with the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Act. The whole idea behind the Sovereignty Resolution is to reaffirm and put the federal government on notice that the state understands that the federal government is a paper tiger created by the states. And that the federal government is on notice that the states are going to take their rights and utilize them. Now what happened with the guys in New Hampshire is they’ve got all this stuff in there that should come in a later piece of legislation, in an act. Now the state Sovereignty Act, the first one that was implemented…well, it wasn’t implemented, wish it was…it was introduced, was in Oklahoma by Charles Key. And that was in 1995. And you can see it. You can read it in the last post of that thread there on the prisonplanet forum. That’s how the 15 states do it. And they can enumerate whatever they want in there because all powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or reserved to the states, are given to the people and the states respectively.
AJ: I wanna stop you right there. Ron Paul was in the debates. He was all over national television. They tried to demonize him. But he exposed the private offshore banks, the scam they were running. Now he’s bigger than ever even though they stopped him from winning the nomination. That was a victory. Resistance is victory. Does it mean we win every battle? George Washington lost 90 plus percent of the battles. But they persevered. They continued. Now, we have 15 states, 14 states that have already passed this, 20 states that have introduced it, Texas already has that power. So whats 21 and 14?
JT: Well that should be about 35.
AJ: Yeah. So we have…
JT: All we need is 38 states but they have to do it independently. Here’s one of the rough things that…
AJ: Yeah. The danger of a Con-Con. A Con-Con can get called and the feds can slip in what they want or stage a terror attack during it and rewrite everything. We have to have the states individually, as they were originally brought together under the union…they need to…I know you’ve written all this out, but I agree with it…they need to separately declare this and then communicate with each other to direct orders at the feds. There’s no need to have a Con-Con ‘cause they’re not changing the Constitution, they’re only enforcing it.
JT: That’s exactly correct. And the easiest way to look at it…it’s kinda like there are 35 neighbors and you’ve got a problem with the water board. Well, you don’t come together in a big meeting. You all communicate through phone because y’all have to work during the day and setting up a meeting and all that is kinda rough. So you communicate by courier, the telephone. And then you all independently call the water department and say, “Fix the main.”
AJ: And then, if you have to meet 2 week s later, at the meeting 10 of you show up and yeah, this is what everybody wants. This happened in my neighborhood. The trash company went from 2 days a week to 1 day a week. They were cheating everybody on their water prices. The neighborhood just got together and said, “You’re fired. We’re hiring another company.”
JT: And that’s exactly what we’re doing now. We need to take out the trash, Alex.
AJ: What happens when you have secret unlimited power in government since 1947 with the National Security Act, 1913 before that, 1933 War Powers Act, all of that. You’re gonna get corruption and evil and out of control behavior. And so now these bankers have all built offshore palaces. They’re destroying the country, stealing everything. The public is so angry now. I’m gonna tell the feds. Blowing up a few federal buildings isn’t gonna get people to feel sorry for you and love you and believe the people are the enemy. Folks know you’re a pack of criminals. And to the listeners, to dream is destiny. And action is victory. As I’ve said. It is up to you whether this is gonna happen. Are you gonna expose the bankers? Are you gonna expose the New World Order? Are you gonna literally scream from the rooftops? Are you gonna do banner hangs? Are you gonna do whatever it takes to get this buzz going and never stop organically so that, as the feds get worse and worse, it may no pass now, the states may not act now. But they will down the road as this is educated and as the people know the solution, the way out, is dissolving the federal government through the states and then reconstituting it if the states so choose.
JT: Exactly. All government, all true government, is local. And you use that direction. You don’t worry so much about your State Senator or Representative to Congress in Washington. You grab a hold of you local state legislator, and you bend his ear hard. Let him know…and arm yourself with the facts and the knowledge…
AJ: And give them the dream. Explain how they’re gonna be a hero, how they know things are wrong but they wanna just keep drifting towards disaster. We can do it. We can do it. Stay with me.
//break//
AJ: Alright. I’ve got a bunch of news on the economy, on the police state coming up in the 4th and final hour here pretty quick. You know, you can always tell who the operatives are in the “liberty”, “awakening” movement, whatever you wanna call it ‘cause they say, “Oh, you can’t do anything at the state level. You can’t do anything at the federal level. There’s nothing you can do. Oh, 9/11 truth hasn’t been effective, Oh, waa, waa.” We’ve been incredibly effective to the point where they have congressional hearings talking about how we’re bringing down their new world order. And we’ve done the work. We’ve exposed the world government’s architecture, its setup, its system. And now the people have seen it all come true. Our credibility is at all time highs. It is easier for you to wake people up than ever before. All they have to have is respect for themselves and to believe that they can affect change. The level of crime, the level of collapse, the level of destruction they’re bringing to this nation to then rebuild it as a criminal world government with total micromanagement of your daily lives is incredible. But there’s all these scientists and doctors. And one of the top former astronauts is now going public saying, “Global warming’s a fraud to tax you to control your money and your mind.” People are rebelling against that. They’re rebelling against the National ID, the Animal ID, the Premises ID. And it’s just gonna get more intense. And we’re not gonna back off. And there’s a lot of good people in government who are compartmentalized, who didn’t know what they were part of. Now they’re waking up. That’s why the government’s trying to hire criminals and felons and foreigners to make up the military and the CIA. That’s not gonna work either. We’re gonna win this thing thanks to activists out there who was there when this whole second American revolution through the states started. And we just wanna commend JTCoyote and the work he’s doing. And again, if you go to prisonplanet dot com forum, his research, he has all the bills, all the stuff, he’s done all the work. It’s accurate. We’ve checked the bills ourselves. It’s just amazing. What’s the best way for them to find this particular data page on the prisonplanet forum?
JT: The easiest way to do it is to go to the main page, and that’ll give you an index. Scroll about halfway down and it’ll say the radio show page which is “Live Show Forum 11AM to 3PM CST”. And click on that. And stickied in the very top of the main discussion page there will be the subject “Our 10th Amendment sovereignty resolve will defeat the new world order”
AJ: OK. What I want is I want you guys to post this on the main page. OK? And I wanna expand it, take the stuff Kurt’s put together. I’ll put it in there as well. Let’s get it all indexed in there. And people can add to it, but I wanna keep it real clean of any disinfo because this is a data page…
JT: Being a moderator, I do keep it clean. //laughs//
AJ: No. I know you…I know…they come in there, as you know, and try to say kill this person, kill that person to get us shut down. But thank God they’re not successful.
JT: What people have to know is that all power resides in their hands and their collective hands by the state because the states are the ones that created the Constitution.
AJ: And they are constituted by the people. That’s why all powers not delegated to the federal government or reserved to the states or the people. We’re not slaves of the government no matter how much they say they’re doing it all to keep us safe.
JT: And if the 10th Amendment isn’t enough, the 9th Amendment says, “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
AJ: That’s right. And expanding on that…I’m gonna hold you over for another 5 minutes. Then we’re gonna go to calls and cover news…is that look how the globalists are creating illegitimate world bodies like the World Trade Organization, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, and then they have our governments, our central governments that are illegitimate, sign agreements waiving our rights, waiving our liberties, getting rid of our system of checks and balances, our Magna Carta, our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence. That’s all treason. That’s all fraud. The states are the legitimate body of the people. It is not our right, it is our duty to overthrow anything that becomes destructive of those aims. And that’s what we’re doing now. We’re trying peacefully. But they’re coming with gun control, FEMA camps, mass financial implosion by design to bankrupt us so we’re on our knees. Fight back. Stay with us.
//break//
AJ: We are back live. //show notes edited// No matter where you are, Coast to Coast AM is on several AM’s you can hear in your town. So, your mom, you dad, your neighbors, your friends, tell them tune in tonight to that show. I’m gonna be on there for 3 hours breaking this down. I’ve got all the documentation, all the info. In closing with our guest…and we really appreciate him joining us…JTCoyote, activist who helped get all this going in Colorado back in ’93-’94. We need the states to boldly also come out as New Hampshire and others are doing in saying, “Look, we know the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and PDD-51 declare the federal Congress ceremonial and that the President’s a dictator, his office and the National Security Council. We know the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and now public Pentagon announcements say the Governors and the Legislatures serve at the pleasure of the President.” That’s what Lincoln said. He arrested hundreds of members of Congress, newspaper editors, put people in jail, executed people. Even the north didn’t want the war. Well this isn’t that day and age. This is now. This is asinine. We need the states up front to say, “By the way, don’t try any funny business. We know you’re a pack of crooks and illegitimate.” We need this statement to be “The federal government’s controlled by foreign banks.” That’s what Newsweek says, but they say it’s good, and that it’s a new world order. We say, “We’re dissolving you now.” It’s a pack of criminals up there. We have to be bold and get bold ideas out or we’ll just have a bunch of states pass this and the feds will…well, like Charles Key, the Representative said, “The state police come in and lobby and threaten and freak out every time the state is about to become sovereign.”…It’s always been sovereign, but redeclare it…because they’re really federal boys set up after the War Powers Act of ’33. Final comments.
JT: That’s absolutely correct. All of those laws, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Patriot Acts I and II, all of them just shove power to the federal agent at the expense of the states and the people. The thing that states have to realize is that you want to keep the broad language in the resolution to where it covers the entire spectrum of what the 10th Amendment…9th and 10th Amendments mean. Then you institute, like Charlie Key did back in ’95, the State Sovereignty Act. And you get it passed while the people are still thinking about this stuff.
AJ: And then now the idea is introduced into their minds. This is part of educating the public. States good guys. Feds bad guys.
JT: That’s it. And the bad guys aren’t our federal government. They are an offshore banking cartel. They are the crown heads of Europe. They are all of the enemies of the United States of America since we began. And they have figured out a way through corporate law to take over. That’s a whole nother program right there. The DC Organic Act of 1871 incorporated…
AJ: Yeah. All of it. How do folks get in touch with you if they wanna contact you outside the prisonplanet forum, JTCoyote?
JT: Let me give you an E-Mail address.
AJ: OK.
JT: yotis@cybox…
AJ: Stay there.
//break//
AJ: Alright. We’ve got about 51 and a half minutes left in transmission. A ton of news and your phone calls to cover. Toll free number to join us: 800-259-9231. We’re talking to activist JTCoyote who helped get the first bill of this type passed in 1993-94 in Colorado. Now all these states declaring sovereignty. But, as he pointed out, 14 states have already done it, but they just need to empower themselves and we need to make sure they do that. The mainstream media’s not gonna do this for us. We have to do it. But the people are angry. They’re upset. The globalists are using the crisis they created to stampede everybody into going along with their fix that is a open offshore bank that will rule the United States and control all our actions and other countries. A new world order. That was the Newsweek headline. They’re announcing it everywhere as the solution. Oh, we just got an idea. The very bankers that engineered all this will save you by running everything and carbon taxing everything you do in your life. How does that sound? Oh, it sounds wonderful. JTCoyote, give your E-Mail address out for other talk show hosts and people that wanna have you on.
JT: OK. It’s yotis@cybox.com
AJ: And I have to say this. I’ve been researching this for years but there’s so many areas I have to research that I’m never as knowledgeable as particular experts like yourself. I’ve read over your material. I’ve read over the other 20 bills that are introduced or passed. That now 35 states total, counting the old ones and the new ones. You are one of the most knowlegable people on the general knowledge of what’s happening country-wide that the several states make up. And so I just really wanna commend you for your research and your work. And I wanna thank you for all you’ve been doing over at the prisonplanet dot com forum.
JT: Thank you, Alex. And I wanna let you know that the Travis family thanks you for what your family did.
AJ: Well thank you, my friend. I appreciate that and God bless you.
JT: We’re in this together, folks, all of us. And our families touch one another clear back to before the revolution. All of our families. We’re all tied together as Americans. And these guys want to enslave us. They want to enslave the world. And they will make it look like sugar-coated candy for you so you’ll buy it. Don’t buy it. Alex, it’s been good talking with you, my friend.
AJ: Well God bless you. Take care, my friend. We’ll talk to you soon as this unfolds and develops. Folks, it is up to all of you out there whether this is gonna be successful or not. And this is not our only operation against the enemy. The overall infowar is the overarching program. Because by educating the public about the nature of the enemy, their criminal control, their fraudulent usurpation of our liberties and authority, by doing that, from being educated flows the freedom. Without that you have despotism and bondage. So the ball is in your court.
//end transcript//
Thanks Scribbler!
–Oldyoti
______________
From gEEKsquad:
Add Minnesota to the list!
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0997.0.html&session=ls86
A resolution memorializing 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 affirming Minnesota’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to 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
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 Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it urges the President and the Congress of the United States to halt the federal government’s practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States, and that it affirms Minnesota’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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota is directed to prepare copies of this memorial and transmit them to the President of the United States, the President and the Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Minnesota’s Senators and Representatives in Congress.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF997&ssn=0&y=2009
–Oldyoti
_____________
I HAVE JUST UNCOVERED A TREASURE-TROVE OF INFO… for any of you who are looking for clues as to where to look, in order to find the original 10th amendment Sovereignty Resolution that was passed in 1995 in your state. Some of these have real numbers but all of them have the names of the sponsors. This will narrow it down… in any case… this will save a lot of time in some states and Lord knows we don’t have a lot of time… anyway…
While digging madly through reams of paper, upon which all kinds of stuff from my state capital days can be found, I just came across a February 3, 1995, 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution CDR fax-update. Across the top of the memo is the words:
“47 state legislatures now involved!”
The following states in which the 10th amendment resolution has been introduced:
Louisiana: (SJR) introduced by Senator Cain & Rep. Stelly, (Senate joint resolution)Ohio: (HCR- 44) Rep. M. Wise & Sen. Drake, (House concurrent resolution)New Jersey:(AJR- 41), Assemblyman Kelly &Haytaian, (Assembly joint resolution)Florida: (HCR-31), Rep. S. Wise & Senator John Ostalkiewicz, (House concurrent resolution)Minnesota: (no bill number) introduced by Rep. Lynch & Sen. HansonMontana: (SJR-3), Senator Benedict, (House joint resolution)Wisconsin: (AJR-4), Rep. Porter, (Assembly joint resolution)Washington: (HJM- 4001), Rep. T. Campbell, (House joint Memorial)Connecticut: (SJR- 11), Sen. Crisco Jr. & Rep. Chase, (Senate joint resolution)Vermont: (JHR- no number), Rep. Maslack, (Joint House resolution)Indiana: (no number), Rep. Benhing & Senator Thomson,North Dakota: (HCR- 3017), Reps. Kempenich & Brown – Sens. Bowman & Wanzek, (House concurrent resolution)Arkansas: (no number), Rep. Rorie & Sen. Walter’s,Georgia: (no number), Senator Glanton & Representative Hembree,Arizona: (SJR1001 – 421R – S Ver), Rep. Groscost,West Virginia: (no number), Senators Boley & DuganIdaho: (no number), Representative Joanna Woods,Oregon: (SCR-3), Senator Johnson, Representatives, Baum, Hayden, Oakley, et al. (Senate concurrent resolution),Nebraska: (LR-7) Senator J.Jones,
Will be introduced this session by — sponsors:
Maine: (no number), Representative Carr,Utah: (no number), Representative Hunter,Texas: (no number), Sen. Patterson & Rep. Grusengorf,New York: (no number), Sen. Libous,Alabama: (no number), Representative Hooper,New Hampshire: (no number), Representatives Gorman,North Carolina: (no number), Representative Russell,Mississippi: (no number), Sen. Gunn & Rep. Stribling,Wyoming: (no number), Representative Simpson,Kansas: (no number), Representative Cornfield,Rhode Island: (no number), Representative Gorman,Tennessee: (no number), Representative Shirley,Iowa: (no number), Representative Hurley & Senator Borlaug,Virginia: (no number), Delegate Katzen,Maryland: (no number), Senator Miller & Delegate Klima,New Mexico: (no number), Senator Vernon,Nevada: (no number), Senator O’Connell,
You must keep in mind that this was the 3rd of February 1995, and all of these were introduced in the 1994 1995 legislative session. In any case this was 2 1/2 months before the Oklahoma City bombing… we already had 47 states in some stage of the process at that time. The states of Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and South Carolina, already had passed it in both houses, and sent it to their federal delegation, as well as the President, both houses of Congress, and to the Speakers of the House of the other 49 state legislatures, for their Constitutional edification and perusal.
Passed the House in Oklahoma, (HJR) Rep. Charles Key, Passed the Senate and the House in Illinois, but not a Joint or Concurrent Resolution… and in the Senate in Kentucky. Not showing, are Massachusetts, Delaware, and South Dakota, who’s status on the measure is not known.
More to come… I believe I have found Colorado and California’s “State Sovereignty ACT” as well the copy I have of Oklahoma’s…
JTCoyoté
____________
One thing that everyone needs to understand, is that this is NOT a secessionist movement. This is a constitution reaffirmation movement that seeks to force the federal power back into its circumscribed constitutional boundaries.
The states all came together in the beginning as sovereign entities, they created a contract that bound them to one another for their mutual security. Then they created a federal administrator, a central agency that would represent the several states on the world stage, administer international commerce, and protect the common borders. The states created a central government.
They created it much like you would hire an attorney to represent your affairs. What has happened is the attorney has grown corrupt, he is now representing himself as you, he has taken possession of your money, your home, your car, your children call him daddy, and he is just now walking up the stairs to your wife in the bedroom to consummate his complete takeover of your life, your liberty, your property, and your family.
When you hired him however, in the contract was a clause that says that the agent can never assume that kind of power. And the same contract was signed by all of your neighbors. Why separate yourself from your neighbors at this point, since you will need them alongside you to uncover what this rogue agent has been up to and bring him to justice.
To secede from the union of states, would leave you vulnerable without the Constitution which was the agreement that bound the states. Secession would destroy this bond. The 9th and 10th amendment state sovereignty resolutions, do not, nor can they claim secession, they claim constitutionally protected sovereignty, state sovereignty… therefore these resolutions cannot break the constitutional union of already sovereign states. It only severs the state from the lawlessness of the central government while retaining its constitutional tie.
The fact that the states are using the Constitution and Bill of Rights to affect this movement, and reaffirm within the wording of the resolutions, the convention ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights, via the 9th and 10th amendments as the supreme law of the land, this alone should tell anyone who can read, that these resolutions are NOT resolutions for secession– this is using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the way it was intended.
JTCoyoté
_____________
Here is a little detective work done by DavidNelsonUtah… This is the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution that was Passed and Adopted by Utah in 1995… As well as some other links he found for other states… Monumental work there, David… Thank You!
Enrolled Copy
H.J.R. 3
RESOLUTION ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES
1995 GENERAL SESSION
STATE OF UTAH
Sponsor: Nora B. Stephens
R. Mont Evans, Marda Dillree, Brian R. Allen, Stephen M. Bodily, NormL. Nielsen, Jordan Tanner, Tim Moran, John B. Arrington, J. ReeseHunter, DeMar Bud Bowman, Christine R. Fox, Michael G. Waddoups,Martin R. Stephens, Beverly Ann Evans, Afton B. Bradshaw, Sue Lockman,Don E. Bush, Lowell A. Nelson, J. Brent Haymond, Bill Wright, OrvilleD. Carnahan, Doyle M. Mortimer, Fred R. Hunsaker, John WilliamHickman, Douglas S. Peterson, Peter C. Knudson, Blake D. Chard, JackA. Seitz, Thomas Hatch, Met Johnson, Michael R. Styler, Raymond W.Short, Charles E. Bradford, M. Keele Johnson, Joseph G. Murray,Bradley T. Johnson, Ron Bigelow, Eli H. Anderson, James R. Gowans,Evan L. Olsen, David Ure, Frank R. Pignanelli, A. LaMont Tyler, RobertH.M. Killpack, Shirley V. Jensen, R. Lee Ellertson
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE URGING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOACKNOWLEDGE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE OF UTAH UNDER THE 10THAMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OVER ALL POWERS NOTENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION;AND TO CEASE THE IMPOSITION OF MANDATES ON THE STATES THAT ARE BEYONDTHE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE 10TH AMENDMENT TO THECONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
WHEREAS the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United Statesreads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States bythe Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved tothe States respectively, or to the people.”;
[Page 2]
WHEREAS the 10th Amendment defines the scope of federal power as beingthat specifically granted by the United States Constitution and nomore;
WHEREAS the scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means thatthe federal government was created by the states specifically to be anagent of the states;
WHEREAS today, in 1995, the states are in fact treated as agents ofthe federal government;
WHEREAS numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federalgovernment by the Utah Legislature without any response or result fromCongress or the federal government;
WHEREAS many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10thAmendment to the Constitution of the United States;
WHEREAS the Vice President of the United States in the Report of theNational Performance Review has recommended that unfunded mandatesimposed from Washington, D.C., be cut; that Congress refrain fromimposing new mandates; and that an executive order be issued to limitthe use of unfunded mandates on legislative proposals, regulations,and policies, and to narrow the circumstances under which federaldepartments and agencies may impose new mandates;
WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simplycommandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS a number of proposals now pending from the presentadministration and from Congress would further violate the UnitedStates Constitution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state ofUtah strongly urge the federal government, as the agent of the state,to acknowledge the sovereignty of the state of Utah under the 10thAmendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers nototherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by theUnited States Constitution, including at least the sovereignty overits people and its natural resources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature strongly urge the federalgovernment to cease issuing mandates that are beyond the scope of itsauthority under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent to thePresident of the United States, the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives, the congressional delegation, the President of theUnited States Senate, and the legislature of each state.
Utah, The State ofHJR3 (Rep. Stephens) (1995) (Adopted)http://www.image.le.state.ut.us/imaging/bill.asp
_________________________________________
Research links fora few other states, some we have, and some we do not… enjoy!
Alabama, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Hooper) (1995) (Adopted)
Alaska, The State ofSJR7 (1995) (Adopted)
Arizona, The State ofHCR2024 (Rep. Burges) (2009) (Introduced)SJR1001 (Rep. Groscost) (1995) (Introduced)http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HCR2024
Arkansas, The State ofHCR1011 (Rep. Hobbs) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Rorie and Sen. Walters) (1995) (Adopted)
California, The State ofSB1178 (Sen. Mountjoy) (1997) (Introduced)SJR44 (Sen. Rogers) (1994) (Adopted)http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_44&sess=9394&house=S
Colorado, The State ofHJR1035 (Rep. Duke) (1994) (Adopted)http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/10th-mnd.shtml
Connecticut, The State ofSJR30 (Sen. Gunther) (1995)SJR11 (1995) (Sen. Crisco) (Introduced)http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_lpa.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24799&Index=I%3A%5Czindex%5C1995&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=232
Delaware, The State of
Florida, The State ofPetition: State Sovereignty Petition Florida (2009)HCR31 (Rep. Wise) (1995) (Introduced)http://maylattanzio.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-sovereignty-petition-florida-date.html
Georgia, The State ofSR479 (1998) (Introduced)SR308 (1996) (Introduced), SR1 (Sen. Glanton) (1995) (Adopted)http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1997_98/leg/fulltext/sr479.htm,http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm,http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr1.htm
Hawaii, The State ofJoint Resolution (1994) (Adopted)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement
Idaho, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Woods) (1995) (Adopted)
Illinois, The State ofHR0279 (Rep. Holbrook) (2007) (Adopted)House of Representatives Resolution and Senate Resolution (1994) (Adopted)http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HR/09500HR0279.htm
Indiana, The State ofSCR37 (Sen. Walker) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Benhing and Sen. Thomson) (1995) (Adopted)
Iowa, The State ofSJR15 (Sen. Borlaug) (1995) (Introduced)
Kansas, The State ofSCR1609 (Sen. Pilcher-Cook) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Cornfield) (1995) (Adopted)http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/2009_1609.pdf
Kentucky, The Commonwealth ofPetition: Kentucky 10th Amendment Resolution (2009)Senate Resolution (1995) (Adopted), Legislature Resolution (1798),Legislature Resolution (1799)http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10783,http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
Louisiana, The State ofHouse of Representatives Resolution (1995) (Adopted)Senate Joint Resolution (Sen. Cain) (1995) (Introduced)
Maine, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Carr) (1995) (Adopted)
Maryland, The State ofJoint Resolution (Sen. Miller and Del. Klima) (1995) (Introduced)
Massachusetts, The Commonwealth ofResolution (Rep. Poirer) (2009) (Pending)http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3510
Michigan, The State ofHCR4 (Rep. Opsommer) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (1995) (Adopted)http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28y14ughe0cwtykhf20pbdny45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2009-HCR-0004
Minnesota, The State ofHF997 (Rep. Seifert) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Lynch and Sen. Hanson) (1995) (Introduced)
Mississippi, The State ofJoint Resolution (Sen. Gunn and Rep. Stribling) (1995) (Introduced)
Missouri, The State ofHR294 and HR212 (Rep. Davis) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (1994) (Adopted)http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills091/bills/HR294.htm,http://house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
Montana, The State ofHB246 (Rep. Boniek) (2009) (Introduced)SJR3 (Sen. Benedict) (1995) (Adopted)http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
Nebraska, The State ofLR7 (Sen. Jones) (1995) (Introduced)
Nevada, The State ofSJR1 (Sen. O’Connell) (1995) (Adopted)http://www.leg.state.nv.us/68th/minutes/SGA222P1.txt
New Hampshire, The State ofHCR6 (Rep. Itse) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Gorman) (1995) (Introduced)http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
New Jersey, The State ofAssembly Joint Resolution (Assemblyman Kelly) (1995) (Introduced)
New Mexico, The State ofJoint Resolution (Sen. Vernon) (1995) (Introduced)
New York, The State ofJoint Resolution (Sen. Libous) (1995) (Introduced)
North Carolina, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Russell) (1995) (Introduced)
North Dakota, The State ofHCR3017 (Rep. Kempenich) (1995) (Introduced)
Ohio, The State ofHCR44 (Rep. Wise) (1995) (Introduced)
Oklahoma, The State ofHJR1003 (Rep. Key) (2009) (Introduced)HJR1089 (Rep. Key) (2008) (Adopted), HB1874 (1995) (Adopted)http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10hb/hjr1003_int.rtf,http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
Oregon, The State ofSCR3 (Sen. Johnson) (1995) (Introduced)
Pennsylvania, The Commonwealth ofResolution (Rep. Rohrer) (2009) (Pending)HCR272 (1995) (Adopted)http://www.samrohrer.com/
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Gorman) (1995) (Introduced)
South Carolina, The State ofHCR3509 (Rep. Pitts) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (1995) (Introduced)http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/3509.htm
South Dakota, The State of
Tennessee, The State ofHJR108 (Rep. Lynn) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Rep. Shirley) (1995) (Introduced)http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0108
Texas, The State ofHCR50 (Rep. Creighton) (2009) (Introduced)Joint Resolution (Sen. Patterson and Rep. Grusengorf) (1995) (Introduced)http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm
Utah, The State ofHJR3 (Rep. Stephens) (1995) (Adopted)http://www.image.le.state.ut.us/imaging/bill.asp
Vermont, The State ofHouse of Representatives Joint Resolution (Rep. Maslack) (1995) (Introduced)
Virginia, The Commonwealth ofJoint Resolution (Del. Katzen) (1995) (Introduced)Legislature Resolution (1798), http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
Washington, The State ofHJM4009 (Rep. Shea) (2009) (Introduced)HJM4001 (Rep. Campbell) (1995) (Introduced)http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
West Virginia, The State ofJoint Resolution (Sen. Boley) (1995) (Introduced)
Wisconsin, The State ofAJR4 (Rep. Porter) (1995) (Introduced)
Wyoming, The State ofJoint Resolution (Rep. Simpson) (1995) (Introduced)http://www.trib.com/articles/2009/02/07/news/wyoming/36d44c1126a023868725755600086243.txt
–Oldyoti
___________
Quote from: Jackson Holly on February 10, 2009, 02:14:20 PM
BTW I think you are the man to ask this question of …
…. are the individual US “States” the same as individual “Countries”?
Does Colorado for instance have the ’same’ sovereignty as, let’s say France for instance, in the European Union?
The short answer to your question is yes…they are independent Sovereign States but it is a bit more complex than that. We as states have bound ourselves together, for our mutual defense and tranquil interaction, by a contractual agreement with the other states called the “Constitution for the United States of America and Bill of Rights.” This contract also creates an agency called the federal government, which is set out to administer on the global stage the affairs of these United States, and as designed, it functions within the constraints of those powers which are enumerated within the Constitutional agreement and no more.
As history shows, this Constitutional union has been under constant attack by global interests since the very second the final signature was affixed, ratifying The Constitution and Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.
This contract has been fooled-with greatly since the Civil War however, done by way of the Amendment process, to where with each amendment, greater and greater power was syphoned from the people to the federal agent. A very small portion of this 140 year “Amendment Fest” is arguably needed, but only if it enhances the lot of the principles, namely the states and the people. That has not been the case however, the vast majority of this amendment power has been pure usurpation and unlawful extension of federal control, at the expense of the states and the people.
The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement, as it is originally designed, is a two step process to rein in the federal government, pulling it back into its constitutionally circumscribed mode of operation, and Constitutionally mandates the states to do what ever is necessary within the bounds of the Constitution to accomplish this task.
The states themselves, prior to the 17th amendment, actually had representation within the federal system, because the Senators were originally selected not by a vote of the people but by a vote of the state assembly. Under this new 10th amendment scrutiny, the chicanery and shenanigans of the globalists on the federal level as well as their infiltrators on the state level will be brought to light, and you will see many of the post-Civil War “constitutional” amendments come under fire by the states, and many will disappear. One duly ratified amendment however, that was unlawfully removed in the “Ordering out of Chaos” mode, after the Civil War, will reappear in it’s rightful spot.
This movement is NOT a de facto constitutional convention to change the constitution. It uses the 10th amendment as its power and mode of operation restrained only by the Constitution itself, all law contained in the fully ratified Constitution, is beyond tampering. Any well thought out 10th amendment sovereignty resolution will reaffirm that the 1791 Constitution for the United States of America and Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land as it stands, and SHALL NOT be altered for it sets the baseline for ALL that is considered Constitutional as laid out in these resolutions. The organic 1791 Constitution is the basis of what IS constitutional and cannot be changed in any way by this movement.
Now the rest of the amendments… and anyone who’s been studying this for any length of time knows that the fully ratified and documented original 13th amendment was unlawfully yet cleverly replaced by Lincoln’s anti-slavery 13th amendment. Every amendment that follows has been specifically designed to concentrate more power, in dovetailing small increments, in favor of the federal agent, at the expense of the states and the people. Each of these latter amendments should be looked at carefully in the light of original intent, since the Agent, (feds) should never be allowed by long term stealth, to usurp the rights and power of the principle, namely, the States and the People.
JTCoyoté
__________
Quote from: Jackson Holly on February 10, 2009, 06:23:37 PM
JTCoyote:Thanks for responding … and a very fine answer, too.
It seems that you would say that the individual State/Country has a Constitutional authority to defend it’s citizens against unlawful Federal Employees in DC who are acting against their interests – and a Constitutional duty to throw off the yoke of oppression – by any means necessary?
How about secession – is it legal under the Constitution in your opinion?
Thank you.
Even in contract law if you break a contract by whatever means for whatever purpose, you loose all protection under the contract… For any state to secede from this Constitutional Union of states, is to break the contract with the other 49 states. It would be the thoughtless doing of unwitting, emotionally charged individuals, suffering from a lack of knowledge and patience… as was the case that led up to the Civil War.
Though the Constitution does not anticipate secession, the law of common law contracts as it reaches back into the dim dark recesses of time, gives a pretty good idea of what happens when you break a contract. The Civil War is a more recent example.
The Constitution contains remedy in situations of state grievances however, and when the grievance is against the contract created federal power, this remedy is contained within the Constitution at the 9th and 10th amendments. Why would you want to abrogate the protection of the other 49 states, just to satiate some desire to be seen as somehow unique in a stand alone position against a rogue foreign power masquerading as our federal agent? The state that abrogates the Constitution rather than working within this marvelous eternal contract, shows poor judgment indeed.
If you read it you will see that it is probably one of the most ironclad and perfectly crafted pieces of legal equity and agreement ever produced. In any case the act of secession and the forming of a separate “union” is what created the “War Between The States”, and any repetition would again lead to a similar globalist ignited false flag war.
Each individual within each of the states needs to ponder the question. When deciding between using the Constitution as it was designed, to peacefully gain remedy, or throw it away in a charged moment and take the chance, of getting something akin to a slave document, or even worse.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America, was written at an eighth grade level of English composition, grammar, and understanding, yet it has taken the globalist bastards over 200 years to undermine it, and at that they are having to cheat. We, as these United States of America can stop them, and take it all back in one legislative session if we keep our wits, rein in our emotions, and stay the course — at which point the Founding Fathers will rise up in proud admiration of our desire for seeing their vision true. They would cease spinning in their graves as they have been, low this last 150 years since the Civil War.
–Oldyoti
__________
Quote from: Damascus on February 22, 2009, 09:46:41 AM
So basically a constitutional convention could be used to undermine a 10th amendment sovereignty movement? Is this what all the noise about the constitutional convention was about? A convention is a very powerful tool. It could just as easily be used to abolish the bill of rights as well as fix the Federal problem. Are we still in danger of the amount need for a convention as we were earlier? From what I understand a Convention is like trying to use a sledge hammer to fix a china cabinet.
Yes!
When this 10th Amendment Sovereignty movement first began back in 1994, on the very day that Colorado passed the first one, the globalist counterattacks began. There were two methods they used that utilized the legislative process. They manifested as a flurry of bills that were siphoned down by the House and Senate leadership in the State House. They came from governmental think tanks like the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, (ACIR). These pieces of legislation have hidden within them poison pill redefinitions of constitutional provisions, applying federal statutes as the over-arching precedent in determining law.
The second type of legislation, utilized popular public grievances as a reason to put forth bills and resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, (Con-Con). This constitutional convention approach culminated in a supposed grass roots movement called the Conference of States which attempted to usurp the 10th amendment as it’s purpose, and call for a conference of state delegates… cleverly hiding the fact that it was a call for a constitutional convention.
On the very day that the first 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, HJR-94-1035 was passed and adopted in Colorado on April 21, 1994, another bill was introduced by the leadership. It was titled “Concerning the implementation of federal mandates,” SB-94-157. It redefined the 10th amendment within the state, by giving the feds the power to determine the meaning of the 10th amendment as it pertained to the state. It was an extremely arrogant attempt at usurping the constitutional power of Colorado.
The third method that the bastards used, were shill groups, agent provocateurs, and infiltration techniques all hell-bent on attaching the term secessionism, and pre-Civil War style racism to the 10th Amendment Resolution Movement… Many of you probably wonder why I so closely police secessionists threads on this forum… this is why. Whether these people are aware of it or not, their secession movements were designed by the globalists back in the 1850s as a divide and conquer system to break up constitutional 10th Amendment action by the states, by characterizing it as secessionism. They were instrumental in fomenting and initiating The War Between the States.
Secessionists, whether they know it or not, are willing or unwilling shills of the New World order. Most don’t have a clue about this and will unwittingly defend secessionism to the death, wrongly believing that it is the only way.
Make no mistake about it once the method for deflating the federal power was re-discovered back in 1994… The global/federal power began throwing everything except the kitchen sink at us… and finally in desperation, on April 19, 1995 they provocateured the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah is building in Oklahoma City, killing 170 people and used the president’s bully pulpit, and the MSM to blame the destruction on lawful patriot groups, and lawful state militias, and defuse the growing Sovereignty Movement. We are onto them this time though.
If you’re going to defend your liberty at this stage in the game, be prepared, because they will not stop at anything, they will send in a provocateur to woo your wife away from you, to another state, and then leave her flat. I speak from experience on this one. Or they will send in a provocateur woman to entice you away… they will dig into your specific background and find something that they can blackmail you with… these are the “worst of the worst”, these agents of tyranny… Be Advised.
I am in the process of putting together a 6hr dvd, that lays out the history of the 10th Amendment Sovereignty movement from the beginning. A retrospective which includes vintage radio broadcasts of the events, introduced bills and talks by the enemy describing their tactics, and interviews and speeches by Rep./Sen Charles Duke and others. This is preemptive damage control so the people new to this idea of state sovereignty don’t try to reinvent the wheel here, by repeating the mistakes that were made the first time around.
–Oldyoti
__________
jofortruth dug this one up. Here’s the Iowa Resolution SJR 15:
http://www2.legis.state.ia.us/GA/76GA/Legislation/SJR/00000/SJR00015/Current.html
Previous Day: Wednesday, March 1Next Day:Previous Page: 507Today’s Journal PageSenate Journal: Page 508: Thursday, March 2, 1995Senate Journal: Index House Journal: IndexLegislation: Index Bill History: Index
HOUSE MESSAGE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED
The following message was received from the Chief Clerk of theHouse:
MR. PRESIDENT: I am directed to inform your honorable body that theHouse has on March 2, 1995, passed the following bill in which theconcurrence of the Senate is asked:
House File 189, a bill for an act relating to the funding of statemandates.
This bill was read first time and passed on file.
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS
Senate Resolution 10, by Giannetto, a senate resolution urging theCongress of the United States to authorize interest-free loans to thestates and their political subdivisions for capital projects.
Read first time and passed on file.
Senate Joint Resolution 15, by Borlaug, Lundby, Priebe, Bisignano,Kibbie, Rensink, Hedge, McKean, Freeman, Banks, Palmer, Jensen, Flynn,Boettger, Drake, Bennett, Rittmer, Maddox, McLaren, Kramer, and Zieman,a joint resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated andgranted to the federal government and demanding that the federalgovernment cease mandates that are beyond the scope of itsconstitutional powers.
Read first time and passed on file.
*********************************
Text: SJR00014 Text: SJR00016Text: SJR00000 – SJR00099 Text: SJR IndexBills and Amendments: General Index Bill History: General Index
Senate Joint Resolution 15Partial Bill History
* Bill Introduced: S.J. 508* Complete Bill History
Bill Text
PAG LIN1 1 That Iowa and the people thereof hereby claim sovereignty1 2 under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United1 3 States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to1 4 the federal government by the United States Constitution; and1 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Resolution serves as a1 6 notice and demand to the federal government, as Iowa’s agent,1 7 to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are1 8 beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally1 9 delegated powers; and1 10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this Resolution be1 11 transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker1 12 of the United States House of Representatives, the President1 13 of the United States Senate, all of the members of Iowa’s1 14 congressional delegation and the Governor.1 15 EXPLANATION1 16 This resolution asserts the state’s claim under the 10th1 17 Amendment to the United States Constitution to all powers not1 18 enumerated and granted to the federal government by the1 19 Constitution. The resolution also demands that the federal1 20 government cease taking actions which infringe upon Iowa’s1 21 rights under the 10th Amendment. Finally, the resolution1 22 directs that copies of the resolution be sent to the President1 23 of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House1 24 of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate,1 25 Iowa’s congressional delegation, and the Governor.1 26 LSB 1671SS 761 27 mk/cf/24
–Oldyoti
____________
Now, Minnesota weighs in with this Sovereignty Resolution. Thanks jofortruth…
H.F. No. 997, as introduced – 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Feb 19, 2009
1.1A resolution1.2memorializing the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon1.3the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States and1.4affirming Minnesota’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of1.5the United States.1.6WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as1.7follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it1.8to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and1.9WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that1.10specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and1.11WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal1.12government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and1.13WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal1.14government; and1.15WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment1.16to the Constitution of the United States; and1.17WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 1121.18S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory1.19processes of the states; and1.20WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending1.21from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the1.22United States; NOW, THEREFORE,2.1BE IT RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota that it urges the President2.2and the Congress of the United States to halt the federal government’s practice of imposing2.3mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States,2.4and that it affirms Minnesota’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the2.5United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by2.6the Constitution of the United States.2.7BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota is2.8directed to prepare copies of this memorial and transmit them to the President of the United2.9States, the President and the Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of2.10the United States House of Representatives, the chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,2.11the chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Minnesota’s Senators and Representatives2.12in Congress.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0997.0.html&session=ls86http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS86/HF0997.0.pdf
JTCoyoté
_____________
From jofortruth who continues to strike sovereignty pay-dirt.
VIRGINIA DECLARES STATE SOVEREIGNTY!
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+ful+HR61
089534676HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 61Offered February 26, 2009Honoring state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.———-
Patrons– Peace, Fralin, Byron, Cline, Cole, Gilbert, Landes, Lingamfelter, Marshall, R.G., Morgan, Ware, R.L. and Wright———-Referred to Committee on Rules———-
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, the states today 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 of the United States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says that “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, 505 U. S. 144 (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 other proposals that may be anticipated, may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, That the Congress of the United States be urged to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth of Virginia 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. The Commonwealth by this resolution serves notice to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. Further, the Commonwealth urges 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 shall be prohibited or repealed.
Virginia is not new to this sovereignty movement, here is their resolution from 1995.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 633Memorializing Congress to observe the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Agreed to by the House of Delegates, February 4, 1995Agreed to by the Senate, February 21, 1995
WHEREAS, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly limits the powers of the federal government by stating 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
WHEREAS, the debate over the powers of the federal government in relation to the several states has raged throughout our history, but the recent actions of the federal government, particularly in the area of unfunded mandates, have rekindled the controversy; and
WHEREAS, state authority has been eroded primarily by (i) federal assumption of powers reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment; (ii) unreasonable interpretations of the “commerce clause” that authorize federal pre-emption with respect to any issue that has any faint or circuitous connection to interstate commerce; (iii) constant threats of withholding, withdrawing, or diverting federal funds to coerce compliance with federal practices; and (iv) failure on the part of the states to challenge federal intrusion, while at the same time showing passive endorsement of federal usurpation by seeking federal funding and by accepting federal delegations of power; and
WHEREAS, that vision of federalism, with the states retaining those powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, has been subverted by an insolvent federal government that imposes increasingly onerous and costly mandates on the states; and
WHEREAS, the assault by the Congress of the United States on the 10th Amendment showing no signs of abating, the time for the states to exert their constitutional rights has come; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That Congress be urged to observe the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, That this resolution serve as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it
RESOLVED FINALLY, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the Attorney General of Virginia, and the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation so that they may be apprised of the sense of the General Assembly of Virginia.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?951+ful+HJ633ER
–Oldyoti
___________
Jofortruth, you are a researching machine!
Here is South Dakota’s 2009 State Sovereignty Resolution.
State of South DakotaEIGHTY-FOURTH SESSIONLEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2009930Q0793HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1013
Introduced by: Representatives Steele, Bolin, Brunner, Carson, Cronin, Curd, Cutler,Deadrick, Dreyer, Engels, Greenfield, Hamiel, Hoffman, Hunt, Jensen,Juhnke, Kirkeby, Kopp, Krebs, Lange, Lederman, McLaughlin, Moser,Noem, Novstrup (David), Olson (Betty), Olson (Ryan), Peters, Putnam,Rausch, Rave, Romkema, Rounds, Russell, Schlekeway, Sly, Solum,Tidemann, Van Gerpen, Vanneman, Verchio, Wink, and Wismer andSenators Novstrup (Al), Adelstein, Bartling, Fryslie, Gant, Garnos, Gray,Hansen (Tom), Haverly, Howie, Hunhoff (Jean), Maher, Nelson, Olson(Russell), Peterson, Rhoden, and Schmidt
1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to
2 the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal
3government to cease and desist certain mandates.
4 WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as
5 follows:
6 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
7 the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
8 WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that
9 specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power
10 defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states
11 specifically to be an agent of the states; and
1 WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal
2 government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the
3 Constitution of the United States; and
4 WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112
5 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory
6 processes of the states; and
7 WHEREAS, any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President
8 of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of
9 America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of
10 America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the
11 liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution
12 of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and
13 WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending
14 from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the
15 United States:
16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-
17 fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of
18 South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of
19 the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
20 government by the Constitution of the United States; and
21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to
22 comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass
23 legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand
1 to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
2 that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2009/Bills/HCR1013P.pdf
Oldyoti
____________
Here is Idaho’s 2009 State Sovereignty Resolution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESHOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 3BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 A JOINT MEMORIAL
2 TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
3 IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
4 REPRESENTING THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
5 STATES.
6 We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho
7 assembled in the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully
8 represent that:
9 WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not simply
10 provide for a collective right or a right for the states to establish militias; rather it provides for
11 the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and
12 WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect one’s
13 self, family and possessions from either the private lawlessness of other persons or the tyranny
14 of government; and
15 WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear arms is also meant to protect the general private
16 uses of firearms in activities such as hunting and other sporting activities; and
17 WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128
18 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), recently struck down a firearms ban in the District of Columbia, explicitly
19 ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess firearms for pri
20 vate use; and
21 WHEREAS, despite this ruling, legislation has been introduced in the United States
22 House of Representatives calling for a system of mandatory federal licensing of all firearm
23 owners; and
24 WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would require all firearm owners to apply for and
25 carry a federally issued picture identification in order to keep any firearm in their homes; and
26 WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would make it a federal crime to keep a loaded
27 firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises including, under certain
28 circumstances, American homes where a child may be present; and
29 WHEREAS, the legislation introduced specifically purports to preempt any state or local
30 law inconsistent with it; and
31 WHEREAS, the introduced legislation, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale
32 Act of 2009, is a direct imposition on each American’s individual right to keep and bear arms
33 in their homes and for their protection.
34 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of
35 the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein,
36 that members of the United States Congress cease and desist attempting to enact federal leg
37 islation impinging on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any
38 manner. Specifically, that members of Congress oppose the passage of the Firearm Licensing
39 and Record of Sale Act of 2009, and any similar legislation.
1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby
2 authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and
3 the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation
4 representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2009/HJM003.pdf
JTCoyoté
___________
Route24, thanks for finding this one…
Kentucky Senate/House Concurrent Resolution 168 (HCR168)http://www.examiner.com/x-3747-Louisville-City-Hall-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Kentuckys-new-sovereignty-resolution
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:C_UZPA5Ni6QJ:www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09RS/HC168/bill.doc+HCR+168&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
This is the html version of the file http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09RS/HC168/bill.doc.Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 0/0/00 09 REG. SESS. 09 RS BR 1602
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky’s position that federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed.WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; andWHEREAS, 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; andWHEREAS, 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 state; andWHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; andWHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; andWHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” and the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; andWHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; andWHEREAS, 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 of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Senate concurring therein:
âSection 1. The Commonwealth of Kentucky 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.âSection 2. 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.âSection 3. It is the position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 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.âSection 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall distribute a copy 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 President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and to each member of Kentucky’s congressional delegation.Page of 2
BR160200.100-1602
JTCoyoté
Once a State has sent the feds their resolve to abide by the Constitution, then they began the process for Constitutional amendment review to bring federal amendments past and proposed into line with Constitutional guidelines reserved to the state by the Constitution. This is the third piece of legislation that sets up the endgame against federal tyranny.
The first move in the process is The State Sovereignty Resolution, then The State Sovereignty Act, and then The State Constitutional Amendment Review Commission Resolution, to review any attempts at a CON-CON, a race that we are in now, as was the case 15 years ago, “Sovereignty vs CON-CON.” This commission is created by a resolution such as the one below from the State of California.
1Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 57
Introduced by Senator RogersMarch 21, 1996
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 57—Relative to theUnited States Constitution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
SCR 57, as introduced, Rogers.
Constitutionalamendments: commission.This measure would establish a commission to makedeterminations on specified questions relating toamendments to, and procedures guaranteed by, the UnitedStates Constitution, and to report its determinations to theLegislature no later than January 1, 1998. It would resolve thatupon submission of the report, the commission would beabolished.
Fiscal committee: no.
1 WHEREAS, It has become increasingly clear that2 members of our federal government, both past and3 present, have acted to destroy the sovereignty of the State4 of California and to subvert the Constitution of the United5 States, a fact attested to by the United States Senate’s6 Report No. 93-549, wherein we find: ‘‘This vast range of7 [presidential emergency] powers … confer enough8 authority to rule the country without reference to normal9 constitutional processes,’’ and the Williamsburg Resolve,10 drafted at the Republican Governors Conference of 1994,11 which states: ‘‘Federal action has exceeded the clear12 bounds of the Constitution’’; and
2
1 WHEREAS, There is strong evidence suggesting that2 one such action by those in our federal government may3 be their having announced the ratification of, and having4 implemented, several constitutional amendments whose5 results are diametrically opposed to constitutional intent,6 and the liberty our founding fathers sought for7 Americans, even though the amendments were never8 properly ratified; and9 WHEREAS, A comparative analysis of the principles10 and procedures set forth in the Declaration of11 Independence and the United States Constitution and12 the operation of our nation reveals a serious departure13 from those principles and procedures; and14 WHEREAS, The initiation and continuation of these15 policies, and the legislation in support of them is the result16 of the emergency powers of the President enacted in17 1933, and constitutional amendments that are18 inconsistent with the spirit and intent of our nation’s19 founders; and20 WHEREAS, The general and complete disarmament21 program being carried out today under Public Law 87-29722 will soon result in the United States being unable to23 defend itself should Americans decide to return their24 government to within the limits prescribed by the United25 States Constitution; now, therefore, be it26 Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the27 Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature of the28 State of California hereby establishes a commission to29 make determinations on the following:30 (a) Why the United States Senate, in its Report No.31 93-549, said that ‘‘freedoms and governmental32 procedures guaranteed by the Constitution’’ have been33 ‘‘abridged’’ since 1933.34 (b) Whether the federal government intends to35 repeal the emergency powers of the President and36 reinstate the United States Constitution as the supreme37 law of the land, and if not, the action required by the38 states to ensure that its agent takes that action promptly.39 (c) Whether Amendments 11 to 26, inclusive, to the40 United States Constitution were properly ratified, and
3
1 the impact these amendments have had on the operation2 of our nation.3 (d) Whether there are any constitutional4 amendments that were properly ratified, but5 subsequently removed without due process; and be it6 further7 Resolved, That the commission be composed of8 members appointed by the Joint Rules Committee9 necessary to carry out the duties and mission of the10 commission, with a chairperson and vice chairperson to11 be appointed by the Joint Rules Committee; and be it12 further13 Resolved, That any expenses incurred by the14 commission in carrying out its duties shall be paid from15 the respective operating funds of the Senate and the16 Assembly, to be disbursed upon direction of the Joint17 Rules Committee; and be it further18 Resolved, That the commission report its19 determinations to the Legislature no later than January20 1, 1998; and be it further21 Resolved, That upon submission of the report the22 commission shall be abolished.
JTCoyoté
_____________
Then there is this from “freedomrik”…
I need All Patriot and Truthers from NC to write their NC reps. and urge them to pass HR 571Find contact info for your Reps at http://www.ncleg.net/GIS/RandR07/Home.html
Help me revive this Resolution………
North Carolina’s 1995 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 1995
H2
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 571
Committee Substitute Favorable 5/3/95
–––––––––––––––––––-
Sponsors:
–––––––––––––––––––-
Referred to:
–––––––––––––––––––-
March 28, 1995
A JOINT RESOLUTION DEMANDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CEASE AND DESIST MANDATES THAT ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED POWERS AND HONORING THE MEMORY OF RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, WILLIAM BLOUNT, AND HUGH WILLIAMSON.
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 United States Constitution 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, in 1995, the states are in fact 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
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 United States Constitution; and
Whereas, Richard Dobbs Spaight, William Blount, and Hugh Williamson were among North Carolina’s delegates to the federal convention in 1787 and signed the United States Constitution on behalf of North Carolina; and
Whereas, Richard Dobbs Spaight was a member of the Continental Congress from 1783 to 1785; a member of the House of Commons of the Assemblies of 1779, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1786-87, 1792; a member of the Senate of the Assemblies of 1801 and 1802; Speaker of the House of Commons of the Assembly of 1785; Governor, as chosen by the legislature, from 1792-95; and a member of the United States House of Representatives in the Fifth and Sixth Congresses; and
Whereas, William Blount was a member of the Continental Congress, elected in 1782, 1784, and 1785; a member of the House of Commons of the Assemblies of 1780, 1783, 1784, 1784-85, 1788, 1789, 1801, 1802; a member of the Senate of the Assembly of 1806; and Speaker of the North Carolina House of Commons of the Assembly of 1784-85; and
Whereas, Hugh Williamson was a member of the Continental Congress, elected in 1782, 1784, and 1787; a member of the House of Commons of the Assemblies of 1782 and 1785; and a member of the First Congress of the United States House of Representatives;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
Section 1. That the State of North Carolina claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all other powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.
Sec. 2. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as the State of North Carolina’s agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
Sec. 3. That the General Assembly hereby honors the life and memory of Richard Dobbs Spaight, William Blount, and Hugh Williamson for their service and contributions to this State and the United States and for their signing of the Constitution of our United States.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of State shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state legislature of the United States, and each Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States from North Carolina.
Sec. 5. This resolution is effective upon ratification.
JTCoyoté
Tennessee is on board as well, and I want to thank “Route24″ for alerting us to it, and thanks also to “Jofortruth”, who’s doing yeomans research and ferreted out the document on this… check out Jo’s list… http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6267
Tennessee: HJR0108 (Lynn) Filed for Introduction 02/18/2009http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0108http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com/2009/02/hjr-108-state-sovereignty.htmlhttp://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0104&ga=106
QUOTE*HJR 0108 by *Lynn, Maggart, Hawk, Niceley, Swafford, Campfield, Haynes,Watson, Dunn, Eldridge, Coley, Bell, Floyd, Mumpower, Cobb J, Casada, Hill,Dennis, Evans, Rich.Memorials, Congress – Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty underthe tenth amendment to the Constitution. -
QUOTEHOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 108By Lynn
A RESOLUTION to affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment tothe Constitution of the United States and to demand the federal government halt itspractice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states forpurposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads asfollows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to thepeople”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as beingthat 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 thefederal 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 thefederal government; and
WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandatesare directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. UnitedStates, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer thelegislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some nowpending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate theConstitution of the United States; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONEHUNDREDSIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATECONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the TenthAmendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwiseenumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the UnitedStates. We also demand the federal government to halt and reverse its practice ofassuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes notenumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a committee of conference and correspondencebeappointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as itscharge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the severalstates, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendshipand to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses ofauthority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powersand the imposed mandates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmittedtothe President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, theSpeaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to eachmember of Tennessee’s Congressional delegation.
***********************************************************************(Another Bill HJR 0104 by *Campfield, Rich has also been introduced)
JTCoyoté
_____________
Quote from: 70983 on March 22, 2009, 08:36:05 PM
But you can’t deny what that last paragraph in the New Hampshire resolution contained, which was passed, and Georgia has a bill with that paragraph in it pending as well. The wording cannot be construed as anything but advocating secession. Sure, the resolution is a great bill, but that one paragraph ruins the entire thing.
Quote from: xfahctor on March 23, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
Actually New Hampshires didn’t passed, it was ITL’d by a margin of just over 30 votes. The outrage in the gallery was staggering. Prople shouting death threats to the floor, in unison reciting article 10 of the New Hampshire state constitution (right of revolution),many in the gallery were armed and open carrying. It was pure pandemonium and damn near an armed coup. the public support for this resolution was massive and yet many legislators ignored that and voted to kill it out of cowardess.
Quote from: JTCoyoté on February 16, 2009, 04:37:36 PM
NEW HAMPSHIRE DECLARES SOVEREIGNTYhttp://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.htmlHCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED2009 SESSION09-027409/01HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
(…)
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.
JTCoyoté
“All government without the consent of the governedis the very definition of slavery.”~Jonathan Swift
Quote from: 70983 on March 20, 2009, 05:16:18 PM
The part that I put in bold in that quote completely ruins the entire resolution, and i bring that up because my state has a copy of this resolution pending as we speak. This makes me weary of COINTELPRO, advocating secession at the slightest infringement of our sovereign Constitution. I figured of all people JTCoyote would be the one to address this.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr470.htm
Your bolded clause above is precisely why this resolution continues to be defeated. This portion smacks strongly of secessionist sentiment and points directly away from the lawful process that the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement is attempting to create.
As I have pointed out before, there is a procedure in this movement, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service. The way I described this is much like the final moves in a chess game. The 10th Amendment Resolution puts the federal agent’s King in check, at which point you inform your opponent that his king is in danger. The resolution demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of their federal mandates. Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can push to continue their little game… or they can resign it.
If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state.
In effect this shuts down all federal power within the state, over and above that which the state determines by law, to be Constitutional… this opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted power, including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect… “Checkmate!” The feds game is lost.
By adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, as being the basis of and reason for this inquiry under the letter of the 10th Amendment, and thus necessitating that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and Constitutional complaint against the federal government, in so doing, the movement remains lawful and true. Secession, or the breaking away of any state, would spell disaster!
Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone and not by some convention. I’m sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue government to exploit the states and the people and to render us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.
The Bill of Rights begins it’s enumeration with the 1st Amendment and the phrase, “Congress shall make no law…” By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment… amendments begin with or contain the phrase, “Congress shall have power…”
As has been correctly pointed out here, there is latent secessionism, as you have shown, in the New Hampshire resolution. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group. They have their roots reaching back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power, and twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession… then they are a Global/FED, whether they know it or not.
JTCoyoté
____________
Quote from: 70983 on March 24, 2009, 08:07:28 PM
If the states refuse to recognize that the Federal Government has any power whatsoever, then what is the difference between that and secession? If there is no unifying buffer that connects the states, then they truly are separate nations. Don’t you think that instead of totally refusing to accept the Federal Government as legitimate, that the states instead should begin the process of nullifying any law or mandate that they deem unconstitutional by consensus. Then, after doing so, they begin the process of trying, or calling for the trial of, the people who commited this form of treason by excersising powers that they were never delegated.
I will assume what you are referring to here, is the bolded portion of the New Hampshire resolution. As I pointed out in the first paragraph of my last post, this is exactly why the New Hampshire resolution is constantly being defeated. It is because it contains secessionist language. As do a couple of other state resolutions that have used New Hampshire as a model.
In the third paragraph of my above post, I show the next step if the feds do not cease and desist upon receipt of the resolution…
“If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional StateSovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federalgovernment, that has not been determined by the state legislature to bewithin the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power.Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state.”
In my last post, I boiled down into one page, the entire process and procedure that must be adhered to in order to obtain lawful service and remedy. It worked well in the 90’s, in getting these passed, before the unlawful false flag of OKC deflected and diverted the movement until now. My last post would be well worth reading and rereading in order to understand why state legislatures are rightfully leery of signing on to legislation such as New Hampshire’s.
The process of law is clear, for both sides, thus must be adhered to by both sides, and most assuredly by our side. The bottom line on New Hampshire’s resolution is one of secession, and as long as that clause remains within the body of that resolution, it will not pass — and of right should not pass!
JTCoyoté
____________
Quote from: 70983 on March 25, 2009, 07:45:29 PM
Ok that clears it up for me, but i still have one question.
You say the states, after passing this Constitutional Sovereignty Act, are responsible for approving Federal actions before they are done. Is that not unconstitutional in and of itself? The only time the states can lawfully come together to make decisions without the involvement of the Federal Government is during the Constitutional Convention process, which we all know would be just as dangerous or even more so than secession itself.
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
The Federal Government, I believe, is entitled to its powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and those powers cannot be lawfully taken away or “approved” by anyone, without a Constitutional Amendment. That said, I agree with you that the States are able, individually, to nullify, with proof, any act of Congress, executive, or judicial order that may be reaching beyond its Constitutionally granted powers. However, they CANNOT have the power to approve or dissaprove forcefully of a legitimate Act of the Federal Government. It would be beyond the States’ power to do so.
Your first paragraph:
The Constitutional State Sovereignty Act enforces with actual law, the sovereignty resolution, it provides teeth. The resolution was created out of necessity, upon seeing that the federal government is mandating acts upon the state that are unconstitutional. The resolution informs the federal government that the state is aware of the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution, ratified in convention on December 15, 1791. The state understands the meaning of these two amendments, and it’s power under them. Thus, of necessity, the state wishes to inform the federal government that it must, by law, abide by these two amendments with regard to its dealings with the state.
Once the process of Resolution has been accomplished, if the federal government fails to act upon that information by curtailing its barrage of unconstitutional mandates, then the state must by law take the next step which is to pass a law mandating to the satisfaction of the state legislature, (the lawmaking body of the state — therefore the body that would be enacting into state law any federal government mandates), that the federal government now show chapter and verse from the Constitution where any and all federal mandates foisted upon the states, past and/or present are constitutional, as the state may require.
Once there are 38 states, each doing this independently, within the body of their legislature. Then the Federal downsizing begins. Each state has the right to question not only the mandate itself, but any precedent, any amendment, or any federal statute that the federal government may cite, regarding its constitutionality. So there will be no convention nor need for one, since the states will not be conferring with one another at the same time as would be the case with a convention, yet each would independently be in direct communication with the federal power. It would be just like normal legislative procedure within each state, with the difference that each state would have the federal government’s attention for a change. Thereby, the state, and the people of that state, engage and preserve their rights and powers as guaranteed under the 9th and 10th amendments.
Your second paragraph…
Is from article 1 section 10 of the Constitution. The term compact here refers to any extra-constitutional compacts. What is being engaged in here, is protected by the 10th amendment, a constitutional re-affirmation communication that is being independently engaged in within the legislatures of each state. If I were to use your definition, as I infer it, of what this means, then the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional because it is a compact between the state’s. This particular clause deals with anything in the compact vein that isn’t protected by constitution. The annual State Governors conference would be much closer to an extra-constitutional compact, than the 50 states independently within their respective legislative processes, holding the federal government’s feet to the constitutional fire using the 10th amendment as the precedent.
Your third paragraph:
There is already a constitutional amendment… it is called the 10th amendment. And the federal government does not have the right or the power to force an unconstitutional federal law upon any one, or any number of the states. The states have the absolute right and power within the Constitution, through their legislative body, to demand a demonstration of constitutionality for every federally mandated law without exception. And if 38 states independently by a vote of their legislatures find a particular federal law unconstitutional as it stacks up to the Organic Law… then it is unconstitutional… This absolutely requires that the Organic Constitution for the United States of America and The Bill of Rights, as ratified in convention, in the City of New York on December 15, 1791, be re-affirmed and upheld as the undeniable Law of the Land and final arbiter of constitutionality.
The federal government is being put on notice that they now must prove “legitimacy”, given their unconstitutional activity of late. This has glaringly come to the attention of the states, and thus, reigning it in, which is the states prerogative, would be timely now, if not long overdue. The federal government is being informed that it is now under close state observation, regarding all it’s shenanigans of power grabbing far beyond its constitutionally prescribed boundaries, and it must cease and desist this activity now, or “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security…” In other words, the federal agent will be fired.
JTCoyoté
_____________
Quote from: 70983 on March 27, 2009, 10:12:53 PM
Alright, I understand what you mean now. The state legislatures have the right collectively to demand proof of the constitutionality of any Federal Law.
But, you profess to be what I would interpret as a champion of the United States Constitution, and yet you believe that the government established therein should be “fired.” That is a very powerful, yet obscure thing to say, as it can be interpreted in many different ways. When you say “the Federal Government will be fired”, do you meanyou are advocating the restructuring of the government, under a new constitution? Do you support the idea in a few of these emerging resolutions, that “all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually”?
If you do, then I ask you, what do you believe could possibly be a better framework of Government than the one that we now currently live under? In my opinion, the founders of our nation created the most brilliant document in human history, and I will never support the trashing of it as long as I live. Here is a little blog I wrote on the Campaign for Liberty about this very topic: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13774
If you don’t support this form of quasi-secession, then more power to you.
The governmental structure of the federal agent is fine as it is set out in the Constitution… but that is not the structure, nor is it the Government that now rides ruff-shod over the states and the people in our time… The best way to say it, and truer words were never spoken no matter your opinion of the man that spoke them. This was said on the campaign trail in Columbus Ohio on Sept. 16th and 17th 1859…
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congressand the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution butto overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”–Abraham Lincoln
If you have been reading my posts, you will notice that I am emphatic about adherence to the 1791, convention ratified, Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I also like the amendments that had been proposed and ratified before 1820, and the original 14th Amendment, but became the 13th Amendment after the original 13th disappeared mysteriously from the Amendments.
With that said, in other threads I have laid out the shenanigans of subterfuge used by the royalist globalists and their minions to undermine these United States, they finally plunged us into civil war, and then consolidated their power by a parallel government corporation, artfully created by the DC organic act of 1871… These moves created the unprecedented power in the hands of the federal agent to create corporate agencies that operate outside of the normal constitutional boundaries of the government as it was originally laid out by the 1791 Constitution.
I am not familiar with what the Campaign for Liberty has in mind, but I will look into it. As to the power reverting back to the states… the power never left the states. We still have the power. As a united front of states, by a super majority we can remove all unconstitutional laws, the states have the power to eviscerate the entirety of the corporate parallel government, and bring charges against all those engaged in this rampant treason in the District of Columbia, and bring them to justice. All the while, keeping those necessary agencies of necessary federal operation in working order under new more responsive, constitutional abiding people. People who take an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America and then uphold it.
The founding fathers, many of them still at the helm, when the real original 13th amendment was proposed, and then ratified, foresaw the days we are now in, and sought to avert them with this Amendment. Once Jackson killed the second national Bank, the Crown tripled its efforts in undermining subterfuge to the undoing of our Constitution and had great success by provocateuring both sides, creating the Civil War.
The utilization of the 10th amendment within the states, up until the time of the Civil War, was the constitutional litmus used in proving a federal law or mandate before became law within the state. That all changed after the Civil War however, and the 10th amendment was demonized as being the cause for the secession of the Southern states. Nothing could be further from the truth… since the 10th amendment requires that the Constitution before it, and the nine other Amendments of the Bill of Rights that come before as well, remain in tact as the power behind it. Therefore the 10th Amendment Resolution movement can never become a secessionist movement.
Contrary to popular belief the Constitution is not a federal document, it creates and spells out federal power, but it is POWER that is delegated by the states, sent by the people… whereby, in dealings at law within statehouses, the state constitution holds the specifics for that state. However, the Constitution for the US, states the General organic law that must be upheld through this agreement, by the states. Thus the people and the states as a whole hold all power over the federal agency, constitutionally… Therefore, it’s about time we start exercising it before we lose our power forever to the hands of our historical longtime enemy, the tyrannical neo-feudal crowned heads of Europe!
JTCoyoté
_____________
Quote from: 70983 on March 28, 2009, 01:51:24 PM
But, the States have given up some power to their creation, the Federal Government, and that power cannot be added unto nor taken away without a Constitutional Amendment. A State, as long as it continues within this agreement, does NOT have the power individually, contrary to what is stated in a few of the sovereignty resolutions, to either remove a power from its delegated position in the Federal Government, or to assume such power to itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the States have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the Federal Government by any form other than a Constitutional Convention. That, to the extent of my knowledge, is the only way for the States themselves, to amend any powers delegated to the Fed. The other way is for Congress to propose amendments, or even an entirely new Constitution, and that the States ratify them.
I completely agree with you that many of the dealings within the Federal Government are currently unconstitutional, and that the States collectively have the right to call these acts out, and to nullify them, but I do not believe that the States have any authority to direct the Federal Government in any of its legitimately constitutional actions such as the powers defined in Article 1, Section 8, or any where else in the Constitution of the United States, because they gave up these powers individually in order for the entire country to posess them collectively.
You said that the current government is not legitimately and physically the actual government created by the Constitution? In what way do you mean this? Are you saying this with regards to the District of Columbia itself and its jurisdiction, or the actual people who are running it?
The states did not give up the powers enumerated in article I section 8. These powers are merely communicated from the several states, in exchange for value of the equal worth from the central agent. You don’t give up your rights to a lawyer when he is hired to represent you, same with the relationship of the federal government and the States… Article IV is an example of some of the exchange goods the States are to receive from the federal agent, with article IV section 4 being particularly noteworthy.
As I’ve pointed out in one of my earlier “lengthy” posts, several of the states resolutions will not pass because they are not abiding by the rules of lawful service. I’m sure you can surmise what that means, and most state legislators understand what it means as well. In that post I also spelled out the proper procedure.
Your comment:
“Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the states have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the federal government by any form other than a constitutional convention.”
This is a curious statement, it presupposes that the state is deleting power granted by the Constitution, or attempting to delegate powers to the federal government that are not enumerated therein. This is not the case in this movement at all. The 10th Amendment Resolution portends housecleaning only with the broom of Article I Section 8 in hand. Since the powers delegated by the constitutional agreement between the state’s are still state powers that have been ceded by provisions in the agreement between the states, to a 3rd party, to the federal agent, we the states have absolute control of that agent and desire that the agent, the federal government, cease the process of voting itself powers that are not specifically within their defined powers to hold.
Much the same way that power of attorney is granted by you to your legal agent. The states by the 10th amendment, still have the power to access and resend, through the individual 10th amendment effort of each state throughout the 50 states, together, without the communication of a convention, but from the laws of necessity, as spelled out in the Declaratory Enabling Act that gave rise to the Constitution namely the Declaration of Independence.
This knowledge is quite well known among the powerful in Washington DC, who remain silent about it and hedge every bet against it… this is why, when the 10th amendment state sovereignty movement was about to reach a crescendo in the mid-90s, the folks pushing it, those Constitutional patriots, had to be demonized and stopped. The Oklahoma City bombing was engineered precisely by the feds, to take care of this problem.
The reason for the aforementioned housecleaning is pretty obvious, and is apparent to a majority of the states presently. The federal government has been giving unto itself, power at the expense of the states and the people of the states, which it has no constitutional power to grant itself. It is doing so only by deconstruction of word, grammar, and definition, and inventing against the Constitution webs of convolved meaning, beyond the bounds of what an intelligent man can tolerate.
Only the states, and their people have the power, through constitutional process, which includes the 10th amendment process, to rein in an agent who is bent upon the absolute destruction of the principals ( the States), by misuse of the agreement that created it.
So you’re above quoted statement seems to me, a bit of a non sequitur given the discussion thus far, at least as far as I have advanced it. I see in it, however, what seems as an attempt at wrenching meanings from my words that are not there at all.
A super majority of the 50 states, by individual initiative, has the power under the 10th amendment to accomplish without convention the opening up of the entire amended law after the date of ratification December 15, 1791, and to reiterate, certainly without a convention. The only reason for a convention, would be to open the Ratified in Convention 1791 Constitution to change… and that, is what we, this effort, this movement, absolutely, emphatically, and well beyond a shadow of a doubt, DO NOT WANT! NOR WILL WE ACCEPT!!
I will once again refer you to Thomas Jefferson:
”…on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carryourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect thespirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may besqueezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable onein which it was passed.” ~Thomas Jefferson
This is a very important quote that has been ignored by virtually all interpreters of the Constitution, since John Jay was the Chief Justice of the court. Also, as we pull away in time from the date of the framing of this monumental work, more and more people within government, know less and less about the foundation documents, and have mistakenly come to see the federal government as the center of power. This is of course wrong.
It is also the reason why the states must, every 200 years or so clean up the complacent trash that has been gathering around the agreement which they all so honorably signed. This may include firing the attorney and hiring a new one. But the agreement between the states, the Organic Constitution, which is guarded at its conclusion by the 10th amendment of that Constitution and Bill of Rights, will remain. All else is within the 9th and 10th amendment state powers to dissolve or change.
As to the last part of your post dealing with our current rogue federal government operating every minute outside of the Constitution, because of its corporate structure and its sneaky way of utilizing the power of the Constitution without having to abide by the Constitution, I suggest that you read closely the following linked material, then we can discuss it.
Much was weeded through at this link, before we could get to the level in the discussion that leads to the “aha eureka” phenomenon of understanding how the federal slight of hand was accomplished. Here is the link…
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63062.0
This will help… but it does get rather esoteric in the grasping department, though it is pretty concrete in the factual. It is quite like looking at one of those early holograms that looked like a bunch of dots and squiggles in pastel colors on the paper that you held in the sunlight to see. It was impossible to see at first, until that one time, when it popped out at you… then you never had a problem being able to see it from then on.
JTCoyoté
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment