Posted on 07/27/2009 3:25:17 PM PDT by NoobRep
At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
(Excerpt) Read more at omaha.com ...
On the other hand, bout damn time Nebraska got this going.
I hope this sentiment spreads along the all 57 states.
wink wink
I believe this would make 38 states for 10-A resolutions, pushing the total over 3/4 of states. Wouldn’t hurt to get a few more.
Yeah, butt out!
But keep sending those federal checks.
Geez, I wonder if my state will follow in Nebraska’s footsteps?
Oh, forget it, I live in California.
Nebraska may join in the 10th amendment movement. How serious are they?
“But keep sending those federal checks.”
Bingo!
How many of these state’s rights states are actually turning down significant amounts of federal money? My suspicion is, not many. Until the states are willing to “walk the walk”, public resolutions mean little, or nothing at all.
When a lot of fed money (and its attendant mandates) are rejected by the states it will be significant. Until then, it’s just political blather, at the state level.
Nebraska is pretty self sufficient. We have nuclear power plants and plenty of food. What I’d like to see is for a ballot initiative to exempt from Obamacare if that comes to pass.
It’s going to take someone like Texas or Alaska, who the government really relies on, to get the whole thing rocking.
More of a telltale sign of how bad Obama’s policies are is that close to 40 states have had to adopt these resolutions.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
I've stopped scouring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.
Additional Resources:
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Find Law(Brief narrative on 10th Amendment)
| CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES |
“Thanks for the ping”
No problem. Are these things just a shot across the bow or something serious?
Didn’t see anything like this under clinton, I must say.
“..........40 states have had to adopt these resolutions.”
Well, if it’s 40 states, that’s a pretty solid majority. The problem is, a resolution (even 40 of ‘em) doesn’t DO anything. Looks nice, seems like they’re doing something, but they don’t ............ by themselves.
Brownville still the nuke plant in Nebraska. Were you aware there was a small Cesium cooled nuclear plant south of LNK at one time? Nebraska had a nuke plant early.
Don’t you think it’s a bit unreasonable to ask states to turn down “federal money”, while the federal government is still extracting many billions of dollars each year in taxes from the people and businesses of the state?
I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when one or more states will take serious action to shut off the outflow of money from the state to the federal government, and simultaneously withdraw from programs that send money back to the states with thousands of strings attached. But just turning down “federal money”, while continuing to fill the federal government’s coffers would be pretty self-destructive. The federal government will just use the money to buy votes for socialism from other states.
“But just turning down “federal money”, while continuing to fill the federal government’s coffers would be pretty self-destructive.”
Agreed, however with that federal money, comes federal mandates. Which is more destructive? Not accepting the money, or accepting the mandates that come with them? I would submit that the acceptance of the mandates, both funded and unfunded , can be far more destructive than not accepting the money (but that’s just me).
I don't know if I'd even quantify these initiatives as a shot across the bow. Something more akin to the States loading up to take a shot. Fact is, all dustups invariably begin with an exchange of words, no?
Didn’t see anything like this under clinton, I must say.
During my research I ran across an article that said there were quite a few 10th Amendment or similar initiatives during Bent Willie's reign that went away after the Murrah bombing in OK City. I didn't pursue it to determine the veracity of the claim but I don't have any reason to doubt it.
You’ll know they’re serious when they stop taking the money.
You’ll know the people are are really serious when they stop sending it in in the first place...
The mandates are awful, but frankly most of the people in most states really don’t mind most of the mandates. State legislators would be hard-pressed to get re-elected if they refused to take back the huge sums of money their constituents were forced to send to the federal government, when the constituents don’t really have a huge problem with the mandates — yeah, everybody’s got some they don’t like, but overall, the average American thinks most of the mandates “make sense”. What really needs to be fought is the BOTH the federal mandates and the original confiscation of the money by the federal government. This is politically fightable because the sheeple can be told they can still have whatever mandates they want, set at the state level. But legislators really need to start highlighting the colossal sums that are moved in a circle every year, going to Washington and coming back with about 25% missing for overhead costs and a furthe devalued by a bundle of mandates from the federal government. While most constituents don’t hate most of the mandates, they’d all hate the 25% overhead charge if they had it pointed out to them, and none of them like all of the mandates.
Problem with Nebraska is that the farmers have been co-opted by federal subsidies to cover their crop losses, etc. There is no way they will give that money up... even though they bitch and moan all damn day about the government this and the government that... They are like junkies hooked on the federal dole... at our expense.
Personally, I would not give a rat’s tail if Nebraska never received one more red cent from the federal whorehouse. I would cast my vote in a heartbeat to the first Nebraska politico that told Obama and his fascist thugs to take their money and shove it up their O-holes!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.