States’ Rights and the Growing Rebellion – A Status Report

Family Security Matters ^ | February 16, 2009 | Paul Hollrah

[ForGod'sSake]

One of the inevitable consequences of the last 75 years of Democrat rule in Washington – augmented by a decade or more of gutless rule by Republican presidents and congressional majorities who thought they could win hearts and minds by imitating Democrats – is a quiet rebellion within that basic building block of our American republic: the state legislatures. 

 

After many decades of uninterrupted drift toward a socialist state, and seeing a self-serving federal legislature and a bloated federal bureaucracy whose incompetence is exceeded only by its avarice, the legislatures of a number of states are beginning to take matters into their own hands. They rely on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which proclaims 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."

 

Accordingly, some eight states, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington, are now considering either legislation or resolutions designed to reassert powers usurped by a power hungry federal establishment over the past 222 years. Typical of the proposals now under consideration is Oklahoma House Resolution 1003. Referring to the language of the 10th Amendment as its basis, the Resolution concludes: 

 

“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.”

 

The resolution serves notice on the federal government that it is to “cease and desist” in the process of issuing mandates to the State of Oklahoma that exceed the powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, and it resolves that all compulsory federal legislation which directs the state to comply under threat of civil or criminal sanctions, or which requires the state to take certain actions or lose federal funding, shall be prohibited or repealed.

 

House Resolution 1003 is similar to a resolution filed last year which passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 92-3 but was stalled in an evenly-divided Senate. Republicans gained a clear Senate majority in November 2008  

 

In New Hampshire, a resolution reasserting States’ rights reads, in part, as follows:

 

“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…” 

 

Proving once again that the people of New Hampshire take seriously their state motto, Live Free of Die, the Resolution concludes with an ominous declaration, saying that any act of Congress, any executive order of the President of the United States, or any directive of the Federal Courts “which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution… and which serves to diminish the liberty of the several States or their citizens, shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America…”

 

In Missouri, House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama’s stated intention to sign into law a federal “Freedom of Choice Act.” The Missouri Resolution reads, in part:

 

“Whereas, Barack Obama, President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new Administration is to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote – rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and

 

“Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future…”

 

“Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States…” 

 

In Montana, the House of Representatives is considering a bill reasserting the state’s sovereignty, using as a basis the 2nd Amendment rights of the people of Montana. House Bill 246 reads, in part, as follows:

 

“AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA…

 

“The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and (the) people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.”

 

In addition to bills and resolutions already introduced in these states and the legislatures of Arizona, Hawaii, Michigan, and Washington – telling the federal government to mind its own business, the business specifically assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution – similar proposals are under consideration in Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, and Pennsylvania. The 20 states already considering such proposals, or contemplating such action, contain 40.2% of the total U.S. population. 

 

In the year that the U.S. Constitution was written, Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

 

Clearly, any careful reading of the U.S. Constitution should convince the reader that the primary building block of the American republic is the state legislature. They are now drawing a line in the sand and are reminding the three branches of the federal government of their Constitutional limitations. We hope that the course they have embarked upon will continue to be a bloodless one. To insure that it is, we should all lend our active support to the state legislators. They are the Patrick Henrys of our era.

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute

 

You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2533/pub_detail.asp

COPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

[bill1952]

What, send in the FBI? Arrest the governor?

Are you kidding? they are very likely to send in the various state guard units and or the federal police to do exactly that.

I see no obstacle to them killing anyone that they want to further their agenda for change unless a major armed rebellion is enabled at both the popular and executive levels - and many people are ready to die for that ideal.

Do I believe that there are such organized folks and determination? - No.

They will find you and kill you
Ruby Ridge
Waco
Gonzales

bow to your masters

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[bill1952]

States call up their National G..

LOL! The national government controls the National Guard and the various units and member swear allegiance to the President himself, then the state.

The governor calls up units in the event of an natural emergency, not to foment rebellion against the Feds.

Personally, I would like to see even one state actually do that so that I could go and join.

[ForGod'sSake]

My stinking heroes! What a joke.

Yeah well, better late than never???

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Here in Florida, we need to rid ourselves of RINO Gov. Crist, then we can start the “tell DC where to go” process.”

I was watching a National Geographic special on alligators on Sanibel Island...have you thought about sending him there for a vacation. You might get lucky.

[JSDude1]

..they’re not to be talked about.

Some are patriotic americans willing to defend their neighbors and family, and communites, but a small minority others..

[djsherin]

I really really really hope they actually go somewhere with this.

I think though they may be just using this for “extreme cases” rather than any time the federal government oversteps it’s constitutionally delegated powers. I’d like to see FEDERAL minimum wage laws and regulations overturned (in addition to about a thousand other things); let the states decide themselves. Hopefully the States have the balls to stand up to the feds and refuse to be told what to do, even in the most seemingly insignificant cases.

[ForGod'sSake]

However, it is good to see the States finally waking up. Now, its time to exert more backbone and leadership...and author and pass some BILLS like Montana.

It is indeed good to see the states shuffling around the outhouse looking for their shovels. Cleaning up this mess ain't gonna be pretty and there will be a lot of stink raised up to boot.

[ForGod'sSake]

I’ve already suggested this to State Senate President Atwater.

THAT'S what I'm talkin bout! Thank you hillary.

[roses of sharon]

Nullification

Nullification is a constitutional theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void any law passed by the United States Congress which the state deems unacceptable and unconstitutional. The concept is most well-known in the context of the sectionalist crisis that plagued the Union in the 40 years preceding the Civil War.
The origins of nullification are found in the Federalist-Republican debate of the late 1700s. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) declared that the states had the right to nullify laws by which the federal government overstepped its limits of jurisprudence. When the Republicans gained the presidency in the “revolution of 1800,” nullification became moot.

The “tariff of abominations” of 1828 revived the issue. By this time in the United States, the North had become economically dominant due to manufacturing, and the South was beginning to suffer from exhausted land. The government enacted tariffs on foreign manufactures to protect Northern business, which raised the price of goods to be sold throughout the US. South Carolinians in particular were upset by their inability to afford these goods which the South could not produce. South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union.

John Calhoun, then Vice-President in the Jackson administration, promoted nullification as a moderate alternative to secession. A state would be able to nullify a federal law and exist as part of the Union unless three-fourths of the states passed the law as a constitutional amendment. In that case, the state would secede from the Union. Calhoun’s theory of “concurrent majority” essentially gave each regional interest an absolute veto.

Calhoun wanted to preserve the Union and intended to use the threat of nullification simply to force the federal government to reduce tariff rates, but the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate in Congress divided the nation over nullification. A North versus West controversy about public lands in the frontier turned into a Southern and Western ideological struggle against Northeastern “tyranny.”

President Jackson considered nullification to be treasonous. Jackson stated his view with the following toast at a Democratic Party banquet: “Our Federal Union-it must be preserved.” John Calhoun responded: “The Union-next to our liberty most dear.” Calhoun would resign as Vice-President and accept a Congressional seat from South Carolina.

In 1833, Congress passed a “force bill” which authorized Jackson to use violence to preserve the Union. A compromise on the tariff issue offered by Senator Henry Clay was passed in 1842, which gradually reduced rates to the 1816 level. Thirty years later in the Civil War (1861-1865), after the secession crisis was heightened by the slavery issue, violence would finally settle the matter of nullification.

---

[djsherin]

Of course not. It’s a shame but Republicans are hardly blameless when it comes to unconstitutional behavior. The little stuff counts too.

[Poser]

New Hampshire House Resolution 6 still appears to be dead in committee.

[ForGod'sSake]

So, how many on your ping list have written their STATE legislators encouraging these resolutions?

Yes indeedy! We should be burning up the phone lines to our state capitols. My own state of Texas just formally began their current session today. I WILL be on the phones over ther next few days sharing the gospel. Count on it!

[daylilly]

The legislation in Arizona specifically addresses the point you made about the governor, the national guard, etc. IIRC it said that all Arizona troops should return to Arizona and be under the direction of the governor, which I believe includes the police, the national guard, etc.
They’re thinking about it anyway.
MS had something about the feds couldn’t disarm the citizens during martial law.
Arizona & New Hampshire both said the president would not be president legitimately if he tried some things they specifically talked about. As in the military and police etc could not legitimately obey the president.
Who among these men would swear allegiance to the president if it meant harming family and friends, people in your home state?
This stuff could get exceedingly ugly. I prefer to be hopeful. Most of them address the issue of martial law.

[MrB]

The Arizona Resolution is the best I've read so far.

[ForGod'sSake]

Done, thanks for the interest in what may be our last and best hope of putting the federal leviathan back in its chains. God help us!

[ForGod'sSake]

Bump that!

[djsherin]

***As in the military and police etc could not legitimately obey the president.
Who among these men would swear allegiance to the president if it meant harming family and friends, people in your home state?***

The military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. If the president violates the Constitution, it should be the soldiers’ job to refuse to enforce his orders.

[ForGod'sSake]

Is it time for “Yee Haw” yet?

Well, not really but I could use the practice... Ahem...

That felt good.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Things get much worse and we will see the Bonnie Blue Flag flying again. If one sate goes out—not much of a problem but what if a whole section of the nation? What if they form a new government? Sectionalism could be in the future if the National Government heads down a socialist path or starts to bend or ignore the Constitution.