A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (South Carolina)

South Carolina General Assembly ^ | 02/12/2009 | South Carolina General Assembly

[neal1960]

TO AFFIRM SOUTH CAROLINA'S SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OVER ALL POWERS NOT ENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

[numberonepal]

It’s the Gadsden at my house.

[LibertyRocks]

Thanks Jim! Although, I have to admit it would’ve been amusing to see him try to explain how the Chinese government isn’t Communist! ;)

[Mojave]

If a state would actually refuse to accept their slice of the “stimulus” pie, I would be impressed.

[LibertyRocks]

As would I. :)

[Amelia]

Declaring its sovereignty while waiting by the mailbox for its federal stimulus check.

My thoughts exactly.

Yeah, that Sovereignty looks great on paper, but when it comes down to whether or not to take that federal money, I'll bet the states will be down on their knees, rolling over, or whatever else it takes.

[visualops]

WHOA! I just emailed Sanford about this last week!

OK, this has been referred to committee...does that mean it’ll die there? What can we do to push this?

[kgrif_Salinas]

Thank you Abraham Lincoln. I applaud this assertion of the 10th Amend., but it is too late. The States were neutered a long time ago.

[x]

OK, someone clue me in, please. Why is this important? Does this have something to do with the stimulus bill, or some other shenanigans that the Dims in Congress are trying to pull?

You've got me there too.

It probably relates to abortion and labor legislation, with firearms in the background.

The thing is, the people who most support the resolution would find almost everything done by the federal government over the past century or more to be unconstitutional.

While we can all hope that voters will stand up to unconstitutional legislation, the controversy opens up a very large can of worms, and a lot of people will be skeptical if things that were accepted practice in 2008 suddenly become unconstitutional outrages in 2009.

[LibertyRocks]

Honestly, the way I see this is at least it’s a start. If there is any hope to restrain the Federal Government (especially with Obama & the Dems in charge) is to actually educate people about what the Constitution really says, and what it really means.

If more people in these various states understood the reason for these resolutions, then they will start being in a better position to resist. Education is the first step, and we all know that the education children are receiving in their schools are revisionist ideas, and progressive ideology - hardly a good background if we expect people to understand these issues.

Eventually, the citizens themselves may be the ones that demand their state legislatures STOP accepting Federal funds for ANYTHING other than Constiutionally authorized reasons (which of course there is even more argument on - roads, post office, etc...).

Anyway, I see this all as a step in the right direction at least. Especially when it comes, as I said, to re-introducing these issues to the public discourse, and educating the citizens regarding their rights, and the restraints inherent in our Constitutional Republic.

One of the biggest problems we have nowadays as far as the collective understanding of political institutions in our country comes from the fact that so many erroneously consider the U.S. a “Democracy”. Unfortunately, even Bush fell into this trap when he pushed for bringing “Democracy” to Iraq. It would’ve been much wiser, IMHO, if he had pushed the idea of bringing FREEDOM, and a CONSTIUTIONAL REPUBLIC with Democratic Elections - however, I do realize that in today’s world of sound bites that may have been a tall order.

[visualops]

It also has to do with "unfunded mandates".
Below is pulled from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) was adopted in an effort "...to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments." According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), UMRA defines a mandate as any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector, or that would reduce or eliminate the amount of funding authorized to cover the costs of existing mandates. Since 1995, CBO has identified ten laws that contain intergovernmental mandates which exceed the UMRA threshold ($50 million in 1996 dollars; adjusted annually for inflation, $68 million in 2008):   

• an increase in the minimum wage (1996);
• a reduction in the federal funding to administer the Food Stamps program (1997); 
• a provision preempting state taxes on premiums for prescription drug coverage contained in the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003;
• a preemption of state authority to tax certain Internet services and transactions (2004);
• a requirement that state and local governments meet certain standards for issuing vital-statistic documents (Driver’s license requirements were repealed and replaced with the REAL ID Act (P.L. 109-13))(2004); 
• a provision that eliminates federal matching funds for administrative expenses funded by incentive payments to states as it relates to the child support enforcement program (2006);
• a requirement that all government entities, including state and local governments, withhold 3 percent on certain, non-essential government payments for property or services (2006);
• an increase in the minimum wage (2007);
• a preemption of state authority to tax certain Internet services and transactions (2007); and
• a requirement that public transportation agencies and rail carriers implement various security measures and vulnerability assessments, and institute training programs and background checks for certain employees (2007). 

 

NCSL's Mandate Monitor uses a definition of "unfunded mandate" that is broader than the one included in UMRA, because state and local officials view unfunded mandates more expansively. They interpret almost any federal decision that requires them to spend state or local funds as a cost shift. This includes legislation that:

• Establishes a condition of grant in aid.
• Reduces current funds available (including a reduction in the federal match rate or a reduction in available administrative or programmatic funds) to state and local governments for existing programs without a similar reduction in requirements.
• Extends or expands existing or expiring mandates.
• Establishes durational goals to comply with federal statutes or regulations with the caveat that if a state fails to comply they face a loss of federal funds--a condition of grant aid.
• Creates a loss in state/local funds.
• Compels coverage of a certain population/age group/other factor under a current program without providing full or adequate funding for this coverage.
• Creates underfunded national expectations, i.e., homeland security.

As of March 2008, the minimum cumulative gap in federal funds to states for FY2004 to FY2008 stands at over $131 billion ($25.7 billion in FY 2004, $26.3 billion in FY2005, $22.5 billion in FY2006, $26.6 billion in FY 2007 and $33.7 billion in FY 2008).
 

 

Updated April 2008

[LibertyRocks]

"While we can all hope that voters will stand up to unconstitutional legislation, the controversy opens up a very large can of worms, and a lot of people will be skeptical if things that were accepted practice in 2008 suddenly become unconstitutional outrages in 2009. "

And, there you have highlighted the problems we face in light of the incremental advance of socialism within the U.S.. Something, that the Communists were well aware of. The people have accepted so many things as being legal now that it would/WILL be very hard to explain just how far away from the intent of our Founding Fathers, and indeed from the restraints built into the Constitution we have really strayed.

[sergeantdave]

A more apt comparison might be Col. Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island turning back a British naval attack against Charleston on June 28, 1776.

[Army Air Corps]

A pair of state legislators are working on such a measure in Texas.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. —Thomas Jefferson

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. —Benjamin Franklin

Wake up.

[snippy_about_it]

I didn’t charge. You show yourself incapable of supporting your comments.

[snippy_about_it]

FYI. I didn’t start it but they were hitting pretty hard from the git go with traitor and loser thrown at us. Not pretty.

[Mojave]

Must you just bash the South

Must you just bash America?

Take a big swallow of your own medicine.

[snippy_about_it]

You are not making sense. Nevermind.

[ought-six]

“As for me, Bonnie Blue flys over the homestead.”

We are a band of brothers....

[ought-six]

“CW2 is coming folks.”

Sure seems to be headed that way.