Posted on 07/05/2009 4:36:29 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The Ohio Senate resolution was sponsored by Chris Widener, R-Springfield, who had 19 co-sponsors. The resolution states that Ohio receives more than 85 percent of its electricity from coal.
Cap and trade will result in a massive windfall of billions of dollars for the federal government through the sale of emission credits. Critics say the program won’t result in an overall global decrease in emissions because many U.S. industries will relocate to countries with less stringent standards, taking away American jobs in the process.
Based upon these concerns, the Ohio Senate is urging Congress to refuse to enact cap-and-trade legislation. The resolution passed Tuesday, 21-11. Capri Cafaro, D-Hubbard, voted against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at starbeacon.com ...
This is just a resolution folks, not a bill.
Then these coal states, and all the others, need to stand on states sovereignty and the 10th amendment. If the states refuse to obey the edicts of the feds the feds will play he** doing anything about it.
Btw-the Ohio seal pic, of the sun setting in the hills with the field in the foreground was drawn from the front porch of my great, great uncle's farmstead.
What exactly dies this mean? Des it mean even if it passes we will not participate in it?
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 |
Lincoln made sure that the fed government stayed all powerful and that the state were subservient. The 17th Amendment finished what Lincoln started.
Fantastic. Okay, Texas get er done.
>>Every state needs to take up this fight. Need to send a message back to DC
That was tried once and the Union was “preserved”.<<
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”. Learn from past mistakes. If it happens again, I guarantee the results will be different.
BTW, can anyone answer these questions? The Confederate States were agrarian, with little industry. How then did they, by July 1861, have a fully trained, armed, clothed and fed Army in the field and defeat the Yankees at Manassas? Where did all the supplies and grey uniforms come from? How do you train an Army in secret? What means of communication did they use to accomplish all this in such a short time? Remember Fort Sumter was fired on in April!
Suggest you read John Qincy Adams on how the Constitution was ratified. There was much concern that state legislative ratification was not honoring the need for resepcting the locus of sovereignty in the People. So, in addition to state ratification by the legislature, it was also ratified by separate constitutional conventions elected by the People. This act of delegation taking part of the power from the State and giving it to the federal government through a Constitution created a Union indivisable by the state legislatures. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm
“The Convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no state government; no combination of them was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A Constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederation Congress, by the state Legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing upon it”
Not necessarily, but Ohio is sending the federal government a message which is a start.
As a matter of curiousity, what do you see as a viable course of action available to The People to restrain the beast and restore Constitutional principles? Should our States not be the first line of defense against a feral government run amuck?
A side note and just for the sake of argument, convince me why WE should stay within the lines when our would-be masters aren't burdened with the same convictions. Reining in tyrants may not be as tidy as you would have us believe.
Hmmmm! Ohio voted for Obama last Fall - So how’s that workin out for ya now, Ohio?
It is important to remember that a federal agency enforces its laws on the individual directly and not hierarchically through the State. (The federal government cannot dictate that a State implement a federal program, but can condition receipt of federal funds on the passage of some program on the State level.) The State enforces its laws separately on the individual.
Under preemption, when federal law conflicts with State law, the federal law “preempts” or supersedes the State law. The federal government can "occupy the field" - meaning federal law is so extensive, there is no room for supplemental State law.
The tools at the State's disposal are to refuse to accept money with strings that enlarge federal power into areas like welfare, education etc. where there are no legitimate enumerated federal powers. The State can also challenge in court whether the federal law is a legitimate use of an enumerated power. It can challenge whether a treaty can enlarge federal power or whether the federal government is limited in its ability to implement provisions of a treaty to its own enumerated powers.
Personaly, I wish the Western States would challenge the federal retention and conversion of public land (land surveyed and open for settlement) into federally owned land. That might knock down their collateral. It certainly would lift a pall of oppression off the use and development of natural resources in Western communities.
Then, of course, there are amendments to the Constitution (God forbid.) Article V - Amendment "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
You either don't "get it" or you're in the tank with the federales who have contemptuously violated and repeatedly defaulted on their part of the compact. They have broken out of their Constitutional chains and you don't seem at all concerned about it. Slap 'em with a lawsuit? Har! The federales need to be taken to the woodshed or at the very least, read the riot act and you want to take 'em to court. That's rich.
BTW and FWIW, I choose option #2. You will not be a part of the solution because you are part of the problem.
Believe me, I wish it were otherwise. I have spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting federal agencies on natural resource issues. The Sagebrush Rebellion, the Property Rights movement, the timber wars - we have tried everything we could think of.
The State resolution is a policy statement and has no legal standing. Our County has passed dozens of them and all they do is provide a small amount of political pressure. They can be totally ignored by the feds.
The State's have accepted the bribe to allow the feds to expand their power beyond Constitutional authority. You see a few Governors, like Palin, “getting it” with the Stimulus scheme and refusing money with strings. But as long as the State legislatures grab for the goodies, the American public and Constitutional limits get sold down the river.
I comment on your posts because you would sell the organic sovereignty of the People, which is what the American experiment in government was all about, for State sovereignty. I will not exchange being the “subject” of one sovereign for being the “subject” of another.
The People need to get off their duffs and vote out corruption and vote for candidates that will respect the Constitution. They need to organize and voice their beliefs, values and issues in an orderly and clear fashion. They need to stand up for that platform with shear numbers and apply political pressure to be heard and given due consideration.
I comment on your posts because you would sell the organic sovereignty of the People, which is what the American experiment in government was all about, for State sovereignty.
I would do nothing of the kind but let's take a look at your point. YOU would have The People up in arms descending upon the snakes in DC. Imagine for a second what the Founders may have thought about the diffuculty of travel back in the day. Would you concede the point that by design of our Constitution was created to preserve MOST of the governing closer to The People? So that when The People had a beef they could take it up with their local government. If you can't concede that point, there's really no need for additional discussion of the issue.
...urging...???
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.
