Vanity: Usurper Detection Legislation Should Be Passed Within Each State

10-30-2009 | Uncle Sham

[Uncle Sham]

Since it appears that the judicial branch is intent on abandoning it's duty to uphold the Constitution, perhaps it's time for the states themselves to individually pass legislation that will protect their citizens from the actions of anyone who illegally occupies the Oval office.

There is nothing to prevent a state from passing a law requiring that the President must file his PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements with the state and that such a filing is open to public challenge in court.

Such a law could stipulate that any legislation signed by a President who refuses or is unable to meet this requirement to file shall be declared null and void within the borders of the state. No orders affecting any of the states citizens from such a usurper would have legal standing within the borders of the state. In addition, the act could command all legislators at the national level to institute whatever legal mechanism is required to challenge the standing of such a usurper.

It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as "Constitutional". Perhaps this can be done through a ballot initiative if the legislators refuse to look into it. We do not have to WAIT until the next Presidential election to handcuff a possible usurper. This can be done NOW and immediately protect a state's citizens from having to live with ILLEGALLY made legislation or orders.

[Publius6961]

None of this "new" stuff is necessary.

The safeguard is alreay firmly in the Constitution.

It's called the Tenth Amendment!

All that is necessary is its resuscitation.

Lincoln started to kill it
Roosevelt added dirt to its grave.
Johnson, Carter and the First Rapist dug it up and buried it deeper, and sealed it with concrete.

Both parties since obliterated the gravesite.

Just saying.

[Publius6961]

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that this whole birther thing is just anarchism/nihilism masquerading as patriotism in order to destroy this country from within.

I would expect a socialist/communist/progressive to say that.

[Publius6961]

Do you understand ANYTHING about how the court system works?

Actually, the Court system doesn't work. But that's material for another thread.

Let's not hijack this one.

[Publius6961]

I suggest that instead of nonsense and perhaps sedition, we concentrate on finding and electing candidates who support a conservative line, however that might be defined.

That's the current political growup version of the clueless kid who wants a pony.

The real substance of the question is, how can it be achieved in a political climate where criminals control every process and avenue? Including the courts?

No one, but NO one has come up with a practicable answer. What's left? Sedition if necessary, and rebellion as the last resort.

[Publius6961]

That sounds more like the program of Chavez and his fellow travelers more than the Founders.

Thank you for that last mindless bit, troll. It is clear I can safely ignore anything else you might choose to say.
Have a nice day.

Remarkable, how many corners the "progressives," those least respectful of the rule of law have insinuated themselves into.

Perhaps, before jumping into the maw of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence should be thoroughly discussed. Clearly, "the endless series of usurpations" precipitated something more than hand-wringing adherence to unjust and criminal laws.
We seem to have come full circle.

[Publius6961]

So, lets see if I get this right. Helping to ENFORCE a provision in the Constitution at a state level is "anarchy". What a crock.

It is abundantly clear in this thread that lawyers are a critical element in the problem.

What better "high horse" position than to mindlessly insist on the "rule of law?" Knowing full well that the forces original intended as checks and balances have been perverted into one leviathan, guiding, ruling, judging, enforcing and "checking" itself.

Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to the corrupt, ineffectual, self-serving and tyranical state of the legal system?

"The rule of law" my redneck red elbow!

[Kolokotronis]

“I would expect a socialist/communist/progressive to say that.”

Really? Funny, across the country, Us Attorneys and Federal District Judges of both parties seem to agree with me that birthers and their supporters are posing a threat to the security of this country.

I was with a US attorney yesterday, and others ( :)), who said exactly that. Are you a supporter of sedition, P? Are you using FR to promote sedition?

[Kolokotronis]

“What’s left? Sedition if necessary, and rebellion as the last resort.”

There are all sorts of people who I am sure will respond when you and yours call for rebellion. You and your fellow travelers, including the enemies of this country whose water you carry here on FR, won’t have more than a few hours to carry out your ridiculous “rebellion” before you are picked up and find out what “extraordinary rendition” really means. :)

[Kolokotronis]

LOL. Those of us dedicated to the Rule of Law really do laugh at you people, you know. And there’s not a thing you can do about. When the courts and the US and State and District Attorneys think its gone on long enough, the seditionists will be picked up. They’ll confess because most of them are middle aged, overweight loud mouths with far too much to lose to really engage in a revolution, then they’ll be tried, convicted and led of to jail in tears. And we’ll just laugh, and go have a drink, P.

Try to take the courts on P. See how that works out for you and anyone who conspires with you or who provides you with a means to further your conspiracy. The courts exist to protect society from your “rebels”.

[Plummz]

Mr Murderer, please post the name of your anti-American US Attorney friend and provide a direct quote if possible. Is he willing to go on the record with his pro-usurpation agitation?

[Uncle Sham]

His entire argument has been reduced to issuing threats. He is a waste of bandwidth.

[Uncle Sham]

We need the States to pass this type of legislation BEFORE that health care bill is signed into law.

[Uncle Sham]

"Just guessing but I doubt we could get Jenny Granholm to support it."

Give it a shot.

[Lady Jag]

The following info is hard to find.

Right after Obama's inauguration, states started declairing sovereignty to protect themselves from him. It is believed approximately 37 states have passed it or are in legistlature for approval:

Location:
FEDERAL - STATE RELATIONS; GOVERNMENT, STATE;

website opens in new window

May 27, 2009		2009-R-0215
PROPOSED BILLS ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES
By: Jillian L. Redding, Legislative Fellow

You asked for a list and the status of legislative proposals introduced in 2009 concerning state sovereignty. You also wanted to know if any of these proposals have been enacted.

SUMMARY

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials declaring state sovereignty and defining certain activities to be subject only to state law, and not federal regulation. Of these, resolutions have passed both houses of the legislature in four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The resolutions are currently with the secretary of state in Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The governor of Oklahoma vetoed that state's sovereignty bill but the legislature overrode the veto with a concurrent resolution, which is currently before President Obama and Congress. Connecticut is among the 15 remaining states without such a proposed bill this session.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY PROPOSED BILLS

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials concerning state sovereignty and federal regulation, as shown in Table 1. Each cites the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution: “[t]he 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. ”

Language of the Passed Bills

The state sovereignty resolutions passed both houses in only four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Each resolution:

1. cites the Tenth Amendment and declares that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states;

2. asserts that the scope of power defined in the Tenth Amendment meant for the federal government to be an agent of the states, however, “in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government”;

3. cites New York v. United States, in which the Supreme Court declared that Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states (505 U. S. 144 (1992));

4. states that it is to “serve as a notice and demand to the federal government . . . to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers”;

5. declares that several federal laws violate the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; and

6. asserts that “proposals from the previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate” the U. S. Constitution (H. J. M. 4, 60th Leg. , 1^st Reg. Sess. (Idaho 2009); H. C. R. 3063, 61st Leg. , Reg. Sess. (N. D. 2009); H. C. R. 1028, 52nd Leg. , Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2009); H. C. R. 1013, 84th Sess. (S. D. 2009)).

The resolutions in Idaho, Oklahoma, and South Dakota also state that any 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. ”

Idaho's House joint memorial also states that “Congress has inappropriately delegated its monetary authority to the private federal reserve bank, thus failing to protect and provide a sound monetary system as defined and mandated by the Constitution of the United States, forcing an unstable currency on us resulting in past, and the current, economic perils. ”

South Dakota's House concurrent resolution states that all Congressional acts, judicial orders, and executive orders that assume a power not delegated by the U. S. Constitution “and which serves to diminish the liberty” of a state or its citizens “constitutes a nullification of the Constitution . . . . ”

TABLE 1: STATES' PROPOSED BILLS FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY INTRODUCED IN 2009

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
Alabama	House Joint Resolution (HJR) 403	“Pending committee action in chamber of origin” 03/24/09
Alaska	House Bill (HB) 186	House passed 04/16/09 Senate referred to Judiciary Committee 04/17/09
Arizona	House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2024	Government Committee voted to pass 02/17/09 Rules Committee voted to pass as amended 02/23/09 Failed on the floor to pass with amendment
Arkansas	HCR 1011	“Read third time and failed” 04/03/09
Colorado	Senate Joint Memorial (SJM) 011	“Postponed Indefinitely” by State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee 04/27/09
Georgia	● Senate Resolution (SR) 632 ● HR 773 ● HR 470 ● HR 492 ● HR 280	● Senate passed 04/01/09 ● Still in the House ● Still in the House ● Still in the House ● Still in the House
Idaho	House Joint Memorial (HJM) 004	House & Senate passed; referred to the secretary of the state as of 04/13/09
Illinois	SR 0181	Referred to Assignments Committee 3/31/09
Indiana	● Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 0037 ● SR 0042 ● HCR 0050	● Introduced 02/23/09; no further action ● Introduced 03/19/09; no further action ● Referred to Rules & Legislative Procedures Committee 03/13/09
Iowa	● SCR 1 ● HCR 6	● Referred to Rules & Administration Committee 01/27/09. No further action. ● Laid over under Rule 25 (actions on resolutions must wait one day after being introduced) on 03/02/09. No further action.

Table 1 Continued

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
Kansas	SCR 1609	Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee 02/12/09; Hearing 03/20/09
Kentucky	HCR 172	Referred to Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee 02/25/09
Louisiana	SCR 2	Referred to House & Governmental Affairs Committee 5/13/09
Michigan	SCR 0004	Referred to Judiciary Committee 3/03/09
Minnesota	● HF 997 ● SF 1289	● Referred to State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee 02/19/09 ● Referred to Judiciary Committee 03/09/09
Mississippi	HCR 69	Amended & Adopted by House 05/07/09 Motion to Reconsider 05/08/09
Missouri	HCR 13	Adopted by House 03/23/09 Senate held Public Hearing 04/07/09
Montana	HR 3	Died in the House, 04/28/09
Nevada	Assembly Joint Resolution 15	Assigned to Elections, Procedures, Ethics, and Constitutional Amendments Committee Bill died 04/11/09 – failed to meet deadline pursuant to Joint Standing Rule 14. 3. 1
New Hampshire	HCR 6	Died in the House, 03/04/09
New Mexico	HJR 27	Bill died “Action Postponed Indefinitely” [no date given]
North Carolina	HR 849	Referred to House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations on 03/30/09.
North Dakota	House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 3063	Passed both houses; filed with the secretary of the state.
Ohio	● HCR 11 ● SCR 13	● Introduced 03/19/09; assigned to State Government Committee ● Introduced 05/07/09
Oklahoma	● HJR 1003 ● HCR 1028	● Both Houses passed; governor vetoed 04/24/09 ● Legislature bypassed governor veto and passed HCR 1028 05/13/09. Currently with President Obama and Congress for consideration.
Oregon	● HJM 17 ● SJM 9	● Referred to Rules Committee 03/12/09 ● Referred to Finance and Revenue Committee 02/23/09
Pennsylvania	HR 95	Referred to State Government Committee 03/23/09
South Carolina	HB 3509	Passed House 02/26/09 Senate referred to Judiciary Committee 03/03/09 Senate recalled from committee and ordered for consideration on calendar 05/14/09

Table 1 Continued

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
South Dakota	HCR 1013	Both Houses passed as of 03/05/09
Tennessee	● HJR 104 ● HJR 108 ● SJR 311	● Referred to Calendar & Rules Committee 05/19/09 ● Placed on regular calendar for 05/21/09 ● Referred to Judiciary Committee 05/07/09
Texas	● SCR 39 ● HB 1863	● Senate State Affairs Committee as of 03/13/09 ● Public Safety Committee Favorably reported 05/01/09
Virginia	HR 61	Referred to Rules Committee 02/26/09; no action taken in committee by voice vote 02/28/09
Washington	HJM 4009	Referred to State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee 01/30/09
West Virginia	HCR 49	Referred to House Rules Committee 03/27/09
Wisconsin	SR 6	Referred to Ethics Reform and Government Operations Committee 04/09/09

JLR: ak

[pissant]

BUMP!!!!!!!!

[little jeremiah]

Another bttt.

Thanks for the ping, Lady Jag.

FYI, LucyT.

[Lady Jag]

It’s encouraging info, but why is it so hard to find?

[Freedom2specul8]

bookmarked to read later

[justiceseeker93]

While these state legislatures cite the Tenth Amendment to argue against ever more expansive federal power, let's not forget the the last four words of the Tenth Amendment: or to the people. In other words, state powers are circumscribed too.

Plus, the Constitution never uses the phrase "states' rights." It is a bogus term that we conservatives should drop from our vocabulary. Only individuals and private sector entities have rights. Governments - federal or state or local - have (limited) powers, not "rights."

[melancholy]

Bump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the ping, Lady Jag.

Justa, did you see this?