Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Asks Governors to Commit Sovereignty Suicide
tenthamendmentcenter ^ | 1/27/2010 | Lawrence A. Hunter

Posted on 01/28/2010 6:15:41 PM PST by listenhillary

“Will you step into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly; “’Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy. The way into my parlor is up a winding stair, And I have many pretty things to show when you are there.” “O no, no,” said the little fly, “to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”

President Obama issued Executive Order 13528 on January 11, 2010 establishing a Council of Governors ostensibly “to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property.”

If history has taught us anything, it is to beware of “cooperative partnerships” between the federal government and states. They invariably result in an expansion of federal authority and reach at the expense of the states and a diminution of individual rights and freedoms in the name of the general welfare and national security. So-called “cooperative federalism” is a snare and a delusion. Read more here

One direct result of the new Council of Governors will be to provide the federal government more control of state National Guards, allowing the president to synchronize and integrate federal military operations within the United States. The total disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act within this order is one more erosion of restrictions against the use of the military for law enforcement.

More generally, the new Council of Governors establishes a bureaucratic transmission belt for the president to conscript state governors to act as agents of the federal government. Indeed, by establishing this council, appointed by the president and presided over by the Secretary of Defense, President Obama is asking governors to engage in the ultimate act of sovereign suicide in the name of “intergovernmental cooperation and coordination.”

(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: bhofascism; fubo

1 posted on 01/28/2010 6:15:42 PM PST by listenhillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
President Obama issued Executive Order 13528 on January 11, 2010 establishing a Council of Governors ostensibly “to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property.”

The laboratories of democracy have become the stomping grounds of socialists.

2 posted on 01/28/2010 6:18:35 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

We used to have a “Senate,” in which senators were elected by the state legislatures, in order to represent state interests at the federal level.


3 posted on 01/28/2010 6:18:57 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
Yeah, now the Senate just tries to rubber-stamp whatever the President wants.

This will change. Nature abhors a vacuum.

4 posted on 01/28/2010 6:31:14 PM PST by GenXFreedomFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
The good ol’ day's when the federal government worked for the states in a united fashion instead of presently dictating law to the states with popular consent.
5 posted on 01/28/2010 6:48:42 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

All we need to do is get our governors to refuses to be lapdogs and throwout the ones that are. thats not as easy as it sounds. But the fact is the system was not designed for the different parts to be “cooperating” unless there truly is mutual agreement. For the most part their suppose to be competing.

I suppose this issue is really just a microcosm of the greater problem with Obama and the democrats mindset in that they seem to think the failure of the system to get past their agenda is in fact a failure rather then a product of the system to resist being used to impose upon the people things the people dont want.

Its a good thing congress cant pass health-care, its a good thing its so hard, thats the way its suppose to be! its not suppose to be a party-line dictatorship! Your not suppose to be able to just impose whatever you want!

The system is designed to help stop anyone from ever having that kind of power Not let them be successful in obtaining that kind of power!

There is a good reason “progressives” have not been able to completely take over the health-care system as they wanted to over the last 100 years. Our Federal constitutional system was not designed to allow that kind of centralized power!


6 posted on 01/28/2010 6:50:29 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

All we need to do is get our governors to refuses to be lapdogs and throwout the ones that are. thats not as easy as it sounds. But the fact is the system was not designed for the different parts to be “cooperating” unless there truly is mutual agreement. For the most part their suppose to be competing.

I suppose this issue is really just a microcosm of the greater problem with Obama and the democrats mindset in that they seem to think the failure of the system to get past their agenda is in fact a failure rather then a product of the system to resist being used to impose upon the people things the people dont want.

Its a good thing congress cant pass health-care, its a good thing its so hard, thats the way its suppose to be! its not suppose to be a party-line dictatorship! Your not suppose to be able to just impose whatever you want!

The system is designed to help stop anyone from ever having that kind of power Not let them be successful in obtaining that kind of power!

There is a good reason “progressives” have not been able to completely take over the health-care system as they wanted to over the last 100 years. Our Federal constitutional system was not designed to allow that kind of centralized power!


7 posted on 01/28/2010 6:50:32 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
"One direct result of the new Council of Governors will be to provide the federal government more control of state National Guards, allowing the president to synchronize and integrate federal military operations within the United States. "

If that happens say "goodbye tea partyies and public dissent, and hello obama's brownshirts."

He is trying to pave the way to martial law and a total coup, but he knows in an armed populace he can't pull it off without the military force to disarm us.

The Governors had better say no to this one, and fast.
8 posted on 01/28/2010 7:08:05 PM PST by FrankR (There will be no jobs until it is profitable for employers to hire people....PERIOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

We have become that frog in the water and Obama is heting it slowly so we dont get the opportunity to jump out.

Piece by piece he is destroying this country. I cannot help but wonder who is behind him,because he isnt smart enough for this by himself.


9 posted on 01/28/2010 7:15:49 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

I think at least some or many of them will, the problem will be the ones that don’t. We may end up having a confrontation.

According to the Constitution the States get to pick all the officers of the National guard, now would be a good time to start clenching the ranks of anyone who might choose loyalty to the Federal government over the State and liberty.

We do that and provide the state Government is not in cahoots, we will be able to hold the line long enough to wake enough of our bothers up as to stage a good defense.

It cant hurt, so might as well be prepared for the worst case situation.


10 posted on 01/28/2010 7:16:29 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I’ve been saying this for two years at least.


11 posted on 01/28/2010 7:33:29 PM PST by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
The good ol’ day's when the federal government worked for the states in a united fashion instead of presently dictating law to the states with popular consent.

,,,or without it. And I quote, "Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”
- B.H. Obama, January 27, 2010

12 posted on 01/28/2010 7:37:52 PM PST by shezza (A government that gives you everything you want can take away everything you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
"I cannot help but wonder who is behind him,because he isnt smart enough for this by himself...."

The whole Alinsky apparatchik, that's who (and they are legion).

13 posted on 01/28/2010 7:39:56 PM PST by shezza (A government that gives you everything you want can take away everything you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

If there’s ever been a point in recent history where the possibility of a real or staged crisis will be fully taken advantage of and martial law imposed, we are there.

Yes, Zero’s that arrogant and that stupid.

He’s going to try something in my opinion. Too much spending time with individuals that make the KKK look bland and a third world despot mentality which can be seen with Zero’s cousin Odinga’s exploits supported by Barry.

Likewise he’s purposefully destroying the economy, what’s the next steps? The Constitution has proven to be no obstacle, he has no respect for the law as seen by the fool admonishing SCOTUS.

I’m going forward with the belief that the 2010 November election may not happen. Some call it crazy, but if we had more informed populace, Barry’s poll numbers would be much lower.

SOME national guard, local police and out of state police seized weapons from citizens after Katrina, which were never returned. Hear their stories on Youtube. They will try again. Not on a national scale but regional step by step. Local jurisdictions will be threatened by the feds, which is the SYNCHRONIZATION this executive order mentions. There was expansion of government, defense over the years with somewhat good intentions (Infragard, Dept of Homeland Security) but they will be taken advantage of by an enemy of state.

It’s what we don’t know that worries me.


14 posted on 01/28/2010 7:41:30 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
I'll take, "How many States are needed to ratify an Amendment to the Constitutional for $500.00, Alex."

OR

I'll take, "What's the easiest way to get a Constitutional Amendment passed using an end run around We The People, for $400.00, Alex."

It only takes 38 States out of 50 for ratification of an Amendment to the Constitution. A Governor of a State carries a very big stick and influences which Bills are passed within a State. Could local media be trusted to connect the dots and sound alarm bells to awaken the general public within a State or Nationally ?

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) which is part of The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

To process an Amendment into the Constitution of the United States, it only takes the the Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register (OFR) to follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State (hrmmm ... I wonder what her name is ?). A Constitutional Convention has never been used or needed to pass any of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Is plausible deniability possible by a President (What's his name ?), if an Amendment to the Constitution only requires the joint approval of the Speaker of the House (Who is she ?) and the Senate Majority Leader (Who is he ?) without a signature from the President ?

Is it possible that America could sleep through such shenanigans as adding an Amendment to the Constitution without the consent of the governed ?

Are there termination dates for signed Amendments returned to NARA ? Has the time-length of terminations been changed ? Questions, questions, questions ....

15 posted on 01/28/2010 8:53:42 PM PST by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Given my questions in #15, would Hillary actually listen ?
:)
16 posted on 01/28/2010 9:00:31 PM PST by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx
It only takes 38 States out of 50 for ratification of an Amendment to the Constitution

Are you positive about that? I'm not student of Constutional Law, but to my recollection, it takes 2/3rds of a majority for ratification, which would mean only 34 states to pass it. Where am I wrong?

17 posted on 02/02/2010 10:59:02 PM PST by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson