State Sovereignty Bills ~ 2009

[Angel Heart]

Arizona:

Format Document

Hawaii:

Hawaiian Constitutional Convention, Hawaii Con-Con, Updated: 7 Feb 2009

Montana:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Michigan:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21...-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf

Missouri:

Missouri House of Representatives

New Hampshire:

HCR 0006

Oklahoma:

State legislator Charles Key Tenth Amendment Resolution « AxXiom for Liberty

Washington:

HJM 4009 - 2009-10

Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania are working on similar bills.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I hope more states follow suit.

 

[Angel Heart]

I think more will. I'm going to talk the Oregon legislators over the next week about getting something started here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I contacted my state representative to see where he stands on the issue. When you speak with your representatives I'd suggest asking them to look over the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 by Thomas Jefferson.

"That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government..."

 

[Angel Heart]

Will do...

Amazing how silent everyone is on this.

 

[Angel Heart]

I'm really shocked at how quite this thread is. Several states are declaring their sovereignty and no one finds it interesting?

 

[Annie]

I think it's a good idea, though none have passed one yet. It is way past time for the states to put the Fed on notice that unfunded mandates will not be tolerated.

 

[Angel Heart]

There's going to be more of a push with the ever increasing unfunded mandates from DC. SCHIP is full of them. Requiring the states do things with out the money for them to do it. The more they do the farther down the road this will go. It's time for us all to demand our states take back the power.

 

[Annie]

There's going to be more of a push with the ever increasing unfunded mandates from DC. SCHIP is full of them. Requiring the states do things with out the money for them to do it. The more they do the farther down the road this will go. It's time for us all to demand our states take back the power.

I think most conservatives and libertarians would agree. It's easier for most citizens to watch the state than everything the Fed does.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm really shocked at how quite this thread is. Several states are declaring their sovereignty and no one finds it interesting?

This is Obamas' chance to really be like Lincoln. Is he gonna' "send in Federal troops" or is he gonna' "free the slaves"?
Or is he gonna' be like Roosevelt and grab more money and power for the Federal Government and stack the Supreme Court.

This would also be a good time for a tax revolt.

 

[editec]

At first blush this sounds like a fairly good idea to me.

Unfunded mandates are one of the problems that are killing our state budgets.

I'd like to see how this will play out as it relates to State/FED revenue sharing issues though.

Anyone have any more informative analysis of this debate?

 

[Jon]

State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

Hawaii's proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

If Hawaii secedes, does that mean Obama is no longer eligible to be President?

 

[Annie]

State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

Hawaii's proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

If Hawaii secedes, does that mean Obama is no longer eligible to be President?

LOL! From what I've seen of how the state legislatures are acting, they aren't into secession, though like Hawaii, (which has different issues), some come close. They are saying no to unfunded mandates, which they don't have the $$$ to implement if they wanted to.

 

[Jon]

It looks like this bill may even move some states to make abortions illegal. Could get very, very interesting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It looks like this bill may even move some states to make abortions illegal. Could get very, very interesting.

Hopefully. The federal government is not given authority in the Constitution to regulate abortion one way or the other.

 

[Annie]

It looks like this bill may even move some states to make abortions illegal. Could get very, very interesting.

Hopefully. The federal government is not given authority in the Constitution to regulate abortion one way or the other.

Yep, that and marriages. Also the 'strings' on money the state paid in, but the feds want to control.

 

[Angel Heart]

The stimulus's passing is going to push more states into this action. I wonder how many mandates are tied to the money? Putting more strain on the states.

 

[jillian]

wackjobs.....

 

[Tech_Esq]

wackjobs.....

Interesting analysis of 8 states' legislation. But really, legally, what do you think?

This is the best argument I've seen since Hammer v. Dagenhart was thrown in the OVERRULED bin by U.S. v. Darby Lumber to give teeth to the 10th Amendment. While the Justices in 1941 may have been correct in analyzing the 10th Amendment as a "truism" to what extent does that remain true today?

Where can you really draw a line and say with confidence, "Beyond this line, the Federal Government could not pass a law even if it wanted to." I think after Heart of Atlanta Motel and its progeny, you'd be hard pressed to say the Federal Government is limited.

If you can't cite a line that can be drawn, then the very nature of the Constitution and "limited government" created thereby would be a lie. Article I, Section 8 would look foolish. Why enumerate what the Congress can legislate on when it can do anything? All they do now is couch it in terms of the commerce clause.

The founders did not waste a whole amendment of the Constitution of some superfluous "truism" that the court should cast into the dust bin on a whim. It must mean something. Maybe we have some legal minds that can figure out what it means?

 

[Angel Heart]

wackjobs.....

Did you read through the bills? The reasons why the states are taking these actions? Or are you just doing a kneejerk reaction to it because the conservatives are the ones pushing for this?