Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire I'm surprised I didn't see this here

9 States Declare Sovereignty

9+ States have now declared sovereignty, now add Washington to the list.

In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you
haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are
currently declaring or have already declared sovereignty, including:

Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

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

Michigan
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004

Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/state-legislator-charles-key-wants-to-limit-federal-power

California
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered

Georgia
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

Possibly: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho,
Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Illinois

So what does that actually mean in practice?

They are trying to limit just how much control the Federal government exercises over them. If they all manage to do this, it could get the Fed's by the shorthairs, as most states have in their legislative bodies, that you must have a balanced budget, something our fed doesn't even try to do. Les

Notice you don't see MN or TAX HELL WISCONSIN on the list...

These two lemmings will just fall into lock-step with P-BO..

California??? Is there a North and South California now?

Cheers Les,

So this is not the first steps towards individual States withdrawing from the Union / Republic ???(sorry, I'm not sure of the correct term)

Regards

Peter

Probably not. With all those comparisons of Obama to Lincoln, states declaring sovereignty might not mean that much. Who wants a modern day Sherman marching a swath through your state on his way to the sea?

States can declare "sovereignty" all they want, but at the end of the day they have exactly the amount of sovereignty the national government chooses to allow them. That issue was settled at Appomattox courthouse a long time ago. My side lost.

Must not mean much as a lot of those states listed voted for Obama. Must be just a pr thing. I'd support my state declaring sovereignty.

Is this a backlash to the spending bill?

Wook

I am betting that it is. Les

I just sent a query to Senator Thune in SD asking if that state was considering a similar strategy.. I sure hope the answer is 'yes'..

Yep, nothing left of state sovereignty but the ability to make meaningless declarations and empty gestures.

Here is Arizona's

State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Forty-ninth Legislature

First Regular Session

2009





HCR 2024



Introduced by

Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper





A concurrent RESOLUTION



claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.





(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)




Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The 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"; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal 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.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

From Montana's, there seems to be a trend here. Les

1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Here's Michigan's

Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:
House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.
A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing
mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The 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"; and
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that
specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal
government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal
government; and
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.
Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes
of the states; and
Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from
the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United
States; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm
Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the
United States. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon
the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the
United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Washington State's, yep, pretty much all the same thing. Les

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, "The 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."; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal
government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of
the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective
immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers.

I noticed on the California declaration that it was dated 1994. That is at least 14 to 15 years old. With that being said, I fail to see what difference it has made. I think that it would be generally agreed that this state has slid downhill since then. We have demonstrated our ability to proceed down the wrong path very well.
I also did not see where it had been voted on or the Governor had signed it. So, what is it? Seems like it has no authority.
I do believe that it is well past time for something to happen to try and right the ship. There seems to be no end to the stupidity.

Well,...at least you're referring to it as the "national government"....you give us hope


Casey

I wish it meant more than it appears to!

Well don't hold your breath on this passing in Washington. No Democrats sponsor or co-sponsor it, which means it's purely a piece of legislative protest by the Republicans. The Democrats control this state from top to bottom. We have a Democrat Senate, a Democrat House, and a Democrat governor. This thing will die in committee and that's the last you'll hear of it.