Several States Drafting Bills Reasserting State Sovereignty

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Several States Drafting Bills Reasserting State Sovereignty

Post by greendragon on Thu 05 Feb 2009, 12:26 pm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87987

Lawmakers in New Hampshire are
telling the federal government to back off because plans for a federal
handgun license, "hate crimes" laws to regulate Christians' speech
about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama's
youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called "Fairness
Doctrine" to "balance" talk radio are none of them constitutional.
Such plans by the bureaucrats and administrators in Washington,
D.C., are "altogether void" and if mandated, "shall constitute a
nullification of the Constitution for the United States," the lawmakers are warning.

The terse alarm is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 6, which has been introduced for debate. It affirms states' rights "based on Jeffersonian principles."

It's not the first such move in the United States. WND reported last year
when state representatives in Oklahoma, steamed over a perceived
increase in federal usurping of states' rights, approved Joint House
Resolution 1089 on a 92-3 vote to reassert the state's sovereignty
under the 10th Amendment and serve "notice to the federal government to
cease and desist certain mandates."

According to DailyPaul.com, a website assembled in support of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states' rights.

The Tenth Amendment states, "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 also is
being cited in the New Hampshire plan.
It states that New Hampshire people "have the sole and
exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and
independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which
is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the
United States of America…"
That means, the resolution states, any "Act by the Congress of
the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United
States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United
States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government
… and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
United States of America."It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:


  • Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one
    of the States comprising the United States of America without the
    consent of the legislature of that State.
  • Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other
    than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an
    alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
  • Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of
    persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an
    alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
  • Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
  • Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
  • Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.


New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he
wants New Hampshire to be among the states "standing up to the federal
government, enforcing the Constitution."
He called the current status in the United States, with federal
rules and regulations reaching into virtually every facet of a state
citizen's life, "a usurpation by the federal judiciary of the people's
right of self-government."
"What I see happening is a growing disregard for the rights of
individuals and the rights of the states. At some point you have to
draw the line," he told WND.
The resolution then, he said, is a warning.

"If you're in a marriage, and things are going rotten, it's not
right just to all of a sudden hand the other party divorce papers. The
right thing to do is say, 'there's a problem. Let's go to counseling.'
This is in essence telling the general government if you continue down
this road – you will have nullified the Constitution," he told WND.
He said New Hampshire lawmakers already have defied the federal
government in approving a ban on the Real ID, a government program to
stiffen identity procedures.
The New Hampshire resolution points out that New Hampshire was
set up as "a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State"
and when its residents ratified the U.S. Constitution they recommended:
"That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly &
particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several
States to be, by them Exercised."
In a direct attack on federal authority the resolution states:
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts
are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
It cites the specific powers given the federal government in the Constitution: to deal with treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

At American Thinker, commentator Larrey Anderson
wrote that the plan is pending in the legislature's State-Federal
Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and also is supported by Rep.
Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Tim Comerford, and Sen. William Denley.
"Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution
took most of the language from the document commonly known as
'Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,'" he wrote. "The
New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state's (and it citizen's)
rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the
Constitution."
He noted a concurrent resolution lacks legal authority as a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature.
"Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have
shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious
principles that have been the bedrock of our republic," Anderson wrote.
"Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will
inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves
from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard
round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world."
Participants in the site's forum page said they were sending
information on the resolution to lawmakers in Virginia, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Michigan and other states. Several other participants
said they wished their own lawmakers had such fortitude.
"At least one state gets it," said one forum participant. "We
must free ourselves of that which I firmly believe wants to enslave us,
our own government."

greendragon

Posts : 35
Join date : 2008-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Several States Drafting Bills Reasserting State Sovereignty

Post by hawkiye on Mon 09 Feb 2009, 12:44 pm

I have read it is now up to twenty states. Hope this trend continues!

hawkiye

Posts : 215
Join date : 2008-05-03
Location : SW Idaho

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Several States Drafting Bills Reasserting State Sovereignty

Post by mybug67 on Mon 09 Feb 2009, 6:55 pm

You can draft the bills, but getting them thru is a another!!!

mybug67

Posts : 24
Join date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Several States Drafting Bills Reasserting State Sovereignty

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum