Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

It might not be intended as a dissolution, but I can sure see the potential for collapse. They can hardly tell the feds to butt out and ask them for money in the next breath. What I'm trying to say is, it might not be called 'secession', but it would be the natural order of events as they eliminate the federal government from their own governments. It seems as such, anyway.

Why can't these folks just work together? This will jeopardize their schools, their major highways, their healthcare, and many other things that escape me just now.

Print their own money?!?!?! How can we be sure they would print "money", as in, USD? What would stop them from creating their own currencies and jacking up the dollar's circulation throughout the country?

You're smarter than me, so I'm not trying to argue the point. I just can't imagine that they could effectively totally renegotiate the whole economic process, and governing processes, that have made the states what they are today. Wouldn't a change such as this call for monumental changes that not nearly enough people will understand?

Would this not set the stage for states to start running deficits, creating another calamity in 20 years?

They are going to use the 9th & 10th Amendments against the Feds. The right of the States to self govern. If it isn't in the Constitution for the Feds then it falls to the 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. 10th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 9th Amendment

It is about time to take power back from the Feds.

River:

It might not be intended as a dissolution, but I can sure see the potential for collapse. They can hardly tell the feds to butt out and ask them for money in the next breath.

Actually, that is what some do, effectively. That is part of the resolution for Arizona:

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or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

Arizona doesn't want the Federal government to put strings on federal funding to Arizona--the opposite of turning down funding.

Again, its a resolution. The state legislatures express their will or intent...or opinion.

Do you recall the article I wrote on the history of central banking in the US? Specifically, the era known as Wildcat Banking (1816-1863).

I'm behind on my studies. Didn't catch that one, no.....

Undoubtedly. The difference is that instead of sending a whole nation into the toilet, it might only be a state or two.

Hm.... Selective flushing.... :-) I pick this one, and that one.... and can't we just get rid of this other one, too?

Arizona doesn't want the Federal government to put strings on federal funding to Arizona--the opposite of turning down funding.

I don't care for that mentality, Dharma Girl. The federal government should be under no obligation to compensate states who choose not to conform to regulations that are in the best interest of the country rather than their own little worlds. Granted, I'm a little rusty on things like subsidies, grants, loans, etc., but it does stand to reason that if an entity is expected to invest in another entity (fed - state) then there are going to be boundaries.

In a nutshell, my state's not on this list, and I don't foresee them joining it, so maybe if it does all turn into one gigantic simple-minded bickering little headache, it still won't fall in my lap.

I don't care for that mentality, Dharma Girl. The federal government should be under no obligation to compensate states who choose not to conform to regulations that are in the best interest of the country rather than their own little worlds.

I tend to agree--some of the most basic human rights and environmental issues, for instance, would not be addressed voluntarily by some states. But there has always been a certain amount of tension between the Fed and the various States. We had an especially ugly internal war over some of the issues, and they didn't go away after the secessionist states were forcibly returned to the Union. (As I understand it, overturning the entire Southern economy was not the last of the hardships and indignities heaped upon the losers of that conflict.)

There are still secessionist-minded people in various states now--nearly 150 years later. Sometimes enough of them to form an organization, as was brought up during the last presidential campaign.

In a nutshell, my state's not on this list, and I don't foresee them joining it, so maybe if it does all turn into one gigantic simple-minded bickering little headache, it still won't fall in my lap.

Well, the source is NewsNetDaily, and the list is shamelessly inaccurate, as I've pointed out several times. My state is on it as if we are scheming and plotting such a resolution--and we passed our sovereignty resolution close to 15 years ago.

Which is one of the reasons I don't see this as a big deal. It is nothing like what NewsNetDaily pretends it is, even their own links show that. And it isn't just that a Resolution expresses an opinion or intention, rather than representing new law--it is what hasn't happened since we passed ours nearly 15 years ago.

Are you sure your state doesn't already have such a resolution? ;-)

You've helped me clarify some of it, Dharma Girl. Thanks. I hadn't realized that there were 'sovereignty resolutions' passed years ago as you indicated Arizona has already achieved.

When I think of states declaring their sovereignty, I think immediately of the independence it reflects. What concerns me most is imagining the potential for serious socio-economic ramifications for these states. It appears to sever, rather than buffer, communications with the federal government, which, in turn, could sever, rather than buffer interactions with a state.

In many shades of life, this might not be a bad thing. However, there are specific fields that could stand to suffer considerably within both the state and federal governments: ie, education, judiciary, treasuries, infrastructure, to name a few.

You said that Arizona passed it's resolution 15 years ago and hasn't appeared to make any outward changes since. Is is formality? Is it posturing? Is it foundational? When the chips are down, where might these states stand, the ones who seek or expect to separate themselves from America's government?

The state I grew up in is there. The state I live in now is there. The state I am preparing to do business with and spend a few years in, Florida, doesn't appear to be there.

I am not in Arizona, that is the first state on the article's list. California's sovereignty resolution was filed with the California Secretary of State in April of 1994. I didn't look to see if Arizona had passed such a resolution previously, but there is a proposed one now (which can't be said for all of the 8 states on the list). It does not include the nullification language.

I don't know of any proposed resolution except for New Hampshire's that includes the "nullification of the Constitution" language (which doesn't mean nobody has done it before.) A resolution is not law; my understanding is that it is passed to "express the intent, or the will" of the Legislature. Perhaps they would not want to characterize it as "posturing." :)

But I don't know of any action a resolution authorizes, even though OK's sponsoring Rep suggests it might be an opening shot before suing the Federal Government. I don't get that--you have to yell "DIBS!!!" before bringing an action to enforce a Constitutional right? This is news to me. Of course, there is plenty I don't know. But I am sceptical.

I don't know of any STATE stand to dissolve the Union once again. Secessionist groups haven't taken a state that I'm aware of. I don't know that NH's strong language in a resolution really suggests any intent to actually act as if the Union is dissolved when the Fed sends some mandate they don't agree is enumerated to the Fed. That certainly doesn't seem to be the intent with Arizona's proposed language...they want Federal money with no impermissable strings.

In my brief research, what appeared to be common language among actual sovereignty resolutions (not what NewsNetDaily pretends that to be) is the demand that the Fed "cease and desist" any mandates beyond its constitutionally enumerated powers.

Here is California's:

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims
sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and
granted to the federal government by the United States
Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and
demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers

Here is WA's proposed language:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under

HJM 4009 p. 2

1 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all

2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government

3 by the Constitution of the United States; and

4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal

5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of

6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective

7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its

8 constitutionally delegated powers.

It was interesting to me that among all the Whereas's, (lots of whereas's in a resolution, typically) in CA's, were the following:

WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably
treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the
federal government by the California Legislature without any
response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of
the 10th 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;

When I have time, it might be interesting to see what kind of resolutions that refers to--and if I can find out what kind of response they thought they might get. I think that case was the one New York brought to tell the Fed to take a hike when they wanted to dump nuclear waste in New York after NY said "No, thank you!" I saw the case cited in other sovereignty resolutions, but I don't know that NY ever passed one.

At this point, if CA told the Fed to take a hike regarding some unfunded (Federally) mandate, I would probably assume it was part of our budgetary crisis, rather than an act of defiance (or allegiance to the Constitution.) Unless the Governor or Legislature said differently. I suppose I am too naive, but it seems like the sort of thing that legislators would have to talk to their constituents about...dissolving the Union?? Or even taking action that would send Federal $$ bye-bye when we are hurting for money.

I'm sorry to have misread you above. I got the notion you were from Arizona, somehow.

It all seems to be directed at renovating the words that outline federal involvement. I can only guess at how much money such a simple communication breakdown must have cost.

Not at all, River, I had addressed some of Arizona's resolution in previous posts, and I didn't specify in that last one.

But I am not at all sure I can decipher your second paragraph, I'm sorry.

Understood Gumwars, sorry for getting away from the topic.

I think you know I wasn't discussing Obama per se' as much as our image from a world view.

The article would be more accurate if it read the GOP is desperately trying to overcome the popularity of the new administration by making it seem as if there is a wide-spread revolt against it. The truth is that it only takes one legislator to introduce each bill, so there are only twenty GOP legislators who've done this.

The states are in a world of financial hurt. They already depend upon the federal government for a significant portion of their budgets. They aren't going to pass a bill that will result in losing that funding. That would immediately collapse their state's budget, their credit rating and force them to increase states taxes at an astronomical rate. At the same time, it would not relieve their taxpayers from the obligation to pay their federal taxes.

Bottom line: the taxpayers would be furious and vote out whoever brought the catasrophe upon the state.

They already depend upon the federal government for a significant portion of their budgets.

Yes, this is a problem. The Federal government encourages dependency as a means of increasing its power, and it's very successful. They did it with the 55 mph speed limit, they did with seat belt laws, and they did with the drinking age, among other things. The money they extort ftom the states is a very powerful weapon.

Loretta, I am proud that my state is on the list. It's about time! The Tenth Amendment was written for a reason.

The most important job the President of the United States has is to perpetuate the presidency. A little known fact. I do not think Obama is up to the task. Millions of people believe that Obama is not qualified to occupy the oval office.

States sovereignty is a method to say that Obama is not our leader. This did not occur under Bush's watch. The people that wanted to, first of all not go to war, could not get the government to end the war. Obama is now talking about getting into Afghanistan big time, and as far as Iraq. I haven't heard much about the end of the war there. Apparently most of the campaign promises were lies.

Brian, with all due respect I think you are trying to politicize what the states are doing as a referendum on Obama, I don't think this is the case at all. The states as I see it, and I am not intelligent, is a method of protecting themselves financially.

Studiusbagus, thank you, and I do not mean to disrespect you, but I do disagree with you, and consider you VERY intelligent. Here is why, and it is not necessarily about financial security for the states. I copied and pasted something at #12. I believe that there are three ( 3 ) items that are of great concerns to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the federal government is imposing on the citizens by the Obama Administration.

States are jumping on this quickly after Obama took office. The financial melt down occurred months ago, and the states did not do this then. Obama's administration and cabinet have some very questionable choices. Two tax cheaters, and a conflict of interest waiting to happen. Bush had questionable choices also, but his choices were not accused of criminal negligence like Obama's choices are. I could go on for a long time with this, but will end by saying this. It is my personal belief that we know so very little about our president that people in the states are moving quickly, because they know more than us about what is going on and in the works, to ensure the long-term benefits that the constitution provides to the citizens of America simply because this is what is best for the country, and they to are elected officials. Rejoice, there are good people everywhere!

Thank you for pointing that out Studiusbagus--it isn't just Brian trying to spin that way, though--the article is a ridiculous spin-job.

I can see why gumwars might prefer to avoid WorldNetDaily as a source of news.

The first paragraph of the article suggests the premise is exactly what you stated:

As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

It then drops its dramatic "Lawmakers in 20 states..." claim down to 8, which are an interesting mish-mash.

The Hawaii sovereignty claim it links to is a Native Rights sovereignty over ancestral lands argument against the "illegal" annexation of Hawaii in 1959, and invokes not the U.S. Constitution, but the U.N. Charter and a Hawaii Supreme Court injuction from last year.

The Montana House introduced a concurrent resolution (purporting to speak for the Senate as well) defining firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition manufactured in Montana from "basic materials", and "generic and insignificant components" shipped in from out of state as free of Congressional regulation based on the Interstate Commerce Clause. (Without questioning how "insignificant" the so-defined screws, springs, nuts and pins really are to the standard firearm, I am pretty sure that Congress does not look to State Acts to define when interstate shipment of basic materials and parts invokes their Commerce Clause powers.) In any event, it is hardly a referendum against the stimulus package.

The Missouri resolution "strongly opposes the federal Freedom of Choice Act" and urges Congress "to summarily reject it" (not easy when it hasn't yet been proposed in the 111th Congress), and seems to suggest that the federal requirement that state laws provide exceptions to laws against abortion when the health or life of the mother is in jeopardy would require the repeal of ALL of their laws regulating abortion. Again, zip to do with the stimulus package.

As for the five left that actually do have resolutions invoking state sovereignty according to the 9th and or 10 amendments, these are not necessarily "against the stimulus package":

Michigan proposed the following in addition to its "sovereignty" resolution:

Legislation enacted as part of any economic stimulus package should provide assistance and tax cuts directly to individuals, and should include targeted strategies for homeowners regarding property taxes, energy costs, and those who have had to divert retirement and education funds in order to make ends meet. Moreover, these penalty-free withdrawal provisions should be made retroactive back to the 2005 tax year to provide fairness and flexibility to families who at different times have been forced to make extraordinary financial decisions as part of their efforts to stay in their homes; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we memorialize the Congress of the United States to ensure that any new economic stimulus package includes a stimulus for individual taxpayers and targeted tax cuts for Americans, including incentives for past and current homeowners, retroactive over the course of the past five years;

That doesn't sound like a rousing opposition to an economic stimulus proposal--exactly the opposite; it recognizes the possibility of such federal legislation and seeks to direct it to where it will do the most good for Michigan.

The Oklahoma representative behind that states resolution proposed it last year (Obama wasn't president then, if the significance of that isn't clear) and cited the No Child Left Behind programs and the Real ID act--both passed under Bush (and Oklahoma opted out of Real ID) as the federal overreaching it addresses. Again, not targeting an economic stimulus package.

New Hampshire's resolution, in addition to the common "cease-and-desist" to federal mandates that overreach, includes the following:

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government;

I think that might be my favorite--no secession necessary; if any branch of the federal government gets uppity, it automatically nullifies the Constitution.

The remaining two states, Arizona and Washington have the standard resolution language of "cease-and-desist" to federal overreaching--at least it looks standard to me, since California passed substantially the same resolution back in 1994.

It didn't seem to effect the issue of federal overreaching, if you were wondering.

And none of the information on resolutions (or no resolution) in the 8 states cited support WorldNetDaily's premise in the opening paragraph that it is all about Obama--even though there may very well be much dislike of any programs or legislation the new Prez supports in any or all of those states. But if WorldNetDaily can't cite anything supporting that, I question its value as a news source.

Thank you, Gumwars. I have a headstart sometimes, because legal research is what I do--but NewsNetDaily linked to all of that.

I wish they had linked to their suggestion that California was mulling the idea of a resolution regarding it's sovereignty too. I guess you can pass a resolution as many times as you want...but it sounds flaky.

Sorry you are working on a Sunday :)

I appreciate what you did, (not getting paid to) not only the article but your very interesting recommendations farther down. I have bookmarked them for when I don't have to fight my husband for the computer.

Obama is the whiner-in-chief. I listened to him the other day. What a crybaby, whining, incompetent.

There are no more laws of the land since the USSC will not provide "standing" to an American citizen who has strong evidence that Obama is not eligible to be president.

The D.C. crowd is so out of touch with America we should have them secede and become their own tiny country, Period.

but they have the brians of the world to carry on the fight.

What better example of corporatism is there than unions and special interest groups- sierra club, PETA, etc., which all seem to somehow drive legislation...

oh yes the all knowing brian.

Josh the Jurist:

What better example of corporatism is there than unions and special interest groups- sierra club, PETA, etc., which all seem to somehow drive legislation...

Interesting. How so?

I believe they embody they very definition of a corporation in the context of the corporatist state. They are unelected constructs which advance social agendas. And they have perhaps more influence on Washington than a lot of the groups traditionally associated with this concept.

Josh the Jurist:

I believe they embody they very definition of a corporation in the context of the corporatist state.

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess we have different definitions of "corporatist: ... But that's legal, right? :-)

Well- there's really only one definition of "corporation" in the context of facism and the corporatist state; and it doesn't mean "Walmart"...

Josh the Jurist:

Well- there's really only one definition of "corporation" in the context of facism and the corporatist state; and it doesn't mean "Walmart"...

There are a few definitions.

Notwithstanding, even the definition that you're referencing could well include a company the size of Wal Mart.

I would not, however, include PETA or the Sierra Club as corporations as that term is used in the context of Fascism, since they do not work with the state to oppress/control the citizens of that state.

Specifically:

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

SOURCE: http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism

I think that you have conflated the general term "Corporation," which, as you allude to, applies generally to legally incorporated bodies as well as to the "Fascist" definition you offer, per labor, social etc groups you mentioned, with a specific use of the term "corporatist."

By so doing, you have fallen between two stools, definition wise.

In short:

The way I understand it.

Large corporations (Wal Mart etc) can indeed (and should) be included in the term Corporatist, in a Facism sense, because they are large enough to work directly with the state to control a population.

However, it is the fact they they are working with the state to control the population that makes them components of a "corporatist" aka Fscist system of government.

PETA and the Sierra Club, on the other hand, while being incorporated as charities, would not work directly with a government to control a citizenry, and therefore, while they are corporations in the traditional sense, they would not be components of a corporatist/fascist government, as you describe it.

This is the difference that I believe we seem to have in our use and definition of the term "corporatist."

I would view PETA, the Sierra Club and similar groups as quintessentially non-state actors, and I would view any pressure they put on the government to influence policy as plain old lobbying, not an element of Fascism.

But, as always, I'm very open to correction/information.

Upswing- I didn't mean to convey that Wal-Mart could not be a corporation within the terms of "corporatist state." I meant that corporation under "corporatist state" has nothing to do with the legal definition of corporation in the business context. It doesn't connote a business corporation, e.g. Wal-Mart.

What did you mean when you wrote that you believe that the "'rebelling' states are following a corporatist, ... agenda?"

Josh the Jurist:

What did you mean when you wrote that you believe that the "'rebelling' states are following a corporatist, ... agenda?"

... Positioning themselves to become non-sovereign "corporations" (in the Fascist sense) of a Fascist North American Union, and, ultimately, as part of a Fascist one-world government.

That would be the purpose of them seeking to divest themselves of their federal credentials by dumping the US Consitution.

i.e., in my first post, which you quote from, I wrote:

The states asserting their own sovereignty will allow for the establishment of non-federal commercial zones, based on interstate/international "treaties," which will supercede statehood.

These separate trade and financial zones will be folded into the North American Union trading zone under their own auspisces, making US federal governance effectively ineffectual.

By stating that the states' new, non-US, regional trading identities will "supercede their [sovereign] statehood" and by stating that they will then act "under their own auspices" I am stating that they will become "corporations" in the Fascist sense-- separate private/government hybrids that are directly controlled by, and used for social control by, a dictatorial/Fascist one world government.

I meant that corporation under "corporatist state" has nothing to do with the legal definition of corporation in the business context.

I understand that. And we agree on that. (Not sure that that was ever an issue, actually..)

The problem I had was with including PETA and the Sierra Club as likely Fascist corporations. That's what I was trying to convey in my previous e-mail.

I'm really not trying to belabor or press any point here. Just trying to clarify my position per your responses...

Interesting discussion, though ...

Interesting discussion, though ..

I second that. Thank you both for persisting and clarifying your positions.

upswing, as far as I know, the "nullifies the Constitution" language only appears in the proposed New Hampshire resolution. California passed our "sovereignty" resolution back in 1994 (Clinton was going to destroy our state economies with federal overreaching, too).

That was almost 15 years ago--would you say California has become one of those

... Positioning themselves to become non-sovereign "corporations" (in the Fascist sense) of a Fascist North American Union, and, ultimately, as part of a Fascist one-world government.

? Our Resolution did not include "nullification" language, but did use the common

...cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers;

language, and did rely on the authority of the 10th Amendment regarding what the Fed is entitled to mandate.

This is not a rhetorical question, I would be interested in your view of such a sovereignty resolution that is not hypothetical or potential.

I would not, however, include PETA or the Sierra Club as corporations as that term is used in the context of Fascism, since they do not work with the state to oppress/control the citizens of that state.

I know a devout neo-conservative who assures me that PETA and the American Humane Society do exactly that, because he is not legally allowed to shoot or poison (or beat to death) feral "domestic" cats or dogs who trespass on his unfenced property because the Humane Society is mandated to catch, neuter, and then release them back into the neighborhood. (I don't agree with him, but animal lovers and property lovers frequently don't agree on such things.)

Dharma Girl:

Thanks for the post.

Per:

That was almost 15 years ago--would you say California has become one of those

I think that, if the goal is to disassemble the US, then two good places to start would be California and Texas. These seem like a couple states that could get by economically without Federal support. Texas has oil and California has the eighth largest economy in the world. Also, geographicaly, both have substntial ports and both are natural trading partners for/with Mexico.

I don't think that the fact that CA asserted its sovereignty 15 years ago divorces it from current events; the Nazi World Order crowd think in terms of decades, not months. (e;g; If it wasn't for Schwartzenneger's ties to the Bilderbergers and his own Nazi heritage and sympathies, I don't think that there would ever have been a "recall" election to make him governor. It's no surprise that the Nazi World Order nutjobs have their lapdogs running California, Texas and Florida (another natural candidate for secession.)

As for the actual wording of the language in the various states' resolutions, my sense is that it doesn't really matter what the specific causes of their individual assertion of sovereignty are.

I think the real action will come if and when these resolutions progress to the point where they land on Obama's desk.

If that happens, and the Feds still ignore the resolutions, then the next step would likely be states suing the Federal government in SCOTUS per specific federally mandated programs that the states believe constitute federal overreaching..

I don't think that it's very likley that the individual states would get much joy from SCOTUS, at which point, assuming that the state still wish to assert its claim, the cease and desist language would naurally default to "nullification" language, since that is the only relief the states will have left to them.

They way I understand nullification, is that it is a legitimate option in the instant that the federal government oversteps its authority, since the states essentially are parties to a contract with the feds, which is contingent upon performance. i.e. if either party does not perform per the contract, then either party can nullify the contract.

Since the 10th Amendment clearly spells out the relevant terms of the performance of both parties -- the state and the "compact" of states referred to as the United States -- it wouldn't be too hard for a state frustrated by SCOTUS to unilaterally assert non-performance and invoke nullification.

Although, if a state were really this committed to asserting its "sovereignty," then, assuming that SCOTUS had already ruled against it, what would follow after that ruling would be little more than theater, since there would be no higher court to appeal to, and no exterior force to compel a state to remain a part of the Union.

e.g.

These Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government bad been formed by a "compact" or contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky. http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

At this pioint, all that would be left for the state to do would be to engage in a PR program and a sales job to the citizens of the state, to assure them that life will carry on pretty much as normal.

I actually think that this situation is a whole lot simpler to figure ouf than it's been painted.

What do you think?

Hmm...the Governator has Nazi sympathies? I thought that was his father or grandfather.

I want to look into what you are referring to, but just off the top of my head I think that if California is seen as having a decent economy (it sucks from where I am sitting--holding my little IOU for my state tax refund, a couple of my best friends no longer counting as unemployed because their benefits ran out but they still haven't found anything but low-paid temp jobs and THOSE seem to be drying up, some of my in-laws looking at appreciably smaller paychecks because their hours have been reduced as a cost-saving measure, etc.) and Texas oil is still plentiful, we won't be permitted to just drop out.

It's been tried, remember? We fervently believe that evil and/or repressive communist or socialist federations should let the unwilling states they hold in thrall go--but we have a holiday celebrating the president who saved the Union by making devastating war on the drop-out wannabees.

I think the "contract" argument failed. I'll do some research; thank you for responding :)

Dharma Girl:

Hmm...the Governator has Nazi sympathies? I thought that was his father or grandfather.

Believe his father was a Nazi (SS), and he says that he "loves" Kurt Waldheim like a father, too...

I look forward to the fruits of your (research) labor ...

This is not a republican thing. States have both parties, and quickly wrote these doctrines before Obama has been in office for three weeks. Obama's presidency is on the toilet seat ready to fall into the bowl, soon to be flushed into the big swirler, and away for good.

We should all pay very close attention to this situation in that each state might try to take advantage of another state. Mostly in food production that is apparently picked by illegal aliens. The federal government, under Obama's watch is just a mess, and can not be trusted because of the foolish appointments to the president's cabinet. Does Obama know any non-criminals?

Brian, did you even bother to look at the "legislation"? If you did, your posts are just dishonest (like WorldNetDaily), if you didn't, you might want to educate yourself.

By the way, California passed its "sovereignty" resolution in 1994.

Studiusbagus,

You are correct! It is well know that most of the states that are part of this article are in desparate ways right now. Funding must come quickly for state coffers or no telling how many will be laid off from state jobs.

Oklahoma will not support this. They were one of the first with their hands out for federal funds for much needed road and bridge projects.

Thanks CCArm, I looked at a map provided by Daily Koz showing Beggar states and donor states, if this does turn in to a funding war it seems states like California, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Michigan being donor states would certainly benefit from this measure. Where Utah, Alabama, and the rest of the "Beggar states" would be cutting their throats and would end up supplementing their coffers by of course increasing taxes in that state. Of course that is an imaginary funding war I am thinking of but, it seems the donor states are playing a bit risky.

Well, it is WorldNetDaily...

How about the "20 states" in the title dwindling down to 8 in the body, none of which seem to have anything to do with repudiating the economic stimulus package despite their opening paragraph?

I would love to know what they are suggesting is in the works for California--they didn't link to anything, and our Legislature passed OUR sovereignty resolution back in 1994. Is WorldNetDaily that far behind? If our Legislature was ACTUALLY proposing something to object to the stimulus package, you would think WND could link to that--then they would have ONE link that supported the premise of their opening paragraph.

Seriously, though, the thrust of such resolutions--appears to be the common objection to "federal overreaching." The "cease and desist" demand is somewhat common to them--Arizona's has it, and Washington's.

Ours looked like this in pertinent part:

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims
sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and
granted to the federal government by the United States
Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and
demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers;

It was filed with the Secretary of State (California's, not the Fed) on August 29, 1994.

Brian:

Thanks for the text.

This, I believe is what this is all about"

a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America

This is the prize for the globalist Nazi World Order movers and shakers behind this move ...

Their goal is to replace a civilian nation with a collection of commercial zones, which we now think of as states...

Actually the term is constructionism. The following of the constitution by the letter. Liberalism has the constitution evolving every time there is a new president in the law, no pun intended. A lawyer gets his client off because of a technicality, and then the next lawyer uses that techniciality to frame the concept for another exception on his clients specific technicality. Two evolutions away from the origional intent.

What the states are doing protects the constitution and the citizens. The new world order or globalists have an agenda. One of the main sticking points is world population. From an environmental point of view I must conclude that humans are killing this planet.

The democrats platform provides the unworthy with money to buy their votes, and has created a class of dependents. Just like in the movie the Matrix. We can not have kids having kids anymore. The federal government is out of touch with the average person, but will protect Americans the best they can I believe. The D.C. folks ego's are so big that they would consider it a personal failure any other way, but of course there are always two sides to every story.

Nullification of the Constitution makes no sense. In effect, this would nullify the principles on which the individual states are relying on. What would be nullified is the federal act that contradicts the enumerated powers it is given.

This is a great development in my mind; however, it's probably more aspiration than anything else. The FED is too BIG and this is clearly not what was supposed ot happen to our country. It seems to me that we have come full circle and face the very evils and obstacles our forefathers did. I think it is our patriotic duty to resist this monstrous government, which will destroy the citizen-- it's greatest threat.

It's time to storm the Bastille!

It isn't "common language" it is New Hampshire's proposed resolution. geez, Brian.

Hawaii natives want the illegal annexation of their nation in 1959 reversed.

Montana wants the Congress to ignore its Commerce Clause powers when it comes to GUNS in Montana.

Missouri wants Congress to summarily reject the Freedom of Choice Act that hasn't been proposed yet during this Congress.

These were 3 of the 8 NewsNetDaily linked to.

The remaining resolutions have a common "cease-and-desist" call against federal overreaching. (Oklahoma's examples of federal overreaching--by the sponsor of its resolution--were No Child Left Behind and Real ID.)

New Hampshire is the only one that suggests the Union crumbles automatically if any of the three branches of federal government overreach.

And it's a RESOLUTION. Even if it passes, the Union doesn't crumble.

California passed our resolution in 1994. Guess what? We are still in the Union. Is this a surprise?

That was the tentative explanation I had come up with for his continued misstatements, thank you, Gumwars.

Occasionally when someone seems dedicated to posting misinformation, they will thank me for pointing out the error, recognizing that "support" for their position isn't actually supportive when it is false. But people who post repeatedly like that usually won't even bother to check. I don't post for them, but so that anyone reading their posts doesn't have to be misinformed unless they choose to be.

Josh:

Nullification of the Constitution makes no sense. In effect, this would nullify the principles on which the individual states are relying on. What would be nullified is the federal act that contradicts the enumerated powers it is given.

According to the resolution, it would be the Constitution, not the specific, offending Act that was nullified. It even specifies what it would require to validate a hypothetical new Constitution (and new Federal government) if that occurred.

If you don't think it makes sense, then isn't it nice that it is a resolution--which will have no effect on the Constitution one way or another--even if one or another branch of the Federal government decides to play fast and loose with its enumerated powers.

If that's truly what it says, that's moronic. The ACT would be nulified--NOT the Constitution.

If you have any question about it, it isn't difficult to look up.

I'm not sure why you think you get a vote on this. The legislatures get to promulgate resolutions--expressing their will or intent or opinion. Not yours.

But if it is any consolation, they don't really get to "nullify the Constitution" by passing a resolution, any more than you get to nullify an overreaching Federal Act by insisting it "would be nullified."

Well Mr. Halliwax/Dharma Girl- that was essentially my point.

If that's truly what it says, that's moronic. The ACT would be nulified--NOT the Constitution.

Of course it was. How could anyone think otherwise?

You seem to have a bit of trouble with my identity, but I've tried to help you with something more significant, and look at the thanks I got. Guess we can leave it at that.

"Dharma girl" as in Lost? Dr. Halliwax is the guy on the videos in the various Dharma stations. Ben had his jacket on when he moved the island and appeared in the desert.

I just don't believe that anyone, much less a politician, believes he can nullify the Constitution, at all...

I just don't believe that anyone, much less a politician, believes he can nullify the Constitution, at all...

Things You Should Know: Juries Have the Right (and Power) to Nullify Bad Law

It started with little things Dr. nickles and dimes....

Thank you, Josh, I have to admit to being culturally retarded--I haven't seen Lost. (You are the second one who's mentioned it to me.) "Dharma" also refers to various Buddhist teachings, and that is where I got my nic.

Hmm...perhaps the source should have defined what a Resolution is. I think people have no idea what sorts of things their legislators get up to when nobody is looking. Legal research is what I do, but resolutions are not law, and have never been something I needed to look at--I didn't realize my state had done the sovereignty thing so long ago.

I don't disagree with what you wrote, but if the resolution states that the Constitution is nullified, one doesn't get to interpret it to mean something completely different just because that makes more sense. I'm assuming you are not a sitting justice on a court that would be interpreting the Resolution, of course :)

Thanks for your response.

jbdaad: Thank you for the link; it is an interesting subject.

I believe there was a flurry of law review articles on the subject after the O. J. Simpson "not guilty" verdict, but I don't remember the various arguments or any suggested conclusions from that far back.

I do know that potential jurors are often specifically questioned during voir dire to determine whether they can be trusted follow the law as instructed by the Court, and required to commit to do so, beyond the juror's oath. Their response to that may get them a peremptory challenge (and dismissal) from the side that thinks that juror's apparent attitude won't favor them.

In California's Jury Information Center is the following instruction to potential juror's:

As a juror you should think seriously about the oath before taking it. The oath means you give your word to reach your verdict upon only the evidence presented in the trial and the court's instructions about the law. You cannot consider any other evidence and instruction other than those given by the court in the case before you.

In California, we are specifically instructed that the Court handles all of that pesky law stuff. Jurors will also be dismissed if they try to investigate anything (which would relate to evidence) or research anything (which would relate to law) on their own, and it would violate their oath.

And a judge can withdraw the jury verdict and substitute her/his own. That isn't common, but I'm assuming it is meant to be available in case a jury gets away from the Court.

In California, every indication a juror gets is that nullification is rather like revolution or rebellion. Not a right or power reserved to the jury.

In California, every indication a juror gets is that nullification is rather like revolution or rebellion. Not a right or power reserved to the jury.

Law over Justice. Needs to change. The court seems to think it is above the law. Then have the audacity/ignorance to wonder why noone respects it.

Well, I am not sure that leaving the law, at trial, to someone who actually knows it is necessarily abandoning justice. If you know anything about it, and listen to how normal people (who are not educated in law) screw it up, it kind of makes you think it shouldn't be up for grabs. I wouldn't want my justice to be at the mercy of 12 people who didn't understand the law. I mean, you can't exclude everyone who would willingly watch "reality" TV, you know?

I think the ways that evidence is tweaked in court is much more likely to be a black eye for justice. There is well settled law that evidence can be excluded for certain reasons, and while that might actually be a good idea sometimes, or for some reasons, can you imagine being on a jury that sentenced someone to prison, or death, or on a jury that decided on a "not guilty" verdict--and then found out after it was all over that there was compelling evidence to the contrary that you had not been permitted to see or hear about? Even really, really good reasons can look (and/or be) contrary to justice when invoked in the wrong situation.

I think the problem is that Justice cannot be certain--there is no structure that would guarantee it--so we picked Law, which we can at least try to reduce to certainty, and which can be close to Justice. Cousins, maybe. Or in-laws :)

Dharma Girl,

We have safe guards for a reason. The courts have loaded the deck. Fresh from tyrannical rule in England our forefathers tried to make sure it did not happen again.

Pa. judges accused of jailing kids for cash

Seems to be a commen theme these days against people who cannot afford or who do not have the right connections.

Judges plead guilty in sending kids to lockup

Update....sigh. : (

Did you seed that story, jbdaad? I heard this on the radio this afternoon and my jaw hung open for miles. Unbelieveable. Those judges need to go to the boot camps from which they took bribes.

Not me. Does not surprise me tho. Wish I could say diferent. grrrr. Glad they`ve started investigating. I do not think it is a one of a kind situation. I Just like to link this kind of info together.

The concept of jury nullification is as old as the concept of the jury. I remember discussing this in my crim law class. Basically it's a concept that's out there, but not many people know about it. Apparently, that is changing as the word gets out. There's NOTHING anyone can really do about it anyway--not without dismantling the current jury system in favor of "professional" juries.

Gumwars:

One of the jurors took his job quite seriously, so seriously that he challenged the court's authority to even go to trial! His argument was that the court derives its authority from the US Constitution and because no constitutional law exists that allows for the punishment of possession under the congressional commerce clause, the court had no authority to convict.

As you describe it, that juror wasn't taking his job seriously, he was taking himself seriously. Much too seriously.

As described, this is a perfect example of why I question the effect of people who are clueless about the law trying to practice law. I won't say that only people who are unsophisticated about the law come up with stupid arguments, because lawyers certainly do, and I have read plenty of stupid decisions.

But the kind of person who could believe that his position on a jury invited him to make a legal argument regarding the court's jurisdiction is exactly the kind of person who would make an argument like that and think it was a great idea.

Jurors do not argue law. It's not their job. If there was a jurisdiction argument, that would be up to the defense to argue. But as you related it, the argument is just silly.

The Constitution is the legal framework for our government, not the ultimate authority which must be consulted regarding the prosecution of any criminal activity charged against an individual at the state or federal level. If that were the case, where would someone be tried for murder? Rape? Robbery? Fraud? Embezzlement? None of those are addressed by the Constitution. That isn't what the Constitution is for. But state and federal statutes, and even local ordinances are not unconstitutional because the Constitution does not address them directly, or even indirectly. And they are prosecuted in court.

Even if the case you were referring to was in Federal court, the Constitution doesn't suggest that Federal courts would only have jurisdiction over issues addressed by the Constitution:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That does not suggest that if the Constitution does not address it, the court cannot hear it.

As for judicial corruption, which you address jbdaad, that is simply criminal. It can be complicated when a judge is involved because of our attempts to insulate judges from political pressure, through judicial immunity. But it is no less criminal, and is supposed to be charged and prosecuted as such. A loose cannon jury is not expected to oppose it, somehow.

Jury nullification is not a safeguard left in place to keep incorrect legal reasoning from winning the day. The jury is supposed to determine the facts of a case (from what is presented to them), and then evaluate those facts in accordance with the law as instructed by the court. The defense also submits jury instructions to the court--it isn't just the prosecution that has the opportunity to frame how the jury evaluates the evidence.

This argument kind of reminds me of the one I've heard about the 2nd Amendment--including on at least one or two Newsvine threads. That it was specifically passed to permit armed revolution against a tyrannical U.S. government. People get very romantic, but odd ideas in their heads regarding the law. The Founding Fathers weren't suggesting that it should be open season on the U.S. government at some point. Protections for the individual from a tyrannical government were intended to be much less violent than that, and they involved the courts (in cases where the government violates laws protecting individuals), Congress and the state legislatures (to pass laws protecting the individuals against government overreaching and/or abuse) and elections. Not the occasional armed revolution.

As for judicial corruption, which you address jbdaad, that is simply criminal. It can be complicated when a judge is involved because of our attempts to insulate judges from political pressure, through judicial immunity

So simple yet made so complicated by...the courts. I believe we`ve gone past the point of over insulation. To keep it simple I`ll use the term Tyranny of Law. That is the point we are at.

A jury of our peers. One of many safe guards. Rampent judicial corruption in England (King George..George Bush)are some of the very bases for the establishment of our country. Or at least what we did not want to happen here.

No i did not know. Will laugh even harder. Especially after an article I read of a sheriff in Texas abusing them.

Los Angeles, Mexico

May 5, 2005 ... It claims that California, Arizona, Mexico, Texas and southern ... U.S. really belongs to Mexico, they do not need permission to enter. ...
www.mnforsustain.org/aztlan_los_angeles_mexico_ibd_0505.htm - 11k -

Gumwars: It's really odd that you brought up the 14th Amendment. I have been reading a little book I saw in an NRA ad and requested the information expressly to get this free book. It is called "The Essential Second Amendment Guide" written by Wayne LaPierre. Earlier today, I was reading a section of that book that deals briefly with the 14th Amendment.

On May 23, 1866, Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the proposed 14th Amendment to the Senate after it had passed in the House. He referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press... the right to keep and bear arms..." Howard explained: "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." While the 14th Amendment was written to protect the first eight amendments it clearly was most intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms. More than two-thirds of Congress adopted the 14th Amendment and it was then sent to the states for ratification. Unfortunately, what I read this morning goes no further than that as far as being questionable in ratification. I actually made a note in the front of the book to do some research on the 14th Amendment.

I have been extremely interested in the Constitution since the election and things I heard stated by Ron Paul. I have got to know more.

I'm going to go to the above read you recommended. Thank you and I look forward to visiting again soon.

Gumwars: I just read that article you recommended and I was almost in tears by the end of it. We are well on our way to collapse. The signs are all there. Some of what he talks about has already happened and more is happening as we speak. I see more to definitely come as well. This freaks me out totally!

Well needless to say, reading that scared the pants off me, made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, gave me the heebee-jeebies and now I feel really depressed. Damn it all anyway.

I am going to go back to that site later and print the article. I want some people in my to family read it and some friends as well. They always pooh-pooh me about stuff like this and think I'm some sort of pessimist. I think I'm an optimist that tends more to realist.

All I can say is Wow! I think you changed my life and outlook today gumwars. Wow!

God bless and keep you. Maybe I'll visit later. My computer has started a scan and has become infuriatingly slow presently, so I'll stop back later.

eel8

Another book very much worth reading (although it is on a slightly different topic) that gives a history of the Federal Reserve is by G. Edward Griffin called 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' very good book.

Gumwars

I just checked out that link you left above....very interesting.

Thanks!

Gumwars: You don't have to apologize. It was a learning experience and I had a good talk long distance with my half-sister about it. Gave us something to talk about other than what we usually do. The depression didn't last long -- usually never does anymore. Life is too short for that.

Thanks for all the recommendations.

Patrick A: You are correct. The government as become too overreaching and it has to stop. I know that in my state the federal government forced emissions testing on certain (not all) counties which had to be in effect and being performed by a certain date or the state would lose the federal funds for highways that it receives.

The federal government does that a lot. They have gotten to big for their britches and need to be downsized and gotten under control very, very soon.

The supreme power in this country is supposed be the people, not the federal government and we have got to wake up take hold of this fact instead of being lazy and believing the government hogwash when they say "the only thing that can fix this is the federal government". Wrong!

Hello Gumwars: I believe you speak the truth. I hear shades of a coming collapse underlying conversations between news commentators and experts both political and economical.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Stockpile things that you and your family will need. Learn to live on less. Get to know your neighbor -- you might have to depend on one another for help. Figure out what kind of a service can you provide to another in order to receive goods because currency will be worthless or in short supply. Even if the collapse is not complete, a collapse of magnitude is coming.

Nope. The wind just keeps on blowin', gumwars, while the bird poops on your head!

A single breadwinner per household was the norm and not much more was needed to secure the vittles and then some. Now, on the coasts especially, you need to have dual income households just to break even.

That is the root of most problems occuring in the World today. The reason I advocate Unions.

Should have said- one.. of the many reasons. Ahh. ty