Eleven States now Declare Sovereignty Against Progressive Intrusion



Progressive interloping of the Constitution, through acts of judicial and legislative activism have been an ongoing and growing problem which is now shifting into high gear. One which some states, governors, and members of Congress are choosing not to ignore.

We started following the states' rights topic with New Hampshire and then found six more states had issued very similar legislation, mostly within weeks of each other. As A.W.R. Hawkins of Human Events notes, the count has grown to a total of eleven, including Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas.

Presently there is an argument, amongst some Governors, about the intrusion on states' rights required by the federal government to receive stimulus money. Governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Marc Sanford of South Carolina are considering only taking portions of the stimulus money which have no requirements to change state laws. The main point of contention is concerning unemployment benefits. From the National Review Online,

NRO-(B)(i) If the Secretary of Labor finds that the State law provisions (disregarding any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation) meet the requirements of paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be, the Secretary of Labor shall thereupon make a certification to that effect to the Secretary of the Treasury, together with a certification as to the amount of the incentive payment to be transferred to the State account pursuant to that finding.

— American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Division B, Title II, Section 2003 (emphasis added)


As the top executive officials, it is their solemn obligation and duty to protect the long and short term fiscal health of their states and its people. The stimulus package has been sold as a short term solution to jump start the economy. Not create a situation in which states have to change existing laws and fund this federal encroachment with
obligatory state money after government funding has run out. These governors' have a legitimate right to question and refuse parts of the stimulus monies which are not conducive to the progress of their state, long term.

This simple realization is often overlooked by Progressive leadership due to the fact it is questioning their authority and power. Take for instance Senator Charles Schumer's response to this gubernatorial insurrection. From The Hill.com,

The Hill-"This was never intended by congress to be an a-la-carte menu," he said. “ Schumer said. "It's a complete package — they ought to take it or leave it."


We are already seeing one of the greatest expansions of the government since the New Deal. Within the Porkulus Maximus, there are already 31 new government programs or agencies being created at a cost over $136 billion and the promise, by the President, to create 600,000 new government positions. Both of these conditions greatly expand the already over-bloated federal government and its potential for intrusion.

Even some high ranking Democratic officials, who are ex-Klan members, are taking notice of the power consolidation the White House is embroiled in. In a letter to the President, Robert Byrd, the Senate pro tempore from West Virginia, expressed concern about the White House's appointing "czars" to oversee urban affairs, health care reform, and energy and climate change. Not one of these appointments will be subject to Senate approval. This gives the appointees the ability to shield information from Congress under the right of executive privilege.

CNN-"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote in the letter.
It's foolish not to think that the White House, and certain groups within Congress, are successfully engaging in central planning and power consolidation. Constant infringements upon states' rights, individual liberties, and now apparently against Congressional power are quickly becoming the moniker of this new administration.

What is even more disturbing is the speed at which they are assailing this project. The face of American government is changing for the worse and if no action is taken to challenge this tsunami of authoritarian and collectivist control, it will swiftly become our new way of life.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Individual State Bills:

Minnesota: H.F. 997

Georgia: HR 280

South Carolina: H. 3509 and S. 424

Texas: H.C.R. 50

Note: These particular bills were found by our own research and apparently are the latest legislation passed or proposed by each individual state. These are not edicts of secession, they are mostly resolutions. Meaning, this is a legislative proposal that does not require action by the governor if adopted by the Legislature (State House and Senate). It serves merely as a protest against federal government intrusion.

Related Articles:

Judicial Watch-Dem. Senator Blasts Obama’s Czars-

Update:

PACT-Governor Rick Perry supporting Texas State's Rights

7 comments :

Anonymous said...

Simple and to the point....

The federal government is acting way too fast in stepping over the boundaries it was set out to have. The number of states for sovereignty needs to increase NOW and they need to ENFORCE it. Saying something but not acting on it does nothing. Capital Hill is on full speed and the federal government will continue to grow over night unless more states stepp up and take action.

Why are we allowing this to happen? Wake up and smell the coffee Americans because we do not have time to oversleep this morning. You may not like what you have to wake up to.

Phaedrus said...

What would be nice is if over 25 percent of the states (all it would take is 13 states) agree to stand together for sovereignty. All they would have to do is refuse to ratify anything out of Washington until Washington buckles. Until then it is doubtful that Washington will take this seriously.

Critical Thinker said...

A little legal insurrection to shake up DC might just be in order. This is the beauty of the US, you can rebel, in legal and political terms of course, and not be jailed. For the time being at least.

Actually Pahed, if my deteriorating memory serves me correctly, it takes 3/4 of the states. I would suggest fact checking that though.

Phaedrus said...

Well then I stand corrected. I thought 3/4 of the states had to ratify meaning that if over 25% didn't then Washington wouldn't have the 3/4 they need.

Phaedrus said...

According to Article V of the US Constitution, 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Currently, as there are 50 states, 38 states are needed to do this.
So if 13 refuse that only leaves 37 states ratifying.
Next time check your facts before you shoot me down. This is a prime example of why all you right wingers are going to wind up in camps. Camps that will be paid for with your tax money.

Critical Thinker said...

"Actually Pahed, if my deteriorating memory serves me correctly, it takes 3/4 of the states. I would suggest fact checking that though."

This is why I asked you to fact check my statement you 47 chromosome having, knuckle dragging, mutant-libertarian, throwback. You obviously cannot read.

Lol, thanks for the confirmation, I couldn't remember.

GI Jane said...

Now, now boys play nice.

 

Copyright © Politics and Critical Thinking Design by BTDesigner | Blogger Theme by BTDesigner | Powered by Blogger