Update on States' Reaffirming Their Rights and Soverignty

If you are a somewhat regular reader here then you know we have been following the topic of the states' rights movement with some interest. One of the main reasons are its historic implications, such as the number of states passing legislation on the matter, the states which are participating, and the potential Constitutional outcome.

These days, there are some very strange goings on up in the Beltway. From one of the greatest attempts at government expansion this country has seen, to DC being "open" to an international reserve currency, to a strangely worded and authoritarian bill calling for compulsory national service, it shouldn't make a person wonder why states are attempting to push back.

From the Christian Science Monitor,

CSM-There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did.

With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.

"Washington can be a bully, but there's evidence right now that there are people willing to resist our bully," said Pitts, by phone from the state capitol of Columbia. read more...

Earlier this month we reported that a total of twenty states had proposed some sort of legislation reaffirming their rights under the 9th or 10th amendments with regards to federal intrusions. According to the CSM there are now twenty-eight such resolutions, with four states passing the legislation and two failing. Surprisingly, New Hampshire was one of the states which was not successful in its attempt.



Even on local levels, civilians are stirring and have been taking part in sizable protests recognizing these disturbing trends taking place within the federal government. Recently, Tea Parties, referencing the Boston Tea Party, have been popping up in major cities and population centers with angry constituents protesting wanton deficit spending and gross expansion of federal powers. Most of these protests started out with only a few hundred participants, subsequently, in early March that started to change.

State legislators, as well as average people, are becoming quite angry about the intentions of the federal government and the direction it is attempting to take the country. No one seems quite sure as to whether Proglodyte leadership is trying to fix the host of problems maligning our country or are taking advantage of a crisis to promote a more nefarious agenda. The one thing that is sure is only time will tell.

Continue reading ...

States' Rights: Nine More States Might Join the Mix

Besides massive trillion dollar spending the less covered states' rights movement is becoming the new "thing." If the reporting is correct we might be seeing an inclusion of nine more states to the eleven that have already introduced tenth amendment legislation.

According to World Net Daily, the nine states that are considering issuing resolutions are; Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

I want to emphasize this is not a precursor to civil war, as we reported before,

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.

Before states' rights advocates get too exicted the the Supremacy Clause.
has to be taken into account.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

For an informative read on the legal history of the Supremacy Clause versus the Tenth Amendment visit, U.S. Constitution: Article VI

Continue reading ...

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

Continue reading ...