Author Topic: The Break-up Begins! (Read 1802 times)

Heather · « **on:** February 12, 2009, 08:50:35 AM »

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw
Posted: February 06, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon

NEW YORK – 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.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

no guns here · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:14:34 AM »

not sure what it all means... but I'm glad to see Oklahoma in the charge!!!!

ngh

no guns here · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:45:15 AM »

Interesting reading, especially the one from Arizona...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10484

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:01:30 AM »

hope it works

Dee · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:13:37 AM »

At this point this is about all that is left to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If my state of Texas does not move to protect my rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, OR flat out secede from this screwed up union, I for one will move my family to Oklahoma. It is where all my Cherokee family members are anyway, and with the way things are looking, there is safety in numbers of like minded, level headed men and women, who don't just talk the talk.
Oklahoma hit a home run with me, when they legislated law, OUTLAWING illegal aliens last year. Their illegal alien problem now, is almost NON EXISTANT, while our Federal Government says it's too over-whelming a problem to move them out of our country.
Oklahoma damn sure moved them out of Oklahoma, and they were glad to leave, ON THEIR OWN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:16:34 AM »

can a white face with a part Cherokee wife be welcome out there ?

Dee · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:25:35 AM »

I would imagine. I am serious about this. I have my home, and land paid for here, and have had for years, and am a life long Texan, but if Texas does not pack the gear to stand up for Texans, I am outa here.
The Texas State Rifle Ass. has been very good for folks like me, and I support them instead of the NRA. TSRA DOES NOT COMPROMISE with our rights, and I hope they contiune to stay hooked on this whole mess. If not? Oklahoma here I come. No wet-backs, and hopefully no feds.

Questor · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:34:59 AM »

I found the resolution for Arizona at the Arizona state legislature site. Can you point me to any of the others? I am looking for the official document, not a news story. Thanks.

no guns here · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:39:27 AM »

Heck... I'm about as white faced as they come and my wife is a short, dark-haired, tan-skinned lady of multiple Nations descent. We get along just fine in Oklahoma. Half the state is NA and the other half is but don't know it.

ngh

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:43:07 AM »

Quote from: no guns here on February 12, 2009, 10:39:27 AM

Heck... I'm about as white faced as they come and my wife is a short, dark-haired, tan-skinned lady of multiple Nations descent. We get along just fine in Oklahoma. Half the state is NA and the other half is but don't know it.

ngh

That just about the truth, no guns here. I ain't a bad place to be is it?

Heather · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Questor on February 12, 2009, 10:34:59 AM

I found the resolution for Arizona at the Arizona state legislature site. Can you point me to any of the others? I am looking for the official document, not a news story. Thanks.

Google search should work just as good for you as it would for me.

Seriously if you can't find it let me know and I will look for you.

Heather

Skunk · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:52:11 AM »

Michigan (The U.P.) is just a hop, skip, and a jump for me. Somehow though, I find it almost fantastic or maybe unbelievable that Michigan would be involved in such an endeavor.

Questor · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:54:12 AM »

Heather:

I'll give it a more determined effort.

Skunk:

Me too.

Heather · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:55:03 AM »

Quote from: Skunk on February 12, 2009, 10:52:11 AM

Michigan (The U.P.) is just a hop, skip, and a jump for me. Somehow though, I find it almost fantastic or maybe unbelievable that Michigan would be involved in such an endeavor.

Michigan Republican State Representative Paul Opsommer authored State Sovereignty bill HCR 4 which aims to: . (A)ffirm 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.

Heather

Heather · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:57:31 AM »

Quote from: Questor on February 12, 2009, 10:54:12 AM

Heather:

I'll give it a more determined effort.

Skunk:

Me too.

In the link of no guns here's post all of the names of the state bills are listed. It will probally make an easier search.

Heather

Skunk · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2009, 10:58:43 AM »

Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2009, 10:55:03 AM

Quote from: Skunk on February 12, 2009, 10:52:11 AM
Michigan (The U.P.) is just a hop, skip, and a jump for me. Somehow though, I find it almost fantastic or maybe unbelievable that Michigan would be involved in such an endeavor.

Michigan Republican State Representative Paul Opsommer authored State Sovereignty bill HCR 4 which aims to: . (A)ffirm 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.

Heather

That's good news Heather. Wish there was an Opsommer type of guy or gal in my state.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2009, 11:00:07 AM »

I hope Ky follows the right road I like it here.

BTW Dee you got a lot of distant Cherokee relatives over here in the Smokie mountains too.

Graybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2009, 11:04:11 AM »

I think the real extent of this movement is being over stated more often than not. Here is a more detailed explanation of what is really going on.

Quote

State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
February 5th, 2009 · 32 Comments · History, Local Issues, Politics, Rights and Liberty
You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:

“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough” to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There’s a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma’s bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.

The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:

“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.”

and

“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.”

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire’s bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullifcation which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii’s proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.

Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at IdiotWars.com.

Troyboy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2009, 11:12:14 AM »

It is just a play for those that do not have control. Nothing will come of this

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2009, 11:44:01 AM »

Quote from: Badnews Bob on February 12, 2009, 11:00:07 AM

I hope Ky follows the right road I like it here.

BTW Dee you got a lot of distant Cherokee relatives over here in the Smokie mountains too.

That's a fact Badnews Bob!

Questor · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2009, 02:45:56 PM »

GB:

You are quite right to point that out. The amazing thing to me is the simultaneous assertion of fiscal authority by so many states.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:15:59 PM »

I can only hope that my state of VA joins in.

LONGTOM

Sheila · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2009, 08:50:35 AM

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw
Posted: February 06, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon

NEW YORK – 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.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

Hurry for Pennsylvania!

no guns here · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2009, 06:31:23 PM »

Y'all could be right and nothing will ever come of it. However, sometimes people say things and then in the ensueing responses and juggling, things get blown up and then real effects are shown. Wars have been started throughout history by misstatements and misrepresentations.

Imagine if 30 states told the fed that they wouldn't take "it" anymore and then the uppity democraps (who are smarter then we) decided to make a "point" and then the states, or at least some of them were forced to back up their words... the rhetoric could escalate to the point where something would have to be done.

ngh

beerbelly · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2009, 12:46:46 AM »

The federal government is not going to let go of the people paying the taxes to support their welfare for the minority's. You will remain under federal control and pay your taxes , or they will come and kill you. In the not to distant future they will come for your guns. You will give the up or they will have a swat team kill you. It is as simple as that.
Beerbelly

Graybeard · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2009, 05:44:41 AM »

I think there is a definite plan in place to "come and kill us" and I believe it has been in place since at least Bush one days and each President and Congress since has been continuing to work on and fine tune that plan. I believe it will come to fruition under the current administration.

They are working on an executive order to make it illegal for folks 60 and over to own guns. This likely will be the beginning of the end as it is going to result in major fighting when they come for them. Hell old farts have little to lose in standing up to them anyway. I guess they think we're criminals or something so shouldn't have guns.

They have already concentration camps set up and are setting up several more and are looking for mass grave sites where they can dig huge holes and toss in thousands of bodies.

I've been predicting this for almost as long as this site has been on the internet and it's about to be here. Politicians do not work for you and me they work for the big money interests who paid to get them elected. Those folks want the population of the earth reduced by 60% to 80% and it's about to begin.

rparsons934 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2009, 05:49:35 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard on February 13, 2009, 05:44:41 AM

I think there is a definite plan in place to "come and kill us" and I believe it has been in place since at least Bush one days and each President and Congress since has been continuing to work on and fine tune that plan. I believe it will come to fruition under the current administration.

They are working on an executive order to make it illegal for folks 60 and over to own guns. This likely will be the beginning of the end as it is going to result in major fighting when they come for them. Hell old farts have little to lose in standing up to them anyway. I guess they think we're criminals or something so shouldn't have guns.

They have already concentration camps set up and are setting up several more and are looking for mass grave sites where they can dig huge holes and toss in thousands of bodies.

I've been predicting this for almost as long as this site has been on the internet and it's about to be here. Politicians do not work for you and me they work for the big money interests who paid to get them elected. Those folks want the population of the earth reduced by 60% to 80% and it's about to begin.

Well said GB. Also Most people over 60 are set in there ways and when they come to collect those guns they will be fired. My grandfather is the one who told me the quote in my signature. And ever since I was a little kid(still a young adult) I knew that it meant something deep. Its only in the past couple of years that I have truly began to understand it. When people come to take those rights that many have died for you must show them honor and fight for it.

kitchawan kid · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2009, 06:07:15 AM »

I will be 67 this month,am sorry you can have them.

Singleshotsam · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2009, 06:20:23 AM »

My brothers and I, along with several of our friends have been pushing our state legislators to protect state soverignty. Were proud of Missouri, and I love my state.

I believe any person who wants to own a firearm to protect his family and intrests should be able to do so.

When the day comes that they want to confinscate my fathers rifle and shotgun, I will be standing next to him, along with my other brothers. If I die in the process so be it, but I guarantee, that the confiscations of firearms in the country will come with a heavy, heavy price to the federal government. (And i'm not talking about money either.)

wgr · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2009, 06:49:19 AM »

will be a real sad day when they start trying to take our guns away.when that day comes we might feel the pain this country felt during the civil war friends against friends and so on.but then again if someone copmes for my guns then he/she will not find me friendly