0 votes

Attention Missourians! Missouri Sovereignty!

I just got home from a meeting so I apologize for the late notice.

I got a call from my State Rep today, Cynthia Davis. She is asking for our help. This Wednesday, Feb 4 at 8am she will be putting forward a resolution for Missouri sovereignty. This will be presented in the committee she chairs. She is using the Federal Freedom of Choice Act "which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote - rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution" as the basis for her resolution.

She would like anyone who can make it to speak in support of her resolution. There is a competing resolution that opposes the FOCA but does not have the 10th Amendment language declaring Missouri sovereign. She would like us to make the case for adopting the 10th amendment version.

This will be a great opportunity to stand up for a Missouri liberty issue as well as making friends with a key State Rep. She is also planning on running for State Auditor in 2010.

I know this is late notice, but its as much as I could give you. If anyone can make it to Jefferson City in time, please do.

Here is the text of the resolution.


House Resolution 212

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Barack Obama, President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new Administration is to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which purports to classify abortion as a "fundamental right" equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote - rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official, or any person acting under governmental authority, that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right...in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information"; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate more than 550 federal and state abortion-related laws, laws supported by the majority of the American people; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would specifically invalidate the following commonsense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of Missouri :

(1) Section 188.027, RSMo, which requires written and informed consent prior to an abortion;

(2) Section 188.028, RSMo, which establishes the requirements and procedures for the performance of abortions on minors;

(3) Section 188.029, RSMo, which requires a determination of viability prior to an abortion;

(4) Section 188.036, RSMo, which prohibits abortions performed with the intent to use fetal organs or tissue for transplant, experiments, or for money;

(5) Section 188.039, RSMo, which requires a twenty-four-hour waiting period prior to an abortion;

(6) Sections 188.205 and 188.215, RSMo, which prohibits the use of public funds and public facilities in the performance of abortions;

(7) Section 188.250, RSMo, which prohibits aiding or assisting a minor in obtaining an abortion;

(8) Section 197.032, RSMo, which allows hospitals and medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortions;

(9) Section 565.300, which creates the crime of infanticide; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act will not make abortion safe or rare, but will instead actively promote and subsidize abortion with state and federal tax dollars and do nothing to ensure its safety; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act will protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion-on-demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

Be it further resolved that this resolution serve 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

Be it further resolved that all compulsory federal legislation which 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; and

Be it further resolved that the Missouri House of Representatives further declares

our strong opposition to the federal Freedom of Choice Act and urge the United States Congress to summarily reject it for the following reasons:

(1) It seeks to circumvent the states' general legislative authority as guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(2) It seeks to undermine the right and responsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy;

(3) The protection of women's health through state regulations on abortion is a compelling state interest that should not be nullified by Congress;

(4) Its enactment would nullify numerous laws of the State of Missouri that the Missouri General Assembly and the people of Missouri strongly support; and

Be it further resolved that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare a properly inscribed copy of this resolution for Governor Jay Nixon; Barack Obama, President of the United States ; the President of the United States Senate; the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

Offered by Representative Cynthia Davis , District No. 19

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Please do not use abortion issue.

Please do not use the abortion issue as the basis for sovereignty rights. This need for sovereignty is bigger than just about abortion. Because religion is now so closely associated with this issue, it turns sovereignty into a religious issue. Using abortion is not necessary. There are many, many reasons to break away from the U.S. Federal czar-wannabes.

Give me liberty or give me sovereignty.

I agree with your statement.

Hopefully you have seen looked at the other 7 states- Arizona and the rest are just asserting "State Sovereignty" on the basis of protection from the Federal government usurping rights not delegated.

I am not sure I understand what is to be accomplished.

I thought a resolution is just a statement voted upon by the Legislature, and not a law, hence having no legal effect.

And if the States are beginning to stand up to the federal government, I cannot imagine a more divisive issue that abortion to use as the focus of this assertion of states rights. I personally am in favor of abortion as a right of the mother as owner of her body. As much as I would like to see the federal government cut down to 1/4 of its present size or even cut down more, I am not about to join in a fight based on an attempt by some to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

Of course, I doubt that there is really much public consensus as yet on the 10th amendment issue, so there probably is not any group other that the religious right to life crusaders who are going to bother much in this fight at this point in time. I really can't see much coming of this because the pain from going along to get along is still much less than the pain from civil war, and in my view, civil war is the only way the enslavement of the citizenry by the federal government is going to come to an end.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Henry, you made some valid points but.....

Henry you made some valid points but there are four other states issuing tenth amendment statements (NH, AZ, OK, WA) and those are not doing so on the basis of abortion. They are making a strait and clear stand to assert their sovereignty so the Federal government will no longer usurp powers not delegated to it. Trust me this is not a religious right movement. Here have a look at Arizona's its probably the one worded the most concise and it only pertains to the 10th amendment.
Arizona stands up to the Federal Government and reasserts state sovereignty!!

On abortion I would agree with you on a Federal level, because I feel that until science can definitively define when conscious life begins the Federal government has no jurisdiction to be involved. However on a state level I believe that, in light of my earlier statement regarding science, the individual states should have a vote of the populace as to whether they want it deemed legal or not legal. If the majority vote pro-abortion then the only way to overturn that issue would be for those opposed to garner enough converts in the time intervening and submit for another vote. If someone personally does not support the verdict, then they can vote with their feet and move somewhere that the view is the opposite.

Next Tuesday Rep. Jim Guest

Next Tuesday Rep. Jim Guest is going to be introducing HCR 13. It is another resolution rejecting the feds based on the 10th amendment. http://house.mo.gov/conte... It doesn't look like it's on the official calendar yet but he said this morning that Tuesday the 10th at 8:00 am is the time.

Sounds good. I will be watching for it!!

Sounds good. I will be watching for it!!

reedr3v's picture

Tying cessation to a one-issue cause seriously

limits its effectiveness. Any effort to gain wide support would need to either enumerate all areas of government infringement on personal liberty or go with the principle that government should not be allowed to dictate to the States, etc. I think many people are too likely to lose the big picture in the particulars of their own prejudices, wishes, etc. And many legislatures will just vote as popular opinion dictates, with an eye only on the next election.

I agree

The states need to stand up to these bullies, relying solely on the plain language of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. Dragging a specific issue into it - especially one as emotionally-charged as abortion - muddies the waters.

Not secession

Sovereignty does not mean secession.

You have to understand that the issue of opposing the FOCA was already being brought before this committee and this was an opportunity to address the 10th amendment at the same time.

Sometime you have to do what you can to get something out of committee and onto the floor.

Most of the state reps do not understand the 10th amendment in the first place. They can understand it better if a clear example of unconstitutional exercise of powers is given.

Finally, the state legislators want to be the ones who decide this, not the federal government, no matter which side of the issue they are on.

Secession implies voluntary membership

with full rights to secede.

You cannot define sovereignty without admitting to at least the power of secession.



meekandmild's picture



Rights do not have to be enumerated!

",,,the 'Freedom of Choice Act' which purports to classify abortion as a 'fundamental right' equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote - rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution..."
The people's rights do not have to be enumerated; government powers do. The Constitution does not grant rights, and Congress certainly cannot create them through legislation.
Our argument should be simply that the Constitution does not give the U.S. government the power to interfere with the states' legislation, or lack thereof, about abortion.
Also, begging the feds to "cease and desist" is a little wimpy, don't you think? Missourians should tell them point-blank that we will ignore any federal edict that violates the Tenth Amendment.

Some Math Geek

Needs to sit down and prove that the entire collection of natural rights are infinite and innumerable.

Once upon a time, I could have at least bs'ed my way through such a proof... beyond my abilities anymore.





O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Number 2's picture

Do you have a link

To the bill?

The resolution not available on the state site, yet

She is introducing it at 8am. The text of the resolution is in the main topic here and should be on the state page shortly after its introduction in the committee.

It will be introduced, then voted on the following week. Then it goes to the house floor for final passage. Once it gets out of committee, it will be important to contact state reps to vote for it on the floor.

It looks like we will have a great turnout for this. In fact, we'll probably have so many people not all will be able to speak. This is going to show everyone in our capitol what can happen when they reach out to us to support liberty issues.

I'm going to be there and I will give an update when I get back from the state capitol.



meekandmild's picture

Dallas County MO Republican meeting

Feb 10, 2009 7:00 PM O'bannon Bank South. South Hwy U.S. 65. Buffalo, MO.

I hope Kansas does this too

just forwarded this onto everybody i know who lives in Missouri.

Thanks for the post !

"Ask not what your country can do
for you, Ask what you can do for
your country."
John F. Kennedy 1961

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "


for MO

GO MO!! Bump for freedom!

Thank you Brent & Cythina Davis! Leaving now to spread the word and contact my reps!

It's just not a federal issue

The Founders limited the role of the U.S.A. to perform only four functions and regulating reproduction was not one of them. The States need not abide by and may nullify any other federal law. Its been well over 100 years of this kind of nonsense and enough is enough. It is time for the States to withdraw from the pact and forge new agents for their common needs.

I just sent this to my local

I just sent this to my local RP group in Mid Mo. Let's see how many people we can get there.



FOCA is the foot in the door

Cynthia Davis is the Chair for the Special Standing Committee on Children and Families.

One of her committee members put together a resolution to oppose the FOCA. She used this as an opportunity to not only oppose the FOCA, but put strong 10th amendment language into the resolution as justification for the opposition.

The resolution not only opposes the FOCA, but opposes all 10th amendment violations of state's rights.

It's a good start

I don't personally care about the abortion thing - but I think the resolution is absolutely justified and a great step in the right direction. If this one passes, given the emotions around the subject, then perhaps states will begin passing similar resolutions (even using the same language at the beginning) and declare sovereignty over education, law enforcement, drug war, etc....

This could really balloon into a great thing. The Fed is more frightened of succession than anything else.

"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

good start? perhaps

It could be a good start in the bigger picture that mohusk referred to, but as much as I disliked Bill Clinton for so many reasons, he had it right (at least the rhetoric portion) on abortion: It should be safe, rare and legal.

the word is

Secession - (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” -- John Quincy Adams

I agree whole heartedly.


What is important here is

that the federal government is reminded that it is over stepping its power. The sovereign sates are not mere agents of central government. In socialism the central government is all powerful and that places the state level as subservient agents to federal rule, and that is NOT the case in a republic of sovereign states.