Utah Asserting States Rights under the 10th Amendment
Submitted by visible51 on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:01
H.B. 325 -- Opting Out of the Real Id Act
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0325.htm
-Snip from bill text-
Legislative finding -- Prohibition on implementing REAL ID Act.
(c) was adopted in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution.
Notes:
There is a lot of confusion by people playing word games regarding "states declaring soverenty" when it is more correct to say States are "aserting states rights" under the 10th Amendment.
Only one or two states, I know of, have come close to measures declaring soverenty - Montana prior to SCOTUS confirming second amendenment rights last year, and N.H. this year.
»
My essay to help reassert sovereignty!
Just wanted to let you guys know I posted an article regarding historical proof of sovereignty.Hopefully the articles will provide serious historical ammunition for anyone who wants to argue that our country consists of independent sovereign states who are in compact.
The link is:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82535
Are we making ourselves
a tempting target for foreign aggression? I'm worried that if (insert country here) China, etc...were to see that we are approaching a civil war kind of division, that they may be tempted to pounce on us or send *peace keepers* here...what do you think?
R3VOLution
Not to Worry
China's eceonomy is melting down too. They don't have the resources or logistics to attack or invade us and maintain any sort of war.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Good news...
...bump...
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...
The Feds could care less
if we States re-ascert our Sovereignty... just as long as we keep payin'. Especially, at a time when all of the States have been "shook down" by Washington and are out of cash. The Feds are gonna go.... (In your best, Nancy Pelosi valley-girl voice) Eeer, What-everrrrrr. The States need their own money back in order to survive and Washington knows that. They assume our compliance.
For this to be anything more than an ineffectual, feel-good "show", we need to withhold tax payments to Washington until they agree to abide by the Enumerated Powers as defined in the Constitution.
To put real "teeth" in all of these acts of State legislation , we need to cut-off the cash. Our Congressmen and Senators have shown themselves to be worthless lapdogs; we may not be able to directly disband the FED, but we CAN STOP VOLUNTARILY LENDING OUR SUPPORT to this insane agenda.
It's time to "Just Say No" to Washington. They're junkies, strung out on our money. Time for some "tough love".
GO UTAH
Quick link to bill PDF
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0325.pdf
This is great! These states are following President Obama's
advice to be true to our founding documents (per his inauguration speech recent post by cicobiologist.)
Debbie
are they ready
to face off against the powerful Feds or foreign troops? Don't matter to me as I'm still in the communist Illinois.
Face Off Legally First - To Test the Waters
I've heard suggestions that we all, nationwide, fund the campaign of ONE pro-liberty Attorney General for a state that has enacted a 10th Amendment law.
Then we could test the waters by facing off against the Feds in the courts first.
no
We have to turn up the pressure on the representatives.
____
"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon
i agree...
trying to push the State of Illinois to follow the Constitution is impossible. the feds have had control of Illinois since the mafia wars in Chicago. us "downstaters" never have a voice.
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Thank you for posting.
Thank you for posting. You are correct in implying that we must use the correct wording when pushing this issue. To declare would be to imply that we have all of a sudden decided to claim sovereignty-- however state sovereignty has been present since this country declared independence. Therefore we are only reasserting "State Sovereignty", or acknowledging that we are independent states, with independent governments, whom have agreed to collectively work together in compact [the Constitution] for the betterment and unified protection of our citizens. In doing so we [the states] created an agent [the Federal government] which we assigned unto it certain limited duties which would help to make the compact run smooth. We did however stress that each state remains independent from each other, thus sovereign, in that they retain the right to govern their citizens as the citizens see fit.
Reasserting Sovereignty will not free us from tyranny but it is a HUGE step if we follow through to chase out the usurpation of un-delegated powers the Federal government has already committed. Granted it will take a mass coalition of people to force their representatives to not just leave this as words on paper. However no longer will we only be scratching at the wall. This will be a huge weapon if people will wield it-- and I believe they will as long as people like us lead the charge and don't falter. The economic crisis will also send masses of people into our camps because they will be hungry fro REAL change-- plus they will just be hungry. :-p
The point is only us citizens within our sovereign states together can take this to the next level. We absolutely must hover over our representatives. They should be strictly held accountable for any and everything they do! Of course much will need changing-- and to do that many of our representatives will need forcing. But we will remind them that "What do we pay a "Representative" to do, if not represent our will?". If they refuse then they must be coerced into action by threat of removal.
I hope all of us will make good on our responsibility to protect our state and the Constitution! That is what being patriotic is truly about-- not loyalty to the Federal government which works for us....not the other way around.
Thank you for noticing the difference of the two
We must not relent in our efforts for freedom.
Also I would like to point out that some state constitutions formed before the civil war included the language of being Sovereign and Independant.
State constitutions formed after the civil war may include language indicating "inseperable from the union" (subservient members of the corporation).
____
"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon
This is a true fact!
A few states did indeed! I plan to post an article that I'm working on which will yield a little more on that subject-- probably tonight if time permits. Great post!! Thanks.
We all should agree that the Founding Fathers did not create an all-powerful national government. There were very few of them who desired to form a strong central government similar to the British model from which the colonies had just seceded. A great example of this happened in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, with a majority of the delegates present, a motion was actually proposed to have the convention form a national government, but the resolution could not even find someone to second the motion, so it died on the floor.
Our Founders, having just cast off the shackles of oppression (King George III), were determined to create a non-intrusive central government which could, and would be controlled by the people which empowered it.
There were many who were extremely leery of the idea of the proposed Constitution (this inevitably led to the creation of the "Bill of Rights"), and it was for this very reason that a few of the pro-Founders felt compelled to write the articles we now know as the Federalist Papers. In it Hamilton said "an entire consolidation of the States into one national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitutional Convention of 1787] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all right of sovereignty which they before had and which were not, by that act exclusively delegated to the United States."
Once more I would like to draw attention to where he said "...aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all right of sovereignty which they before had and which were not, by that act exclusively delegated to the United States."
There you go....an ardent FEDERALIST, the very one whom later eventually screwed us over with his "Loose Constructionist" take on the Constitution clearly issues that the states are sovereign entities and retain what the did not delegate unto the Federal government.
Maybe the individual
states should function without the federal government. What would be lost at this stage? They could make their own trade agreements with each other and other countries. Is that being really naive?
In Canada provinces are always threatening to declare their independence from the federal government. Medical socialism is costing more all the time because tax payers have to pay for the many who do not work, those who are tax exempt or on welfare.
The cost is being added at tax time and the middle class is paying hundreds more to keep this going, and the hospitals now charge extra. It is getting too large and unwieldy. You folks are headed down that path.
Well...
Well the problem with that idea is threat of outside powers. Unification under a compact gives us certain privileges of trade and stability. Also most Americans don't want to cast aside the country which our ancestors bled and died to create. However, more and more people are coming to realize that our government has been hijacked and needs a return of what she was founded on. This move to reassert sovereignty is a call for us to get back the Jeffersonian Republic we started walking away from 100+ years ago-- this is an excellent indicator that the Founders America is not yet completely lost. It shows that there is hope that with sheer determination and fortitude to stay the course, we as citizens can call up from the depths that which is rightfully ours! If those 20 probable states come on board this movement that is over half our country!! That is the majority-- not a minority. People keep referring to the south breaking away in the 1860s, and thus far I have made many post dissuading them from making that comparison (as an indicator of outcome) due to extreme differences, but in this case I would like to use to point out one thing; the South stood up for state sovereignty against Federal usurpation of powers with only 11 states!!!!! That is 17 shy of what were possibly looking at having in today's movement. What this means is there will not be a war, but there would be a HUGE chance to toss those who have used powers not delegated out on their ear!!!!
We citizens have the numbers and the man power to make this happen. However we will need to MAKE our representatives represent our will!!!
That is the only way anything will ever be achieved.
Thanks for the
explanation.
"However we will need to MAKE our representatives represent our will!!!" YES
I just wish I would have proofread before I posted. Lol
I just wish I would have proofread before I posted. Lol. I was actually typing a article I had been working on for a few hours when I started writing that reply. The grammar mistakes show that I should have been a little more attentive-- probably due to my coffee buzz running extremely low!! :-p
Did not even
notice. It was the ideas that I was interested in :-)
States have "powers" not rights
Only the people have rights although they also have powers.
Read the 10th more carefully.
Land is a natural right.
If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans
Sorry, I'm not a lawer
But you get the idea.
____
"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon
about time...
Go Utah! Why hasn't Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon jumped on this yet?
The mountain west, my home. Proud to be a Utahn today.
I wished they would go much further than this
I'm glad to see it, but wished they would go much further to excersize the states power over the fed.
____
"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon
not Huntsman's interests
Unfortunately, I don't think Gov Huntsman is really interested in state sovereignty. He was one of the first to endorse McCain, was rumored to be clamoring for McCain's VP spot and has a rather socialist voting record.
Your state legislature could override his veto if necessary.
Debbie
Debbie
Yaayy - Go Utah!
I was wondering the same thing about the other western states. Hopefully they'll follow suit soon!
Debbie
I call it
The Springtime of Liberty*)
(Better) to be confused in the search for truth than fully confident and sound asleep in a dream of lies. ~ Michael Nystrom
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/statement-to-ron-pa...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
Hey is it "states" rights or
Hey is it "states" rights or "States" rights or "states' " rights or "state's" rights or...? Does it make a difference how we write this?
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
______________________
*** God bless Ron Paul ***
* Ron Paul For President *
It's States' Rights.
'States' = collective, plural--apostrophe on the end. :)
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Neither of those
It is States' Privileges, states do not have rights, only people do.
"Greater than the force of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo
"Greater than the force of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo