By Debbie Morgan
hat tip: TakeBackWashington.com
March 26, 2010

Watching the debate on healthcare was like having a nightmare while living in the circus. The clowns never hear those they “entertain,” yet they continue to throw nasty legislation at the public. In one of the better moments from the debate, a Representative said the bill was totally unconstitutional, as the Federal Government does not have the authority to force the public to purchase anything. In an online forum, one gentleman stated that the bill is tantamount to extortion. It is apparent that we are down to the only peaceful recourse available…Support local State Sovereignty bills; the only way to overturn the healthcare nightmare, as well as all other over-reaching federal legislation!

When the subject of the Tenth Amendment has been raised in past conversation, some have laughed and some have said, “Oh, that will never work.” Since its passage, many States have tried to invoke their Tenth Amendment rights on several occasions. The largest combined effort, before now, was during the Civil War, when eleven states sought to secede from the united States. Interestingly enough, the last time people got truly fired up about their States rights was during the Roosevelt Administration’s “New Deal.” Why do we have such a magnificent amendment to protect the states if we are not going to use it?

The February 2008 CRS Report for Congress, after quoting the Tenth Amendment, states, “While this language would appear to represent one of the most clear examples of a federalist principle in the Constitution, it has not had a significant impact in limiting federal powers. Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment to have substantive content, so that certain ‘core’ state functions would be beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.” Yet, in the past, as now, the Federal Government continues to take what it wants, expecting the states to bow down in servitude.

Chuck Baldwin
December 18, 2009

According to Rasmussen Reports, “Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government’s policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.”

The report goes on to say, “The data suggests that the level of anger is growing. The 71% who are angry at federal government policies today is up five percentage points since September.

“Even more stunning, the 46% who are Very Angry is up 10 percentage points from September.”

The report also states, “The latest numbers show that only nine percent (9%) of voters trust the judgment of America’s political leaders more than the judgment of the American people.” It further states, “Seventy-one percent (71%) believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Sixty-eight percent (68%) believe that government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.”

Rasmussen Reports goes on to say that voter opposition to the proposed health care plan, government bailouts, and higher taxes is especially high.

See the report here.

That Americans are angry with the federal government is nothing new. As a general rule, Americans STAY angry with the federal government. So what? Nothing changes, anger and discontentment notwithstanding.

Read more.

By Harold Thomas

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.”

– Tenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States

Since the beginning of the year, 39 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions in at least one house of their legislatures. Of those (as of July 28), seven have been enacted (Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee), four (including New Hampshire’s) have either been defeated or are expected to be defeated; and the other 23 are still under consideration. Not all of them are “red states”: Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states leaning Democratic or are highly competitive.

Why are so many states introducing such resolutions?

One reason is that the federal government is raiding state treasuries to run its programs. State legislators know this better than anyone. Here’s the dirty little secret: There is no such thing as “federal funds.” “Federal funds” and “stimulus money” are the tax dollars you and I send in by April 15 every year. Some of that money is taken out to pay for national defense and the federal bureaucracy. The rest is returned to the states as grants – with strings attached. State governments find it politically impossible to turn them down, because the end result would be to give away its taxpayers’ dollars to a more compliant state. In this way your dollars are being held hostage by Washington to carry out its will.

It doesn’t end there. Most federal grants come with a requirement for matching funds – that come from your state tax dollars! Now, state governments face a dilemma: do we try to qualify for federal grants, or do we try to carry out our own priorities, such as education and public safety, without raising taxes and further depressing the state’s economy?

In addition, a growing number of state officials are becoming alarmed at federal intrusions on the rights of state governments and the citizens. For example, proposed federal laws restricting ownership of firearms are meeting resistance from the legislatures of Idaho and Montana. Missouri is chafing under expansions of abortion rights, and Michigan doesn’t want Real ID. The USA PATRIOT Act and other federal legislation in the years since 9-11 have greatly narrowed the rights that are reserved to the states and to the people.

Read more.

Today, April 13 at the Ohio State House in Senate Hearing Room 17, a number of concerned Ohio citizens had the rare privilege to hear eloquent testimony in defense of our US Constitution. Representatives Jarrod B. Martin and Kris Jordon, sponsors of HJR 11 both spoke on behalf of the Concurrent Resolution. The following is the testimony given by Representative Jarrod Martin.

Chairman Gerberry, Ranking member Daniels, members of the State Government Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to come and present sponsor testimony for House Concurrent Resolution 11. I also would like to thank Representative Jordan for his collaboration and sponsorship of this resolution.

We all are aware of the importance of the U.S. Constitution as the legal foundation of our republic, I do not have to tell you the dire implications of one level of government ignoring some, or all, of this document. Our Constitution has served us well for over two hundred and twenty years, in part, because of the great respect and adherence to it by both the federal government and the respective states. It is true that since it’s ratification in 1789, the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by some of the most brilliant minds in our nation’s history.

One question that deeply divided the political thought of the founders was how many powers were to be granted to a centralized government and what authorities were to be retained by the states. This discussion has continued through the course of history and it continues still today.

The fear of a strong centralized government arose, in part, from the unfair policies and
taxation established by the rule of the British crown. Policies and taxation over which the American colonists had no say. Some of the founders such as James Madison believed that the federal government would never become too powerful because the people, with these memories so vividly in their minds, would not allow it. After many months of debate, the Constitution was ratified, but not before it was agreed that a Bill of Rights be immediately added. What resulted were ten amendments to the Constitution that guarantees the rights of individual citizens and states alike. These included the security and guarantee of our most precious freedoms; those of speech, religion, press, and fair trials among others. Included in this same Bill of Rights is the Tenth Amendment, which reads:

“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”

I firmly believe the Constitution sought to ensure that all levels of government in our republic derive its power from the people, and the Tenth Amendment preserves this local control even in the face of the federal government.

Read more.

Hat tip: Web of Debt
Ellen Brown

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
– Albert Einstein

Forty-six of fifty states are now reported to be so insolvent that they could be filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings within the next two years.¹ Of the four that are not in that category, one is the isolated farming state of North Dakota. What does it have that other states don’t? The answer seems to be: its own bank. In fact, North Dakota has the only state-owned bank in the nation. It has avoided the credit freeze caused by the derivative schemes of the Wall Street bankers by creating its own credit, leading the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty.

North Dakota is an unlikely candidate for the distinction. As Michigan management consultant Charles Fleetham observed last month in an article distributed to his local media:

“North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather, isolated farmers and a hit movie – Fargo. Yet, for some reason it defies the real estate cliché of location, location, location. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!”

The secret of its success seems to be the state-owned Bank of North Dakota, which was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. The bank’s stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. The bank operates as a bankers’ bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It loans money to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans), and it purchases municipal bonds from public institutions.

Read more.

Hat tip:Tenth Amendment Center

Many of you have asked for a central location to stay up to date with state sovereignty bills. While the idea of centralizing information and/or control over a movement of this kind seems to fly in the face of the principles of decentralization that the Tenth Amendment Center stands for, we have gladly succumbed to popular demand with this informational post.

We’ll do our best to keep this post updated when new bills are introduced. If you feel something is missing from the list, please don’t hesitate to contact us to let us know. It’s essential that people on the front lines in the individual states drive these efforts.

Wisconsin

Illinois

West Virginia

North Carolina

North Dakota (passed house 52-40 on 04-07-09)

Ohio

Nevada

Oregon

Alabama (2nd Resolution, HJR403, introduced 03-24-09)

Mississippi (senate resolution introduced 03-10-09)

Pennsylvania (senate resolution introduced 03-19-09)

Read more.

The pushback against federal power began under Bush, but may now be accelerating.

By Patrik Jonsson
Hat tip: The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 27, 2009 edition

CSM Reporter Patrik Jonsson discusses what’s behind the states’ revolt against Washington’s mandates.

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.

By Mark Sanford
Governor of South Carolina

America’s states are laboratories of democracy. They are both affected by, and relevant to, the larger national debate. What we’ve found in our own corner of the country is that carrying a substantial debt load limits our options when it comes to running government.

A recent report by the American Legislative Exchange Council ranked us 47th worst in the nation for annual debt service as a percentage of tax revenue. Our state dedicates nearly 11% of its annual tax revenue to paying debt. On top of that, South Carolina has another $20 billion in unfunded, long-term political promises for pensions and other liabilities. The state budget has already been cut four times in recent months as the national economic downturn has impacted South Carolina and driven down tax revenue.

President Barack Obama recently signed a “stimulus” bill that will spend about $2 billion through “programmatic means” in South Carolina. In other words, the federal government will put this money directly into existing funding formulas and programs such as Medicaid. But there is an additional $700 million that I as governor have influence over, and it is the disposition of this money that has drawn the national spotlight to South Carolina.

Read more.

This is the text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 11 text as introduced by Sponsors Jerrod Martin (R-70) and Assistant Minority Whip, Kris Jordan (R-2) along with 19 more co-sponsors into the 128th General Assembly, on March 18, 2009, “[t]o claim sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to serve notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and to insist that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to 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 to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amend-ment signifies 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, Many federal laws directly violate the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

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

Read more.

February 11, 2009
Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t excerpts

Going on its seventh year, the Iraq war has taken its toll on not only the US military, but also on the states’ National Guard units, which were called up when Congress passed the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. Now a growing state-level movement is working to keep the Guard at home.

Its logic: The AUMF’s goals have been fulfilled. The authorization’s explicit purposes were to defend the US against the “threat posed by Iraq” and to enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq’s alleged ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein — along with his supposed threat — is gone, and the UN resolutions are no longer relevant, so there’s no longer a mandate to keep troops in Iraq.

The president can call up the states’ Guard units in a time of war. But when the mandate for war becomes obsolete, say members of the Bring the Guard Home: It’s the Law (BTGH) campaign, sending those troops overseas is illegal. BTGH members and their allies are now sponsoring a chain of bills and resolutions in states across the country, demanding an investigation into the legality of deploying the Guard to Iraq, and a refusal to comply with any illegal federal orders.

“There is not Congressional authorization for the use of the Guard today,” Vermont State Rep. Mike Fisher told Truthout. “One Guard member improperly called into federal service to fight a war — that’s a real problem. Choosing to go to war is one of the most serious decisions that we make. The very least we can do is follow the Constitution.”

Read more.

Catherine Austin Fitt’s Blog
News & Commentary
February 16, 2009 at 11:02 pm

There is a war going on but it is not one we are reading about in the news.

As tax revenues decline, the federal government can operate with deficits. By law, states and counties must balance their budgets. Given that federal law and regulations create significant program requirements and expenses for state and local government, growing deficits will exacerbate the tension between the federal government and states and between states and counties.

Throughout state and local government, you have millions of people who work hard and make the day-to-day operations of government go, often with surprisingly little resources. Watching more than $10 trillion of bailouts go to a handful of large banks is deeply disturbing to them. Capping bankers compensation at $500,000 is cold comfort to a city manager or state legislator struggling to raise a family on much less.

Before passage of the stimulus package, California was not reimbursing counties for mandated programs. California counties were threatening to withhold payments to the state or sue. Right before house passage, a group of eighteen governors issued a press release supporting the Administration’s proposal. If you look at the list, it is the ones that should be hurting the most.

Excerpts of the New Hampshire resolution introduced January 9, affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, “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, to the Constitution for the United States of America;”

Read more.

Lead Story in February/March edition of The Liberty Voice.

Obama’s $1 trillion deficit-spending ’stimulus plan’ seen as last straw

February 06, 2009
Jerome R. Corsi

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 Amendments to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.