State versus Federal Government
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.
New Hampshire: “Live Free or Die!”
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;”
More States Reclaiming Sovereignty
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.
