State Sovereignty or Secession

[redcliffsw]

New Hampshire

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=389


      

[Catwoman]

Wonder if TX is included in those 25 states that the NH politician mentions?  Doesn't TX have it written into their constitution that they are able to leave the Union?

[Flintauqua]

I can be proven wrong on this one, but my understanding of the subject is this. 

The concurrent resolution of Congress (not a "treaty") that annexed Texas into the U.S. contained provisions for the area that comprises the state of Texas to split into as many as five states, and the right of any of these five to not remain a part of the U.S. upon establishment.

Joining the Confederacy and subsequent Reconstruction legislation made these provisions null and void.

[frawin]

No provosion to secede is found in the Texas constitution adopted in 1876, however it does state that Texas is a free and independent state, subject only to the constitution of the United States, it does not say subject to the President of the United States. As proven in the civil War, any and every state can secede, and suffer the consequences. We may well see that tested in the next few years.

[redcliffsw]

Americans Fighting Back........


Barack Obama and his Democrat majority may think they have a mandate to transform our nation into a European style social democracy, but Americans apparently have a different idea.

First, as we watch the stock market continuing its free fall, keep in mind the reason - Americans are taking their money out of the stock market. There are now millions of dollars sitting one the sidelines, waiting to see what happens. People are taking their wealth into their own hands to preserve it. I did that too.

Second, it's interesting to note that the market started this latest fall as soon as the so called Stimulus package was passed in Congress........................................................

Read the rest here:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789

[Teresa]

Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action
by A.W.R. Hawkins


State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.

In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of "hope" equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "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."

The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an "ordinance of nullification," which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations now being made.

Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state's right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the "nullification crisis," which witnessed everything from threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs. state's rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional limits on federal power.

This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus bill," federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things.

For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri's "House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama's stated intention to sign into law a federal 'Freedom of Choice Act', [because] 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."

The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, "An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And Retained In Montana."

New Hampshire's resolution actually references certain federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama's administration, according to americandaily.com. Among these are "Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to "cease and desist" in its reckless violation of state's rights. In this way, South Carolina's resolution is typical of the others issued to date:

    "The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina 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 United States Constitution...

    Be it...resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates...beyond the scope of the federal government's constitutionally delegated powers."

What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by limiting the government.

Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government to "cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers." In this way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that are neither enumerated nor denied in the document.

Liberals don't respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress don't hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it. The current push to give Washington, D.C. a voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional. But they press on with it.

Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds. But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function. It is to them this burden now falls. The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they accept the stimulus money, or to reject it.

These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must.

There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our hands.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.

[Warph]

TENTH AMENDMENT - The Tenth Amendment provides that " 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. " U.S. Const. amend. X. As a textual matter, therefore, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). By its terms, the Amendment does not purport to limit the commerce power or any other enumerated power of Congress.

In recent years, however, the Tenth Amendment has been interpreted "to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution." South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 n.5 (1988). Thus, "the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

There are numbers of ways in which the federal government is permitted to secure the assistance of state authorities in achieving federal legislative goals. First and most directly, the federal government may coerce the states and their employees into complying with federal laws of general applicability. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). Second, Congress may condition the grant of federal funds on the States' taking governmental action desired by Congress. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

State judicial and administrative bodies may be required to apply federal law. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 760-61 (1982). The federal government may offer to preempt regulation in a given area, and permit the states to avoid preemption if they regulate in a manner acceptable to Congress. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264, 290-91 (1981).

The federal government has been permitted effectively to compel the states to issue registered rather than bearer bonds. South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 514 (1988). Finally, the federal government has been permitted to require state utility regulators to consider prescribed federal standards in determining regulatory policies. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 765. In the course of the latter ruling, the Supreme Court referred to and rejected the "19th century view" that "Congress has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it." Id. at 761 (quoting Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 107 (1861)). That view, said the Court, "is not representative of the law today." Id. "The federal government has some power to enlist a branch of state government . . . to further federal ends." Id. at 762.

United States v. New York, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), "a direct order to regulate, standing alone, would . . . be beyond the power of Congress." Id. at 176. the Court in New York stated: "whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables Congress to bring state governments within the orbit of generally applicable federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulation." Id. at 178. In the same vein was the Court's conclusion after reviewing the debates at the time of the founding of the Constitution:

We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. E.g., FERC v. Mississippi. . . . The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce. Id. at 166.

Other decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized this proposition that the federal government cannot coerce States into performing the ultimately sovereign acts of legislating or regulating in a manner specified by the federal government. In Virginia Surface Mining, the Court noted that the provision of an alternative of federal regulation rendered federal standards for state regulation permissible; because the State had a constitutional option, "there can be no suggestion that the Act commandeers the legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. at 288 (emphasis added). Similarly, In FERC v. Mississippi, the Court noted that the federal command that the State "consider" federal alternatives was constitutional because "[t]here is nothing in PURPA 'directly compelling' the States to enact a legislative program." FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 765.

"[T]he etiquette of federalism has been violated by a formal command from the National Government directing the State to enact a certain policy, cf. New York." United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1642 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Board of Natural Resources v. Brown, 992 F.2d 937, 947 (9th Cir. 1993) ("direct commands to the states to regulate according to Congress's instructions" "violate the Tenth Amendment as interpreted by New York").

There are good reasons for focusing Tenth Amemdment concern on federal coercion of a State's enactment of legislation or regulations or creation of an administrative program. These activities are inherently central acts of a sovereign; if an area of state activity is to be protected from direct coercion by an implication drawn from the Tenth Amendment, legislating and regulating are prime candidates. "[T]he power to make decisions and to set policy is what gives the State its sovereign nature." FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 761. There is a second reason, also, emphasized in New York itself. Democratic governments must be politically accountable. When the federal government requires the States to enact legislation, the enacted legislation is state legislation. Thus, it will likely "be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision." New York, 505 U.S. at 169. When the federal government itself imposes a requirement on a state official, the requirement is more clearly an act of the federal government and thus does not, to the same extent, undermine political accountability.

The Tenth Amendment view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 107 (1861), overruled by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was that "the Federal Government . . . has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatsoever . . . ." See Brown, 521 F.2d at 841. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison is no longer representative of the law. FERC, 456 U.S. at 761.

[redcliffsw]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789

[Teresa]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789

last 2 paragraphs of above link.................

Our federal government was given limited, specific enumerated powers by the states which formed it - and the U.S. Constitution was specifically written to keep any centralized government in check. As noted, over 90% of our Federal Government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It has become dictatorial, tyrannical, and uncontrollable.

States are finally stepping up to the plate to claim back their rights under the 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people".

[redcliffsw]

Our founding fathers and even ole George Wallace were right on
States' rights.

States' Rebellion Begins to Rumble - by black columnist Walter Williams

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92752