The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 5, 2009, 11:01 AM   #1
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
State of Washington declares sovereignty

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009

I'm not sure how this affects gun rights, or if it will affect gun rights at all. I do think it worth following to see how the 10th 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.) works.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 11:18 AM   #2
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
After further reading Washington is not alone.
Looks like issues range from education to gun control. Has the Federal Government usurped more than their fair share of power? Looks like at least 9 states think so.

>New Hampshire
>http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html
>
>Arizona
>http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm
>
>Montana
>http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
>
>Michigan
>http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004
>
>Missouri
>http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM
>
>Oklahoma
>http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009...-federal-power
>
>California
>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/...0829_chaptered
>
>Georgia
>http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1...text/sr308.htm
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 11:23 AM   #3
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,194
The Feds definitely want to grab all the 'power' they can and regulate just about everything. Congress seems to take the attitude more and more that they know more than their constituents as far as what is 'needed'.

Will be interesting to see if these resolutions pass in the various states and even more interesting to see what impact, if any, they actually have on reducing the impact of the Feds.
JWT is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 11:56 AM   #4
kirpi97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
One thing I can say about this bill and its chances of seeing the light of day. About the same chance as a snowball has in h---.

Washington is so beholding to the Federal government for handouts because its leadership has extended various programs to the point they are bankrupt. And we in Oregon seeing how it has worked for them and California, have found it imperative that we follow suit.

As a second note. Notice who sponsored the bill. They do not have the clout to even have a remote chance of getting it to the floor for a vote. My bet, it will die in committee.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson
kirpi97 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 12:53 PM   #5
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
an update.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=87987




WND Exclusive
Legislators tell feds to back off
New speech, press, gun or ammunition limits 'altogether void'
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Lawmakers in New Hampshire are telling the federal government to back off because plans for a federal handgun license, "hate crimes" laws to regulate Christians' speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama's youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to "balance" talk radio are none of them constitutional.

Such plans by the bureaucrats and administrators in Washington, D.C., are "altogether void" and if mandated, "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States," the lawmakers are warning.

The terse alarm is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 6, which has been introduced for debate. It affirms states' rights "based on Jeffersonian principles."

It's not the first such move in the United States. WND reported last year when state representatives in Oklahoma, steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, approved Joint House Resolution 1089 on a 92-3 vote to reassert the state's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and serve "notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

According to DailyPaul.com, a website assembled in support of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states' rights.

The Tenth 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," and also is being cited in the New Hampshire plan.

It states that New Hampshire people "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…"

That means, the resolution states, any "Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government … and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:

* Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

* Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

* Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

* Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

* Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

* Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he wants New Hampshire to be among the states "standing up to the federal government, enforcing the Constitution."

He called the current status in the United States, with federal rules and regulations reaching into virtually every facet of a state citizen's life, "a usurpation by the federal judiciary of the people's right of self-government."

"What I see happening is a growing disregard for the rights of individuals and the rights of the states. At some point you have to draw the line," he told WND.

The resolution then, he said, is a warning.

"If you're in a marriage, and things are going rotten, it's not right just to all of a sudden hand the other party divorce papers. The right thing to do is say, 'there's a problem. Let's go to counseling.' This is in essence telling the general government if you continue down this road – you will have nullified the Constitution," he told WND.

He said New Hampshire lawmakers already have defied the federal government in approving a ban on the Real ID, a government program to stiffen identity procedures.

The New Hampshire resolution points out that New Hampshire was set up as "a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State" and when its residents ratified the U.S. Constitution they recommended: "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."

In a direct attack on federal authority the resolution states: "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

It cites the specific powers given the federal government in the Constitution: to deal with treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

At American Thinker, commentator Larrey Anderson wrote that the plan is pending in the legislature's State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and also is supported by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Tim Comerford, and Sen. William Denley.

"Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution took most of the language from the document commonly known as 'Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,'" he wrote. "The New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state's (and it citizen's) rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution."

He noted a concurrent resolution lacks legal authority as a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature.

"Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious principles that have been the bedrock of our republic," Anderson wrote. "Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world."

Participants in the site's forum page said they were sending information on the resolution to lawmakers in Virginia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Michigan and other states. Several other participants said they wished their own lawmakers had such fortitude.

"At least one state gets it," said one forum participant. "We must free ourselves of that which I firmly believe wants to enslave us, our own government."
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 01:11 PM   #6
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Well good. That makes 9 states total. 41 more and we get this country back on track. (Or is it 48 more? I'll have to ask Obama.)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 02:40 PM   #7
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
I still like Montana's bill more than the others. It attacks the root problem of US Congressional expansion of Commerce Clause law to include anything they want.

A piece of steel, moving from a foundry in one State to another State, is interstate commerce. Once in that other State, whatever happens to that piece of steel is intrastate commerce, unless or until it should then move out of the State.

The feds, on the other hand, insist that once a gun moves in interstate commerce, it is forever more in commerce and they can regulate it.

BullPuckey.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 02:48 PM   #8
405boy
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2009
Posts: 48
Al

Al

I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%
405boy is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 02:58 PM   #9
B-Dubbz
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Posts: 10
I wish Texas would hurry up and get on board with this.
B-Dubbz is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 03:20 PM   #10
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Ya'll forgive me if I am off base... I understood that the fed gov has laws on the books since right after the civil war that make succession illegal and thus sovereignty a mute point and nothing more than pillow talk... I am honestly ready to be set straight so don't think any correction to my understanding will be met with rebuttal.
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 03:51 PM   #11
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
The Civil War made succession illegal. The post-war legalities just tidied things up.

Then again, the United States was founded on illegal activity punishable by death (i.e. rebellion) so we have a long history of showing due regard for such imperial pronouncements.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 03:54 PM   #12
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Let me say, that I'm well aware of current SCOTUS interpretation of Commerce Clause law. Doesn'r mean they are right, just means we have to follow it... Unless a positive majority of States tell them to go do something anatomically impossible.

hogdogs, You are thinking of Texas v. White. The Constitution is actually silent on this, other than the case I cited.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 03:59 PM   #13
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
go do something anatomically impossible.
or in other terms, "get the hell off my lawn".
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 04:00 PM   #14
FALPhil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 933
Quote:
The Civil War made succession illegal. The post-war legalities just tidied things up.
You couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, technically the USA never had a civil war. We had a war of secession. It was not even technically a rebellion.

Second of all, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to force states which voluntarily joined a union to voluntarily leave that union.

Lincoln and his supporters acted in an unconstitutional manner.

Thirdly, there is no provision in the Constitution for using war as a lawmaking activity. That function is reserved to Congress alone.

That being said, the Confederacy acted in a hotheaded manner and should have pursued their actions in federal court, which, at the time, was very pro-states' rights. Of course, considering that Lincoln threatened the members of SCOTUS and their families with bodily harm if they went against him, it may have backfired and reverted to bellicosity anyway.
FALPhil is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 05:42 PM   #15
405boy
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2009
Posts: 48
So are you saying the "Souths gonna do it again?", lol
405boy is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 05:48 PM   #16
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
These things pop up all the time and never go very far. The reason is the states that would like to do it cannot survive a week without federal funding. They would lose not only funding but trading rights with other states. That means no goods coming in or going out. The state would wither and die in a very short period of time.

FYI, if you are going to link stories from WND (a worthless, nutjob blog) people should be able to sight the voices in their head as sources too.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 06:04 PM   #17
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
http://thevoicesinmyhead.com say that worldnet is worthless drivel!
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 06:05 PM   #18
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Dadgum... there really is a VIMH.com...
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 06:41 PM   #19
405boy
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2009
Posts: 48
wow playboy, lol.
405boy is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 07:41 PM   #20
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
The reason is the states that would like to do it cannot survive a week without federal funding. They would lose not only funding but trading rights with other states. That means no goods coming in or going out. The state would wither and die in a very short period of time.
California:
- total payments to the federal government exceed total receipts from the federal government
- has a coastline which facilitates foreign trade
- has an economy variously ranked as the 7th to 10th largest in the world; Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and India survive with smaller economies
gc70 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 07:49 PM   #21
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
California:
- total payments to the federal government exceed total receipts from the federal government
- has a coastline which facilitates foreign trade
- has an economy variously ranked as the 7th to 10th largest in the world; Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and India survive with smaller economies
Even your strongest argument does not work. Who holds the trade agreements that benefit the ports of California? The federal government does. Who buys that vast majority of the products imported into California through those ports? The other states of the union do...that is who. Who buys the oil that comes out of California? The federal government does. Where does California get it's natural gas from? Other states of the union. Where does the majority of California's power come from? From that natural gas it receives from outside the state. And so on and so on...

You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 08:46 PM   #22
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.
As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.

Back to the legal aspect of this thread...

There is a huge gap between war or succession and silent acquiesence to federal overreaching. The trend of states voicing their displeasure with federal dominance may be a small step, but it is a positive one.
gc70 is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 08:59 PM   #23
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.
Not really, they are super dependent on inter-continental sources for power, food, timber, etc. To import them from over-seas would further bankrupt an already failing economy.

You are also forgetting that the only reason they have more going out then coming in is taxes on extremely high income residents. If these residents agreed to succeed from the union they would have to agree to pay greatly increased state taxes for the state government to have a any real money coming into it. They would also have to realize they would then lose one of their major sources of income which is TV and films. Since they would not be exporting these products to the USA as easily profits would disappear.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old February 5, 2009, 10:54 PM   #24
trekkie951
Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Location: BERNE NY
Posts: 47
Shelby Foote(was a living breathing encyclopedia of the Civil War) said that before the Civil War, people referred to the U.S. as "The United States are..", meaning a reference to a collection of independant states joined in a union. and after the Civil War, people said "The United States is...". "the United States are..." is a concept long gone today, and I think its the concept our Constitution was written around. The 10th amendment carried so much more meaning than it does today. i dont know food for thought i guess...
trekkie951 is offline  
Old February 6, 2009, 12:04 AM   #25
El Paso Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2006
Location: Spokane Valley
Posts: 327
Hoo ha and off it goes... I am personally acquainted with a couple of the sponsors (before they were elected). Severe right wing rowdies. But the text of the bill is interesting. I wonder what they wish to accomplish. Don't see any of it changing...

One of the interesting points though, is that the 10th Amendment reflexively refers to the Constitution which can (and does) change. Especially with the Judicial Review (supposedly) granted by the third amendment.

For what it is worth - when I was a youngster (1950's) my Arkansas born and bred forbears believed that the term "Civil War" was reconstructionist Yankee propaganda. It was more correctly, in their eyes, called the War of Northern Aggression.
El Paso Joe is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13308 seconds with 7 queries