Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The State Sovereignty Movement - Prelude To A Constitutional Showdown?

After having their faces rubbed in the dirt for decades, some state governments are now deciding to start pushing back. Fourteen state legislatures have now either passed or have introduced bills to publicly declare their state's sovereignty as set out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Analysts expect anywhere from another ten to twenty states to introduce similar measures by the end of this year.

Can individual American states declare their sovereignty and tell the federal government to back off?

You bet they can. In fact, the Constitution was designed to give the individual states enormous power.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following:

"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."

Now, Oklahoma's House of Representatives has become the first state legislative body to actually pass a state sovereignty resolution this year.

House Joint Resolution 1003 was passed on Feb. 18 by a vote of 83 to 13. The text of the resolution reads as follows:

"That the State of Oklahoma hereby claims 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 Constitution of the United States."

In other words: "Federal government - step off!"

But Oklahoma is far from being alone. The state sovereignty movement is literally sweeping across the United States.

Let's take a look at what some of the resolutions say in the various states where they have been introduced.....

The preface to the resolution in Montana expresses concerns about attacks on the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

Missouri's version takes aim at the Federal Freedom of Choice Act:

"Whereas, the Federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law enacted, adopted or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future...the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all power and hereby declare our 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 Constitution of the United States."

The Arizona version of the resolution is very broad:

"That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."

The resolution that has been introduced in New Hampshire (Concurrent Resolution 6) may be the most forceful of all:

"...any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive order of the President...which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution...shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the [Federal] government."

So is this just the latest political fad?

Will the resistance of the states amount to anything more than symbolic gestures?

Is this the beginning of a Constitutional crisis?

Could some states actually consider secession in the future?

Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to watch.....



  1. just curious, why did none of these pop up during George Bush's administration? Did these states not feel that he was infringing upon their rights?

    Don't get me wrong, if a state feels the need to express their sovereignty, good for them. But is it simply a conservative reaction to Obama? or are they truly concerned about their sovereignty?

  2. I think you have a bigger problem here then Mr. Obama being ineligible for the Presidency. Okay, it has surfaced that he is not constitutionally eligible to be President, but why was he put forward as a candidate, and who did it?

    Mr. Obama sought office, but you don't succeed in politics unless you are endorsed by a very select group of people. Mr. Obama certainly knows that he is not eligible to be President, but he has gone along with an oligarchy that has endorsed him by flatteries. It is this group of people that is your problem; they are the ones who disregarded the constitution by putting a man forward they know is not eligible. Why did they do this?

    Certainly the powers that be, including Supreme Court Justices know about this. So why the blatant disregard for the constitution, and why put Mr. Obama forward? What is their agenda?

    I believe Mr. Obama is only a pawn in a much bigger scheme of bringing down the United States as a power, the only country that has the power to withstand the Antichrist economically and militarily. They start this by destroying the economies of the world, which they are presently doing, and by doing so, bring the United States to its knees economically. ...So that they, the power Elite, can bring in their own economic system, that does not include U.S. sovereignty over their own economy and currency. This is why they are currently printing massive amounts of money(trillions), to kill the economic power of the U.S. This has been planned to the last detail for some time.

    They intend to bring about a massive hyperinflation, to drive down the value of the dollar, so that you will need a wheel barrel full of money in order to acquire just the very basic necessities of life. To use secular media to show this... view this. I have addressed who they are here. It's a bit of reading, but it is who they are that put him forward.

    So why did they pick Mr. Obama? Their can only be one reason, and the only reason I can think of is:

    If during an international crisis, that requires an immediate military response, especially an armed nuclear response, if just before an planned, supposedly terrorist incident, it surfaces through the media, and then through the courts, that he is actually not eligible to be President, and is therefore not qualified to be Commander and Chief of the Armed forces (meaning the military cannot take orders from him)...well then you have a dilemma don't you?

    Would not the enemies of the United States (that oligarchy I mentioned) use this opportunity to attack mainland U.S. when they are most vulnerable and without leadership that can foment a response to an attack? There can be no counter-attack, if you have no President, or his Vice President, or Secretary of State etc. that can direct the military, and the military cannot act on their own.

    So the speaker of the house becomes President...a known pacifist who will not order an attack in response. Am I the only one seeing this? Mr. Obama will not be eligible to order the military to do anything to defend the United States, leaving vulnerability to a devastating attack. So what will the U.S. be able to do in response to an enemy with their military in limbo? (The economy will be completely destroyed, and the military rendered inoperable)

    If an attack is to occur, it will happen during a time of vulnerability and no leadership...a time when there can be no immediate armed response.

    World governments shall soon come down, and be replaced by an oligarchy of a very select group of elite individuals, who will be headed by one man in a global government.

  3. Obama gamed the entire system during the primary by cheating in an overwhelming and organized way to circumvent the system and the will of the American voters. He has not proven that he has any record of accomplishment whatsoever aside from signing on or appropriating other people's work and legislation as his own. We now have the Chicago combine in the White House. It's NOT just a conservative "reaction" to Obama. If the media will not report what this man actually is and has actually done then states have no choice but, to stop his rampant bullying and ridiculous no knowing policies and take matters into their own hands.

    Americans want a voice in their government. Under Obama he will get away with murder and nobody will even mention it to the American people in our media in any meaningful way. America you have been had. I applaud this movement. Anything to take back our rights. There is nothing constitutional about this thug taking over a party and then the White House with so much hot air. The people did not have an opportunity to speak and be heard. They were NOT informed so they could make decisions wisely. This was not an accident.

    I hope more states will join this movement. Obama and his minions need to be shown that Americans are not going to be bullied into his "by any means necessary" visions of grandeur. This man is NOT my president as he did not get there by means of fair reflection at all. He is a puppet and a bully.

    I am proud of Oklahoma for standing up to someone who wants to take our rights away and has proved it over and over again.