phinsup

On Wednesday the Oklahoma House of Representatives became the first state legislative body this year to pass a resolution affirming its "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." This resolution, HJR1003, was passed by a very large margin, 83 to 13 on February 18. At least another 20 state legislatures are considering similar resolutions.



The official summary of HJR1003 reads as follows:



A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.



After nine "Whereas" clauses, the resolution concludes with:



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:



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....



I've taken pains to quote from HJR1003's official summary and concluding passage to demonstrate that referring to passage of this resolution (and consideration of similar resolutions by another 20 or so states) as being part of a "State Sovereignty Movement" is quite misleading. The expression "state sovereignty movement" implies that this is a movement among the states to secede from the union and become independent nation-states. However, the texts of Oklahoma's HJR1003 and many other similar resolutions under consideration in other states do not confirm this secessionist implication.



Here's the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:



Amendment IX



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X



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.



It is clear from reading the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the texts of Oklahoma's and the other states' resolutions that are based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that the intent is simply to restore the balance of powers between the states and the federal government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.



This Tenth Amendment Movement, as exemplified by Oklahoma and the consideration of similar resolutions by another 20 or more states, is certainly a most welcome development. As the federal government is rapidly consolidating its usurpation of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, we can readily appreciate the benefit of restoring state sovereignty over those powers.



Here's an interesting video of an interview between Glenn Beck and New Hampshire representative Daniel Itse, cosponsor of New Hampshire's HCR6, "A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles":

j9fd3s

sweet

teknics

THAT is the political news i like to hear.



has anyone here read glenn beck's book, damn cant remember the title, i think it was his 2nd book. I liked it, first political book i enjoyed.



kevin.

phinsup

I'm not a big Glenn Beck Fan.

mazdaspeed7

Let the tea parties begin...

teknics

really? he seems to share lots of your viewpoints... he tends to "seem" radical at times tho



kevin.

phinsup

I really don't see that he supports very many of my views. He's a blind supporter of the Iraq war and of Bush, two things I simply cannot forgive anyone for as they are both huge contributions to the current situation we find ourselves in. I honestly don't see how you can be for smaller gov't, state rights and claim to adhear to constitution and our founding fathers principles and support either of the aforementioned topics, both things are in complete contradiction to our founding fathers and our constitution. One needs to look no further then patriot act to prove bush was the most corrosive thing to our rights in recent times. On the Iraq war one has to look no further then that fact that we fought the revolution, or rather a great deal of what brought it about was to stop Colonialization, which means not being occupied and ruled by a nation an ocean away.



While I agree with some of views and he has recently come around to discussing some of the issues at hand I can't help but wonder where all these guys were when this mess was being created. It's a lot like warning of the dangers of a nuclear bomb after you've set it off. Furthermore I have a complete distrust of the mainstream media in general and he is no exception. He also has a tendancy to say things that don't have a lot of fact behind them, which is no surprise coming from any of our media outlets, don't believe me you can look at the 200 pages on media matters website, then look into the facts for yourself. His blind support of the Iraq war is a great example of his hipocracy IMO and that in itself is inexcusable.



The things he is saying now are merely because it gets him attention, boosts the ratings, etc, etc... The heroes are the ones who have been saying these things from the get go. The ones who haven't stopped saying them and the ones who have said it regardless of the threat to their position or employment.

teknics

I never noticed beck was an iraq supporter...i can say he definitely isnt a bush supporter, altho i dont know where he stood when bush was up for election. Guess i'll have to re-read some stuff. but from what i had seen he seems 100% about state rights, anti-big gov't, anti-bailout, anti-world bank (which he has been talking about for a long time).



His viewpoints are hard to pin down exactly at times as mostly he seems to show examples of how other people think. He pretty much gives you everything and lets you assemble your own feelings on the subject, never really forcing something one way or the other.



i was pretty sure he was anti-iraq but i probably am wrong somewhere. Altho he is pretty anti-look back in time, he acknowledges decisions have been made that we cant change and must deal with rather then going back to "we never shouldve went" he sticks to "this is what we have to deal with now".



i do agree he doesnt match my standpoint 100% but hes the only one i can listen to compared to anyone else ive come across so far.



He's also a big ron paul supporter, whos on his show a lot.



kevin.

phinsup

Again another example of his "doing what's popular" he used to dis ron paul and his supporters all the time during the presidential election. Won't take much research to find his unflinching support of the Iraq war and although he's said some things about Bush on his last day in office he said and it pretty much sums him up "You can leave office today knowing it's a job well done" or something to that effect.



Like I said before he's only recently become a constitutionalist or rather claims to be.

phinsup

Also since were on the subject and I am fairly confident many reading this don't grasp the situation at hand I must admit that the above legislation is in direct contradiction to the Oklahoma state constitution. When the southern states attempted to secede up until that time it was understood that all states entered into the union voluntarily, it was also understood that they could leave at any time. Lincoln changed this and forced all states forced into the union to agree in many cases to change their state constitution to prevent them from any from secession in the future.





Many states have similar provisions in the state constitution and for these states to really exercise their rights under the 10th amendment they may in fact have to change their own constitution for them to move forward on exercising their rights under the us constitution.