OK State Rep to Reintroduce State Sovereignty Bill
George Mason University economics professor and one of Rush Limbaugh’s fill-in radio hosts Dr. Walter E. Williams posted a July 16, 2008 article on a State sovereignty bill introduced by State Rep. Charles Key that passed the State House but got stopped in the State Senate during last year’s Legislative session and is slated to be reintroduced during this session:
Update: State Rep. Charles Key speaks at the Citizens Assembly for Oklahoma Sovereignty (via Axxiom for Liberty blog).
Update: The PurpleOakPolitics blog is passing along word about getting together on February 28.
Update: NewsOK.com reports on the current situation with this bill.
Update: Dr. Taitz received word from State Rep. Ritze on the actual bill (see below).
One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.
Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.
The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘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 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st 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. That this serve 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.”
Key’s resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.
Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.
State efforts, such as Oklahoma’s, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.
If there ever was a theme promoted by this site, it would be to begin these kinds of initiatives at the State level in the Legislative branch thereof, and go from there.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1003 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
<StartFT>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.<EndFT>
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“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
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
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.
THAT this serve 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 which 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.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.
52-1-5082 <SD> <11/17/08
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
-Phil
[...] OK State Rep to Reintroduce State Sovereignty Bill [...]
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3333 http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=18665 Arkansas [...]
In a comment above, American referred to the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution and then speaks as though that clause and the others he mentions trump the Tenth Amendment. Thomas Jefferson argued (in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798) that that reasoning doesn’t make sense. Jefferson commented: “Words meant by the instrument [i.e., the Constitution] to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”
I would have to agree with american. However, i have felt that a civil war or”war of indipendence” could be possible in my lifetime(age 31 at the moment). I think this current move by these states is for a different reason. Medical marijuana is a good example. California among other states who have passed this bill still have to worry about their citizens being arrested and harassed by federal authorities. the federal government has and is showing their disregard for states to make and enforce and regulate their own laws. And i know, this is just one small example but it is a clear one. Whether you agree with the individuals states laws or not does not matter. What does matter is that we all stand up for our states to be able to pass laws, bills and resolutions as wanted or voted on by the citizens of said state without federal intervention. I live in oklahoma, and i hope we pass this bill. Good luck to all of you in the other states pursuing similar bills.
Well, it’s nice to see at least one person that reads this stuff has some common sense. Keep up the good work American.
These resolutions are meaningless.
10th Amendment says what it says and has since 1791. States are sovereign in some respects, but it is well-established that the Constitution gives the federal government sweeping powers, as found in the Supremacy clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, the Commerce clause, and the Spending Powers.
Yet another case of people touting what they like about the Constitution and acting like the other parts don’t exist.
The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with secession. No states are going to seceed. For heavens sake, after the last election, there aren’t even very many states with Republican majority legislatures.
[...] Oklahoma [...]
How is res ipsa applicable to the Obama situation?
TEST OF STEP ONE TO MILITARY OUSTING THE USURPER:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
The matter is, I believe, beyond the ability of the states. They’ve had 35 years to stand up for state’s rights but, instead, chose to sell them out in return for federal highway funds and other boons.
The military could stand up but this also is unlikely.
That brings us to phenomena of the ‘day after’ the election when gun and ammo sales set a national record.
The issue of what killed the constitution isn’t in the fact that the government corrupted. The founding fathers considered this a given (if allowed). Nor was the nation founded on the idea of one man one vote. To be a voter, you had to own real estate. As in Rome, hundreds of years earlier, politicians used public monies to buy the votes of non productive parasites. When the ratio of producers to parasites reaches 50% (as is the case with us), the body must die as it no longer has the ability to feed the ever demanding wishes of the parasites.
Barring some sort of extraordinary intervention – Civil War is now inevitable.
The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the States. It cannot be modified by one party without the consent of the other.
The decision of the Supremes that a State cannot secede is clearly erroneous and must be either revisited to clean it up, or ignored, in compliance with the 10th Amendment.
It would be an act of self-destruction for the federal government to act forcibly against a State which chose to exercise its clearly stated option to withdraw peacefully from a mutated, lawless, federal behemoth. That is precisely and primarily what the 10th Amendment was intended to allow; an escape clause to allow for the States to withdraw from a power mongering federal behemoth.
The U.S. Constitution is a prescriptive device, allowing only specificcally enumerated powers, and no others…..Unlike Obama’s erroneous fascist/socialist inspired characterization that it is a proscriptive device which only delineates what the federal behemoth is not empowered to do, thus allowing all unenumerated prohibitions as powers unto itself. The latter being, unfortunately, the mindset of most of the treasonous crooks in the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive occupants of that ongoing criminal enterprise east of the Potomac River.
Gordon
Interested,
Apparently, the Plaintiff is trying to get back $700 billion from the original bank bailout:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0079-3 (DC District Court judge’s opinion)
I don’t think this has anything to do with getting at the President’s eligibility.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Anybody have the scoop on this case. This one looks different.
Hyland vs Obama, Clinton, Bush…etc… for $700,000,000
here’s the link at Justia..
but I don’t have access to the details!
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dcdce/case_no-1:2009cv00079/case_id-134738/
Phil,
I agree with you. Wouldn’t it be nice to have had this resolved before the current administration took over? I wonder what the constitutional ramifications will be of the stimulus package if states affirm these rights after the fact?
I truly think as many want the country to divide into pieces. Im sure it will be easier for their bigger agenda. I like the steps Oklahoma is taking to “reinstate her rights”, and hope that other states will see the logic and true loyalty to our founding principles. As many fight across the land for different issues that suit their fancy and they take to their own heart’s passion. I personally in my humble opinion fact based , we need to educate the public as to what our true history is. The indoctrination has been inbreeding since the 60’s apparently. So us students are not learning anything but the goal of the other side only. It takes a step on our own either by coming across friends or stumbling upon some news that don’t make sense or just wanting to know the answer to questions one asks and only tobe given a hard time by it.
I am one of these people , I have been inspired by Dr, Orly Taitz, and Leo Donofrio and Phil Berg. As well as my own intellectual curiosity. Which , now that I see things the way that I do, Im thankful that I at least have some critical thinking left.
The goals of the other side are simple to force us into a new form of slavery and submit us to servitude under the guises of world Unity, one of their favorite code words. The evidence over whelmingly visible. As much as I like to help others and it’s fine to reach out, but Id like to just end this on Charity begins at Home. It seems we have a new battle and “War of the States” again.
Capitis Diminutio”
[...] One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence. Read the full post here… [...]
Phil, I am with you 100% on the hope that true States’ rights would come back but I don’t see much chance of it. As far as the present government is concerned, States Rights died a victim of the Federal atrocities in Maryland during the War, and the nails were put in the coffin at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865.The following quote is from http://www.etymonline.com/cw/maryland.htm The Fate of Secession in Maryland.
“Lincoln’s proclamation calling for militia after Ft. Sumter was received “in Maryland with mingled feelings in which astonishment, dismay and disapprobation were predominant. On all sides it was agreed that the result must be war, or a dissolution of the Union, and I may safely say that a large majority of our people preferred the latter.”
“After the President’s proclamation was issued, no doubt a large majority of her people sympathized with the South; but even had that sentiment been far more preponderating, there was an underlying feeling that by a sort of geographical necessity her lot was cast with the North, that the larger and stronger half of the nation would not allow its capital to be quietly disintegrated away by her secession.”
The federal government felt sufficiently unsure of Maryland’s allegiance that it issued an April 27, 1861, order for the arrest and detention of anyone between Washington and Philadelphia who was suspected of subversive deeds or utterances, with its notorious suspension of habeas corpus. This led to the Merryman case, and the Supreme Court’s failure to get the authorities to enforce its rejection of the administration’s move.
[Gov.] Hicks then called the legislature in the northwest part of the state, where unionism was strongest. Though the legislature did not vote to secede, it approved a resolution calling for “the peaceful and immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States,” which Maryland “hereby gives her cordial consent thereunto, as a member of the Union.” The legislature also denounced “the present military occupation of Maryland” as a “flagrant violation of the Constitution.”
When Roger Brook Taney, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, dared to stand up to Lincoln over the arbitrary imprisonment of Maryland citizens, Lincoln wrote out standing orders for Taney’s arrest, although they were never served.[1] But when the Maryland legislature lodged a sharp protest with Congress, Seward ordered a lightning raid across the state that jailed 31 legislators, the marshal of the Baltimore City Police Force and the Board of Police Commissioners, Mayor Brown, a former Maryland governor, members of the House of Delegates from Baltimore City and County, the 4th District congressman, a state senator and newspaper editors (including Francis Scott Key’s grandson). Ft. McHenry (of “Star Spangled Banner” fame) had a darker chapter in these days as the “Baltimore Bastille.” Many of those arrested by federal officials were never charged with crimes and never received trials.
In the fall, Lincoln arrested allegedly disloyal members of the state legislature (Sept. 12-17, 1861), to prevent them from attending a meeting that could have voted on secession. But Maryland was not really safely in the Union until the November state elections. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested known Democrats and any disunionist who attempted to vote. The special three-day furlough granted to Maryland troops in the Union army, so they could go home and vote, further rigged the election. The result, not surprisingly, was a solidly pro-Union legislature. The next year, state judges instructed grand jurors to inquire into the elections, but the judges were arrested and thrown into military prisons.”The following quotes are from http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm The Legality of Secession.
“A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states — Virginia and New York — made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all. ”
“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will”
“Their being claimed in Virginia’s ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light. “
In Pennsylvania, James Wilson, as the only member of the ratification convention who had also been a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, did the bulk of explaining and defending the new document. He equated the American states with the individuals in Locke’s theory, giving up a part of their natural liberty in the expectation of more good and happiness in the community than they would have alone. “The states should resign to the national government that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which, placed in that government, will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several states.”
And this implied the ability to take it back again. In the proposed Constitution, the citizens of the various states “appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with.”
“A Lockean principle, that any power given can be reclaimed again, echoes throughout the speeches. “If (the people) choose to indulge a part of their sovereign power to be exercised by the state government, they may. If they have done it, the states were right in exercising it; but if they think it no longer safe or convenient they will resume it, or make a new distribution, more likely to be productive of that good which ought to be our constant aim.”
Jeff,
Personally, I certainly hope this is not an issue of secession, but rather an issue of reinstating true States’ rights.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I would not be surprised to see serious secession movements develope in several states this year. It is long overdue. The US is too deeply divided to continue to be one country. It simply is not working. Perhaps Oklahoma or one of the Carolinas will be the first one out.