MA Concerned Citizen Submits State Sovereignty Bill to State Rep
Here is an example of true citizen activism.
A concerned citizen from the great State of Massachusetts has taken it upon himself to turn New Hamphire’s bill into one for his State and has contacted State Rep. Elizabeth Poirier about it.
Update: Rep. Poirier is expected to get back with the citizen petitioner sometime next week after reviewing the below.
According to Massachusetts State law, citizens have the “right of free petition:”
Massachusetts citizens are permitted and encouraged to take an active role in the lawmaking process of the state legislature. It is a good idea for a person who feels strongly about an issue to present his or her ideas to a representative or senator. That person may discover that those concerns have already been formulated into a bill which is awaiting legislative action. If not, the citizen is allowed to file legislation addressing the subject. Massachusetts is one of the few states to allow its citizens to do so. This access is called the “right of free petition.”
Although it is not mandatory that a representative or senator sponsor a citizen’s bill, the rules of the House and Senate provide that a petition must be endorsed for presentation by a member before it can be considered by the General Court. Obtaining the support of individual legislators, then, is most advisable.
Below is a copy of the bill…
Update: Per Resist.net:
Thank you for the support. By way of an update, Rep. Poirier’s office had submitted the HR for review by “House Council”. “House Council” said the following:
“They believe that the Resolution is asking for Federal relief and indicated that we have no control over other states or states’ rights. They felt that this was a matter for a Congressional office to handle.”
My reply was that the HR does no such thing and asked for “House Council” to re-read the resolution. Rep. Poirier’s office has resubmitted the HR to “House Council” for further review.
I also sent several other pieces of information including a link to Rhodes on Montana http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2009/02/montana-introduces-resol… and mentioned that we’re up to 22 States now.
More info as I get it.
State of Massachusetts
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, Part The First, Article IV declares that “The people of this commonwealth 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, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.” and;
Whereas the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, Part The Second, Article 1 declares that the people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of “THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”; and
Whereas the State of Massachusetts when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First 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;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:
that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, 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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, 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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and
That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument 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: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as
to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and
That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America 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. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. 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.
II. 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.
III. 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.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- MA State Rep Officially Files State Sovereignty Resolution on Behalf of Concerned Citizen
- NH State Reps Introduce Resolution Reaffirming States’ Rights
- SC Reps Introduce State Sovereignty Bill
- States’ Rights Update: 10th Amendment: Introduced in MA, Passed in TX House
- IN State Senators Introduce “Cease and Desist” State Sovereignty Resolution
Another Mass. resident here in full support of the Petition. I am willing to help in any way to get this enacted in Mass. In fact, let’s establish the “Jeffersonian Party” as a third viable party nationwide.
Another MA resident here. When I saw the list of states considering this, knowing MA would not be one of them, I began deciding which to move to. I am in favor of this movement and would do all I can to help. In the end the state of MA government has become just as corrupt with taxation out of control.
Phil please let me, and the others know what we can do to help spread the word and get this bill passed! I live in Massachusetts, have for all my life and we need to do this as soon as possible, time is short. These reolutions being passed are the strongest action against our unconstitutional federal government that I have seen. And if you look at whats going on right now in the world and our country, this needs to be only a first in affirming our rights and taking back our freedom.
I too live in MA (close to Boston) and love the area but am completely disgusted by the corrupt politicians here. They have even gone som far, in our State constitution, to strip away rights granted to us by the US constitution (i.e., 2nd amendment). I don’t know if this place can / will ever change. I think Deval Patrick must have been cut form the same cloth as Obama, along with David Patterson, Barney Frank, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of these crooks.
Massachusetts, It sounds like you were training ground for Obama tactics. Wouldn’t it be great if this mess the Democratic Party created breaks up their monopoly in your state and people are disgusted with them. Maybe Dr. Orly will have some free time down the road! It sounds awful there, if Republicans are not even put on the ballot. How do people get away with this stuff?
make that 601.
I am in Virginia and when this first came out with NH I sent my delegate an email requesting that Virginia follow suit. I received an email back that was not appealing to me. He didn’t say he wouldn’t but he didn’t say he would.
I have been in contact with people in the state to contact their representatives and have this pushed here.
To I remember: I have to AGREE with you on DEM/rule.
Most of the time when I went to vote, the Republican names were not
on the ballot. You would have to “write in a name”.
Good ole Chappaquiddick TED KENNEDY run’s the state from Cape Cod.
I lived in SEEKONK,MA (NEAR ATTLEBORO) for over 12 year’s.
Governor Mitt Romney was a true Politician, concerned with the
well being of the citizen’s and the State.
When Governor Deval Patrick was elected I decided to leave the
State. There were many promise’s by Patrick that were NOT kept
as soon as he won the election. (sound familiar Obama)
I finally had my fill when he decided to seek “TAXING” the
square footage real estate of every UTILITY POLE that hold’s a
electric line, phone and cable line. This, of course, would only
make the provider’s of these service’s INCREASE their rate’s to
the consumer. (passing it on as any business would do)
WE GET TAXED for so many thing’s that it is hard to keep up with.
NOW, they add a “sur-charge” to avoid saying TAX. (DO THEY REALLY THINK WE ARE THAT DUMB?)
ANOTHER diversion to tax is, “PRICE-IN EFFECT AT TIME OF SHIPMENT”, and of course the “DON’T BLAME ME I DIDN’T DO IT” FUEL-SURCHARGE ………..
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3510 [...]
Look the so called right to free petition in MA is a bunch of marlarky in practice.
There is a big pratical condition: you must get you bill sponsored by someone in the legislature.
Then, the Legislature is notorious for never taking up any bill proposed by a citizen unless it jives with their agenda. Noramlly they do this only to say that “We did not write this bill”. Ofthe they disqualify such bills by saying, “They are not in according with other laws”.
In practice less that 1 in 1000 ever make it to commitee.
Oh, and yes, I am a MA resident and registered voter…Even a former State Superior Court justice holds that the political system here is unredeemable. We have 1 party rule, and it is a tyranny. The speaker of the House rules the state, the Gov. has not effective power. The Democrats/Irish Mafia are the only political entitiy, the Republicans are a motley crew of libertarians and democratic plants, and there is about 7 of them total in the entire legislature.
During election season, Opponents to the Democratic candidates receive regular death threats, and the State Police won’t do anything about it.
[...] MA Concerned Citizen Submits State Sovereignty Bill to State Rep [...]
Geoff,
Not necessarily. Today’s posting on petitioning in Oklahoma is a prime example of this.
-Phil
In any state, you could go to a legislator and ask him to sponsor a bill and file it in a legislature. I don’t see how the Massachusetts’ constitution’s “right of free petition” is any different, since apparently no such citizen-initiated legislation will be filed with the Mass. legislature unless a legislator agrees to do so.
i mispoke my last comment. i meant to say there i have email addresses of about 600 people that might be able to help also. sorry about that. i apologize
me and about 600 people are all for it, in its entirety!! if you need help, you’ll have about 600 willing people!!
Pete,
I am from Mass. and I am with you! Let me know when there is something I can do to help! Thanks for starting this….Mass. needs this for our State!
Pete,
In reality, prior to the Constitution being ratified, per the Confederacy of States, States had inherent rights, and the 10th Amendment was included to stipulate that States have always had any and all rights not otherwise stipulated within the Constitution.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
No states give their citizens any rights. Many states chose not to take away the rights that people are born with – which includes every right affirmed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
All people has the right to petition the government according to the first ammendment
http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-petition-in-the-united-states
dont know if that is different than the “right to free petition”
CAL,
Good question. Definitely something to research out and see.
-Phil
I find this interesting, From http://ginacobb.typepad.com/ If you don’t have Gina’s Blog on your favorites list you should.
I find it interesting because as Obama seems to be in a rush to sign and pass everything all under the same rhetoric as Global Warming (If we don’t act now we will have catastrophe) Individual states are in a rush to introduce sovereignty bills. In Arizona’s, the home of presidential nominee and republican senator John McCain, Gina has this posted,
To me, this is a constitutional crisis, because the states have to go this far to protect their rights. Clearly they feel railroaded.
But I think this is a good thing, this re-balancing conforms to the intentions of the Constitution. It also limits Obama’s powers, just when that’s vitally needed.
Obama’s Eligibility May Become Part of this Fight.
Arizona has some very tough talk, including plans to recall Arizonans serving in the US military to return to Arizona if states’ rights are violated.
“…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state … individual members of the military return to their respective states and report to the Governor until a new President is elected…”
Phil,
What other states give their citizens this right?
[...] Massachusetts citizen petitions re state sovreignty [...]