"Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil."
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (The Message)

Alaska on the Way to Reasserting State Sovereignty

Via TenthAmendmentCenter.com, HR27 (status page) is on its way to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s desk:

In Alaska, House Joint Resolution 27 is “Awaiting Transmittal to the Governor” as the State Senate passed it on April 19th with a vote of 19-0 (1 absent).  The resolution previously passed the State House with a vote of 37-0 (3 absent) – and the revised version passed on the 19th with a vote of 40-0.

Alaska’s page is here; a current listing of State-based initiatives is here.

-Phil

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

8 Responses to “Alaska on the Way to Reasserting State Sovereignty

  • 1
    Jacqlyn Smith
    April 22nd, 2009 01:36

    Good for Alaska—–Maybe we will all need to move there and be under the leadership of a true Patriot and a “natural born” citizen!!!

  • 2
    Palin Could Start the War with Washington | Defense of the Republic
    April 22nd, 2009 09:32

    [...] Right Side of Life– [...]

  • 3
    KJ
    April 22nd, 2009 09:58

    When the Constitution was written, Individual states were self sufficient and could make the sovereignty claim and survive. After all, the South tried it, and would have made it except for the Civil War.

    Today, the infrastructure and commerce of the States is integrated to a high level of interdependence. Declaring sovereignty and backing it up becomes difficult when energy resources are pooled, water is shared, and State economies are specialized.

    Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas all have their own separate electrical grids. Alaska and Texas are relatively prosperous and have enough land and resources to become self sufficient more easily than most other States. Don’t they also have relative large national guard contingents and equipment? It would be easier for these States to declare sovereignty and back it up.

    Alaska is of course physically separate and the closest thing to a frontier in the US today. These unanimous votes imply that Alaska is of one mind on preserving its sovereignty, and it has an independently minded governor. We will be watching.

  • 4
    Phil
    April 22nd, 2009 14:57

    KJ,

    When the Constitution was written, Individual states were self sufficient and could make the sovereignty claim and survive. After all, the South tried it, and would have made it except for the Civil War.

    Today, the infrastructure and commerce of the States is integrated to a high level of interdependence. Declaring sovereignty and backing it up becomes difficult when energy resources are pooled, water is shared, and State economies are specialized.

    There is a huge difference between secession and a re-affirmation of rights that already exist and are backed up by at least two Supreme Court precedents. The 10th Amendment “movement,” as it were, being expressed in the form of resolutions, has to do with rights re-affirmation, not secession.

    Historically speaking, America has always had a debate that will be ongoing concerning the extent of the power and authority that has been delegated to the federal government. It is very smart and wise to never let this debate settle, precisely because any given issue must be weighed against the specifically enumerated powers and authority of the feds, versus the rights, power and authority of the States and the People.

    The 10th Amendment is the “pressure valve,” as it were, to deal with an over-reaching federal government. Do remember that just because the Constitution may not permit Congress to act in a certain way doesn’t mean that Congress won’t try to do said prohibited behavior anyway. Therefore, sometimes via the Judiciary, sometimes via the States, the People must ultimately be the one to hold any and all federal over-reaches to account.

    -Phil

  • 5
    KJ
    April 23rd, 2009 22:45

    Phil,
    I too want to see the powers that be in Washington respond appropriately to the States’ Sovereignty resolutions. However, I feel that it would require a united effort by many States to get Washington’s attention. So far it looks like the resolutions will/have pass(ed) in Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska.

    Forgive me for blurring the line between the State Sovereignty resolutions and secession. We have many options to exhaust before considering secession which would surely lead to another Civil War. Mentioning secession a la Gov Perry may get Washington’s attention.

    I plan to do whatever I can (up to the level of civil disobedience) to help Washington and the US through this mess. Writing letters, going to tea parties, organizing protests, and (if necessary) withholding taxes come to mind right now.

    Washington watching is going to be “interesting” this year.

  • 6
    Phil
    April 23rd, 2009 23:18

    KJ,

    Mentioning secession a la Gov Perry may get Washington’s attention.

    In reality, “secession” was a word used by reporters, not the Governor. Otherwise, good comment.

    -Phil

  • 7
    KJ
    April 24th, 2009 09:05

    Phil,

    It is true that Gov Perry did not say “secession”, but “secede”.

    His words were something like -some may want to secede-.

    Of course the press picked up on it.

    I don’t sit around and think about seceding in the normal course of a day and I doubt that most governors do either. I believe that it is significant that the word crossed his lips.

    Use of <’s blocked out the almost quote.

  • 8
    Phil
    April 24th, 2009 10:26

    KJ,

    It is true that Gov Perry did not say “secession”, but “secede”.

    His words were something like -some may want to secede-.

    Allow me to post what was actually said:

    Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

    That’s a tough call. Obviously we don’t have a verbatim quote, and even if he did use the word (or derivative) “secede,” it appears that it was to acknowledge a frustration on the part of some of his constituents.

    While I agree that it’s a big deal for a Governor to even suggest using the S-word, I think the point was that his office is taking a very serious look at the balance of power between State and federal government.

    -Phil

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.