BirtherReport.com found the following video of LA State Senator A. G. Crowe further explaining his thoughts on his State’s recently-introduced eligibility bill:
GeorgetownJD forwarded me information on SCR11-003 out of Colorado (click on the link, then select “Senate Concurrent Resolutions 001-004″ from the drop-down menu, click “Go,” and then click on history for SCR11-003).
It is a State constitutional amendment that, if passed by the legislature, would be a referendum whereby Coloradans would vote, in a majority, for the amendment.
If the referendum were enacted, then any public officer elected in Colorado would have to provide proof of citizenship (the bill provides for a number of options) and, if they fail to do so, their position would subsequently be deemed vacant.
In Oklahoma, SB91 is said to be on the precipice of being passed by the House (it has already passed that State’s Senate).
Great news: OK house majority leader Dan Sullivan and Kris Steel released Presidential certification bill SB 91 for the full vote of the House on Wednesday. This bill is expected to pass easily and become law within 5 days
The bill’s research analysis:
The CS for Engrossed SB 91 requires each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any election to provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office sought and requires candidates for the nomination for President to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board and directs that copies of such documents be made available by the Board for public inspection.
If passed, the law would become enacted as of November 1, 2011.
Lots of activity has been happening at the State level since the re-launch of The Right Side of Life.com concerning push-backs on health care, the Second Amendment, and illegal immigration (most updates via the TenthAmendmentCenter.com blog):
Louisiana’s Sen. A. G. Crowe introduced SC 2 Apr. 27. It was favorably reported out of committee [5/6/09] and is awaiting a floor vote.
On the 2nd Amendment front, a California case that percolated up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nordyke v. King(via the California and Federal Firearms laws wiki), has further adjudicated how the right to keep and bear arms applies to the State and local levels in America. The following is a brief sampling of commentary from across the blogosphere…
If last year’s seminal Heller v. District of Columbia hit the news cycles and the American political landscape like a .375 H&H, last month’s Nordyke v. King was a .22 rimfire. Yet, hardly reported at all by the mainstream press and given scant attention even on the Internet, the April 20, 2009 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealswas nonetheless incredibly important to the struggle for gun rights, and was one of the first downhill consequences of Heller.
In deciding Nordyke, the notoriously liberal appellate court affirmed the incorporation of Second Amendment against state and local governments under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms rather than a right reserved to government-regulated militias, Nordyke took the baton and affirmed that such a right applies not only to the federal government, but to state and local governments as well.
The Ninth Circuit panel took an interesting path to its decision, choosing to apply selective incorporation under the Due Process Clause rather than the total incorporation route pursuant to the Fourteenth’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. At the end of the day, this could be an important and good thing. I’ll try to explain why. Bear with me.
Because of some ambiguity in its creation and some so-called befuddlement among its creators, the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment has always been viewed as a little nebulous. Particularly contentious has been the Privileges or Immunities Clause, perennially subject to debate over whether the clause was designed to require states to ensure their laws applied equally to all citizens, or whether it was to mandate specific substantive content to state law. The former essentially means that whatever the content of a state law may be, it should apply equally to all citizens. The latter is what we’re concerned about here.
…Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain made the court’s position on the 2nd Amendment very clear:
“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”
That’s all exactly correct, of course, but note that the court incorporated the 2nd Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which is how most of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states, rather than through the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. As I noted in an article on the Nordyke case last year, historian Michael Kent Curtis and several other distinguished legal scholars filed a very impressive friend of the court brief on behalf of the Nordykes, arguing that the 14th Amendment “and specifically its privileges or immunities clause were designed to forbid states from abridging fundamental rights of citizens, including those rights in the Bill of Rights.” The Ninth Circuit has unfortunately rejected that view, citing the controversial Slaughter-House Cases as precedent. But in a very interesting footnote, Judge O’Scannlain does note that, “the substantive due process doctrine…appears to arrive at a result similar to that urged by the dissenters from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Slaughter-House.” So we’ll have to wait for another day to see the 14th Amendment restored to its original meaning. Meanwhile, we’re closer than ever to seeing—and enjoying—a fully restored 2nd Amendment. That’s something worth celebrating.
The Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right rather than pertaining only to state-regulated militias. Monday’s ruling, though imperfect, affirms that the Second Amendment applies not only to the federal government, but also to local and state government.
Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, wrote some very promising verbiage into the opinion…
“The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”
So the Second Amendment was not about duck hunting, after all. Even more refreshing is this Judge’s recognition that the real reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace was so that it could fight off their own leaders when appropriate.
Consider this snippet, also from Judge O’Scannlain’s Opinion.
“Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.”
Lawyer blog ArmsAndTheLaw.com opines their opinion of the decision and what could happen, going forward:
On a quick read:
Court incorporates the 2A on a selective incorporation, due process, theory, holding that the right is a fundamental one, deeply rooted in Anglo-American history, and traditionally seen as a natural right rather than a politically-created one. Court declines privileges or immunities incorporation, as ruled out by Supreme Court case law.
Court holds, tho, that the regulation at issue (banning firearm possession, but only on county owned property) was a reasonable regulation, etc..
My read on strategic posture:
1) This means plaintiffs, the good guys, are the ones who can petition the Supreme Court for cert.. They may have won on incorporation, but they “lost” on the appeal overall, and thus are the ones who can appeal further. This is good for them. Defendants are not in control, cannot move for rehearing en banc, or decline to file for cert..
2) It may however make the case less cert-worthy, a little less appealing to the Supreme Court. Not quite so clean an issue, need to reach reasonable regulation which the Court may be unready to do.
UPDATE: Yep, it’s binding in the 9th Circuit. Can be cited in other Circuits, which they would take into account, but doesn’t bind them. Note that “binding” is often more theory than fact, since there are ways to get around a binding decision (distinguish it — facts in this case are somewhat different from facts in that case — or sometimes outright ignore it, or call for en banc review by all the judges in the circuit and try to get them to overrule the prior decision). And a well-reasoned opinion from one circuit can carry weight in others; this one will surely be cited in the Chicago case. And a circuit split, where some circuits go one way and others go another, is a good basis for asking the Supreme Court to take it on and settle the issue.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This shows you how, esp. in the 2A arena, guessing a judge as liberal or conservative, or Demo or Repub appointee, does little good. Two of the judges are Demo appointees. The concurrence, which is even stronger than the majority, and argues that an armed citizen can be an important resource against terrorism, is written by a Clinton appointee.
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
This evening, the Andrea Shea-King BlogTalkRadio show will be interviewing attorney Gary Kreep regarding Drake v. Obama. According to her posting, on May 2, the 9th US Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments for the case. More background information can be found here and here.
Ambassador Alan Keyes once again does a fabulous job of describing the eligibility issue:
Donald Trump responds to Greta van Susteren regarding Karl Rove and eligibility:
Trump is also interviewed by Anderson Cooper:
Franklin Graham is also questioning Mr. Obama, and the White House said they didn’t like his “preposterous” statements:
Trump has some things to say about Robert de Niro and praises Franklin Graham:
Louisiana State Senator A. G. Crowe quite graciously and presciently responds to CNN’s Randi Kaye over his State’s eligibility bill:
Lone GOP Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom was interviewed on WABC 770AM in New York City and thinks that whatever information — such as Mr. Obama’s father — can be found on the long-form birth certificate is what Mr. Obama doesn’t want known (MailOnline coverage):
I wanted to take a moment to once again publicly thank Michael Boldin at TenthAmendmentCenter.com for the great work he’s been putting forth in helping all of us keep up to date on State-based initiatives occurring across America.
While I have been focusing predominantly on the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendment initiatives at the State level, another issue that is near and dear to my family’s heart is health care, especially in light of the federal debate on exactly whether or not and how we should “nationalize” our healthcare system. And while I am categorically against any form of socialized medicine (meaning that I believe it should be up to the individual to make their own health decisions, be they good or bad), as the first referenced link will show, it’s important to remember that the debate can occur not only between the federal government and individuals, but also between the States and the federal government.
In other words, the question of whether or not the federal government should even be considering such a dramatically broad encroachment upon individual lives is just as important as the question of what kind of coverage we think that everyone should have. After all, while the image associated with this posting is an excellent caricature of the issue at hand, you should ask yourself — would you be comfortable with the federal government making your health care decisions for you? (Can you say, “Dr. Obama?”)
Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.
This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.
HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.
Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots. …
Real ID as the Blueprint?
While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.
In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.
Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.
Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.
Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:
“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”
Resistance Left, Right and Center?
Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.
Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard – and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has also introduced legislation at the federal level, such as the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630:
which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.
…as well as Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629:
This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance.
Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed his State’s 10th Amendment resolution:
This week, Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by State Rep. Susan Lynn. The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”
The House passed the resolution on 05/26 by a vote of 85-2 and the Senate passed it on 06/12 by a vote of 31-0.
Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions – Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana – but Tennessee is the first to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Passage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels. Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 36 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.
Since 2007, more than two dozen states have passed legislation refusing to implement the Real ID act of 2005. In response, the federal government has recently announced that they want to “repeal and replace” the law due to a rebellion by states.
Pending legislation in states around the country also includes preventing state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal laws, refusing federal gun regulations, refusing to send a state’s national guard to any duty other than what the constitution authorizes, legalizing marijuana for various purposes and more.
A FIRST STEP
While HJR0108 is strongly-word in support of the principles of limited, constitutional government that the 10th Amendment represents, it is a Joint Resolution and does not carry with it the force of law. But supporters say that this is an important first step to get their message out not only to grassroots supporters, but to the media, and legislators in other states as well.
In additional to calling on the federal government to abide by the constitution, it also states that “a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.”
The final verbiage of the resolution can be found at the referenced link.
the Louisiana State House voted to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (SCR2) which “Memorializes Congress to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Louisiana joins Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho and Tennessee as states where similar resolutions affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution have been approved by both legislative houses.
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona’s secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.
“I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.
“In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.”
Perhaps Gov. Brewer should then explain exactly upon whom does the onus rest to determine presidential eligibility. After all, my own “Candidate Qualifications” category will attest to the fact that, presently, the only thing that a major political party is required to do is to have the candidate sign a self-ascribing document wherein they claim to be eligible. No background documentation, just a signature.
Then this document is formally submitted to a State’s Secretary of State … for official certification.
While she’s at it, perhaps the good Governor can explain the “politically motivated decision” that a Secretary of State already exercises in making sure that ballot access is secured.
Wouldn’t that make a Secretary of State a “gatekeeper” for the ballot?
Gov. Brewer thinks eligibility is a “distraction” (not unlike the liberals in America who think the First and Second Amendments are also “distractions” to statism). She also thinks that the State legislature “has the numbers” to potential override her veto, in which case she’d be “disappointed” if they performed such an action.
For me, I think it’s “disappointing” that we still don’t enforce eligibility in this country.
The Oklahoma State Senate has passed Charles Key’s House Concurrent Resolution 1028 (HCR1028) today.
Introduced on April 29, 2009, HCR1028 is “A Concurrent 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.”
The resolution, which passed the House 73-22 on May 4th, does not require a signature from the Governor.
Congratulations, you Okies. Now it’s time for more States to follow suit.
On May 11, 2009, the Louisiana State Senate voted unanimously in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (SCR2), which “Memorializes Congress to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”
The resolution, introduced by Senator Crowe, passed 32-0, and was received by the Louisiana House on 05-12-09.
From a concerned citizen involved with tea parties, Ohio is showing movement on the Tenth Amendment front…
There is positive movement on Ohio’s State Sovereignty legislation!
Today a concurrent resolution was introduced in the Ohio State Senate.
S.C.R. 13 was put forth as the senate’s version of the state
sovereignty resolution. Among its cosponsors is our very own Steve
Buehrer, who along with five other senators signed on in support of
the resolution introduced by Senators Grendell and Faber. Make sure
you take a moment to thank Mr. Buehrer for his work in support of our
state’s sovereignty. Here is his contact information:
Room #134, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Email: [email protected]
Also, the House version of the resolution, H.C.R. 11, is scheduled for
a hearing before the State Government Committee next Wednesday, May 13
at 2:30pm. There is currently no public testimony allowed, but that
may change before the hearing. Either way, if you have not already
done so please contact the members of this committee urging them to
support the measure. The Ohio Freedom Alliance provides a service
that allows you to email the Speaker of the House and the committee
members quickly and efficiently. You can do so here: http://www.ohiofreedom.com/SLAM/issue.php?issueid=2
Introduced in the South Carolina State Senate on May 6, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (s-794) seeks “to provide that a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Carolina is exempt from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States.”
The bill is sponsored by South Carolina State Senators Bright, Bryant, Mulvaney, Davis, Shoopman, S. Martin and McConnell. They join Montana, Utah, and Texas in an effort to limit federal regulation of guns, and specifically invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments as restrictions on federal power:
“the regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition”
The right to bear arms is famously and specifically referenced in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Alas, for advocates of the right, the language of the amendment gets tangled up in the regulating of militias and the interpretation of commas. Now a multistate movement is trying to find more robust constitutional support in another amendment, which makes no mention of weaponry at all.
The 10th Amendment declares, “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 inspired the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion that swept the West three decades ago, preventing the federal takeover of public lands pushed by the Carter Administration and propelling the self-proclaimed Sagebrush Rebel, Ronald Reagan, to the presidency. Now the Amendment is being invoked by pro-gun advocates to press for state, rather than federal, regulation of gun manufacturers. (See pictures of America’s gun culture.)
“It is part of the populist state-sovereignty movement, the sense there is so much power in Washington,” says Stephen P. Halbrook, a Virginia attorney who has argued several important Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, including, most recently, a successful case overturning the Washington, D.C., gun ban. Halbrook says the Montana initiative had been simmering long before President Obama’s election, which led to reports of a run on gun and ammunition across the country because of fear of new federal curtailment or taxation of gun ownership. “It is a grass-roots thing,” Halbrook says, “not an NRA [National Rifle Association] initiative.” The NRA, however, has expressed its support for the measure.
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.