Should Penna. foll Oklahoma's lead?

[LastManOut]

Oklahoma Rebellion
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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.


Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[WhiteFeather]

Resolutions have no force of law behind them.


The last time Okalahoma tried to pass state sovereignty legislation against the federal government overstepping its Constitutional boundaries, a building got blown up in OKC.
I hope history doesn’t get repeated.

Honestly I like the whole concept of state sovereignty but IF the federal government doesn’t care what is written in the Constitution NOW, do you really think they care about a state resolution with no teeth?

All the Feds will do is IF there is any real move to do anything constructive by any state is throw some cash at the greedy bureaucrats in the state to bribe them into submission.

[Pa. Patriot]

All the Feds will do is IF there is any real move to do anything constructive by any state is throw some cash at the greedy bureaucrats in the state to bribe them into submission.
[/COLOR]

...or blow up another building.

[pex]

Oklahoma pussed out after the release of Heller, even though I'd say it's essentially a continuance of the abuse of state sovereignty until exploited otherwise.

So, no, I don't want PA to write open letters to Congress as house joint resolutions and not back them up.

I do understand that a method like this might be the first part of many steps on "airing grievances" or "asking for redress"...honestly, it feels like a kickback to 'the old days'.

But what we can't have it states not following up. Montana didn't sue or secede, Oklahoma didn't secede...so I am waiting for them to follow up.

[LittleRedToyota]

Montana didn't sue or secede, Oklahoma didn't secede...so I am waiting for them to follow up.

SCOTUS found that the 2nd protects an individual right. this was the outcome montana and OK wanted. so they didn't have anything to follow-up on.

i'm all for states re-asserting their proper role in our system...to whatever extent they are willing to do it. the further they are willing to go, the better, imho...but something is better than nothing.

[dc dalton]

A dog with no teeth isn't much of a threat and that's just about what these resolutions AND the politicians behind them are!

Let's face it, 99% of these so-called state politicians would be the first to bitch and whine if they feds stopped giving them money. They have become as much a part of the problem as the feds have for the simple fact they STILL don't understand its OUR money they are flushing down the toilet with each stupid assed pet project they want funded. They CAN'T manage money, hell I'd be amazed if they could balance their checkbook without an accountant.

First things first EVERYONE (state and federal level) needs to eliminate every stinking department, grant and office that is wasting OUR money.

Secondly we then put some REAL WORLD bean counters in charge of all the money the government offices now spend and they need to look at what we are paying for things against what the REAL world pays for them! NO MORE $20 3/8 hex nuts, its a crock of shit and they know it!

Then we need to get the rest of the world off our tit! No more "here's a billion just because we like you" crap!

Lastly we then start bringing home most of the troops that are stationed in over 120 countries, close the damn bases down, sell them off and be done with it.

Its not a "state" thing or a "federal" thing in my mind, its the fact that these politicians have lost ALL touch with the real world.

So would I want PA to follow OK? Nope, not unless OUR politicians really show there teeth and then follow through with it, stop all the waste and nonsense in OUR state and get back to basics.

OK, that's my rant for the week .... resume normal broadcasting

[pex]

SCOTUS found that the 2nd protects an individual right. this was the outcome montana and OK wanted. so they didn't have anything to follow-up on.

i'm all for states re-asserting their proper role in our system...to whatever extent they are willing to do it. the further they are willing to go, the better, imho...but something is better than nothing.

No, the SCOTUS did not find that. The SCOTUS said that, an unfortunate dicta that may never be valuable.

Of course Montana has something to follow up on. Is the '86 machinegun ban still in effect? That's certainly an abridgment to the compact Montana and the US made. That's only one example and all that Montana should need.

[LittleRedToyota]

No, the SCOTUS did not find that. The SCOTUS said that, an unfortunate dicta that may never be valuable.

yes, they did hold that the 2nd protects an individual right. it was not just dicta...

from the ruling:

Held:

The Second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with unconnected with service in militia...

it is the very first thing stated in the "Held" section (on the first page of the opinion). and it can't really be stated any more clearly.

of course, they also held that that individual right is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. i don't like that either, but they did still (very clearly) hold that the 2nd does protect an individual right...which is what MT threatened to secede over (if they had not held that).

Of course Montana has something to follow up on. Is the '86 machinegun ban still in effect? That's certainly an abridgment to the compact Montana and the US made. That's only one example and all that Montana should need.

maybe, but MT never threatened to secede over the machine gun ban. they threatened to secede if SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd did not protect an individual right. and SCOTUS did not rule that...so, therefore, there was nothing for MT to follow-up on regarding their threat to secede.

now, i'd also love to see MT (or any other state) threaten to secede if the machine gun ban is not repealed, but they never did that...at least not that i am aware of.

[pex]

maybe, but MT never threatened to secede over the machine gun ban. they threatened to secede if SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd did not protect an individual right. and SCOTUS did not rule that...so, therefore, there was nothing for MT to follow-up on regarding their threat to secede.

Don't you find that a bit silly to say? "There's an individual RKBA but it doesn't apply."

I'm telling you that SCOTUS says there is an individual right but that's really just a front for the actual lack of that right. That would be the difference between saying it and finding/holding it. They can put the words 'held' there all they want, but the truth is -- any abridgment means it's actually meaningless to say the individual right is there.

Therefore, Heller did not satisfy Montana.

[LittleRedToyota]

Therefore, Heller did not satisfy Montana.

heller did not satisfy you.

heller did not satisfy me either.

and heller prolly did not satisfy montana for that matter.

however, heller did meet the condition montana specified for not seceding from the union.

perhaps montana should have set a different, more substantive conditition, but they did not.