House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

[shagdrum]

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.

"I think our governor is out of step.”

House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”

 

[pepperman]

This is the first time in Oklahoma history that the Republicans have controlled both houses of the state legislature.

 

[luxuryrules]

Yep, because last time there was a secession attempt it worked out so incredibly well.

I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the hilarity ensue. I applaud OK and Texas for standing up for their beliefs, but this is just posturing plain and simple. It will be a good show.

 

[shagdrum]

Yep, because last time there was a secession attempt it worked out so incredibly well.

I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the hilarity ensue. I applaud OK and Texas for standing up for their beliefs, but this is just posturing plain and simple. It will be a good show.

Ahh, this has nothing to do with secession. In fact, these type of acts have been talked about on this forum before. Maybe you should lose the arrogance and condescension; it seems to keep you quite ignorant and leads to you sticking your foot in your mouth.

 

[fossten]

LR, just wait until one of the states puts some teeth in the legislature. You'll see some fireworks all right.

 

[pepperman]

LR, just wait until one of the states puts some teeth in the legislature. You'll see some fireworks all right.

Fossten none of the states have the balls to do it.

 

[fossten]

Fossten none of the states have the balls to do it.

Colorado came within a hair of doing it a few years ago.

 

[luxuryrules]

Ahh, this has nothing to do with secession. In fact, these type of acts have been talked about on this forum before. Maybe you should lose the arrogance and condescension; it seems to keep you quite ignorant and leads to you sticking your foot in your mouth.

Make you a deal - I'll lose the arrogance and condescension when you do. We're all guilty of it. Of course, I don't spend my time insulting fellow board members quite as much as you guys do

EDIT: and I rather enjoy the taste of my foot, thank you. I have even taken to carrying a bottle of Tobasco with which to give it some kick.

 

[shagdrum]

Make you a deal - I'll lose the arrogance and condescension when you do. We're all guilty of it. Of course, I don't spend my time insulting fellow board members quite as much as you guys do

EDIT: and I rather enjoy the taste of my foot, thank you. I have even taken to carrying a bottle of Tobasco with which to give it some kick.

I am only arrogant and/or condescending towards those who are first arrogant and condescending (or otherwise insulting) to me and/or my point of view. I am simply reflecting that arrogance and condescension back at them. And there is another big difference between you and me in this area; You consistently talk authoritatively about things you are very ignorant on; you talk beyond your knowledge, I don't.

When someone talks beyond their knowledge, like you do, arrogance and condescension are a psychologically convincing way of covering up that ignorance. Hitler used that type of deceptiveness-through-arrogance/impudence in a propaganda technique he called the Große Lüge (The Big Lie), except instead of covering up ignorance, he was covering up a blatant lie. That arrogance can add, "a certain force of credibility" to what is being said, and that can be used to cover up your ignorance and rush to judgement without adequate information.

I am not trying to compare you to Hitler, but the psychologically deceptive technique that he intentionally relied on to cover up and give credibility to his lies, you utilize, either intentionally or unknowingly, to add credibility to what you say and cover up for your lack of knowledge and informed judgment.

In both cases, "what is being covered up" and "weather that cover up is intentional or not" are irrelevant. What matters is that it is a means to make what you are saying seem more credible then it actually is. When your argument relies on that for it's credibility (instead of facts and reason), it is a specious argument.

When it comes to the arrogance thing, the ball is, and always has been in your court, at least with me. You treat me and my point of view with respect and consideration, and I will treat you and your point of view the same. You talk down to me, especially through ignorance, and I will shine a light on that foot in your mouth and explain why it is there.

 

[luxuryrules]

Looks like we have a deal, then. I'll treat you as you treat me. I will start by kindly requesting you not insult me, or when you do so please refer me to the instance in which I insulted you.

That said, I would like to respectfully request why you hold the opinion that my statement was arrogant or condescending? I know I have a tendency to do it quite a bit, but in this thread I was just stirring the pot a little and making the observation that there was a fat chance of this actually happening. I don't think I was attempting to belittle you or your point of view? Or perhaps if you read it that way, then please understand it was not meant in that spirit.

Yep, because last time there was a secession attempt it worked out so incredibly well.

I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the hilarity ensue. I applaud OK and Texas for standing up for their beliefs, but this is just posturing plain and simple. It will be a good show.

Basically, I think any student of history knows what happened last time any states tried to secede (and they almost got away with it too, were it not for a few lucky breaks caught by the North ). But really, it's not seriously going to happen, to me the observer it just looks like politicing going on to gain favor with the voters who are disenfranchised with the Administration.

 

[shagdrum]

That said, I would like to respectfully request why you hold the opinion that my statement was arrogant or condescending?

It came across as very dismissive of the whole idea they were promoting, and thus condescending. Combine that with your own admitted tendancy, and it warranted a response, IMO.

Basically, I think any student of history knows what happened last time any states tried to secede (and they almost got away with it too, were it not for a few lucky breaks caught by the North ). But really, it's not seriously going to happen, to me the observer it just looks like politicing going on to gain favor with the voters who are disenfranchised with the Administration.

But, this isn't about succession. The legislation is re affirming the state's sovereignty, which they have under the Constitution, but has slowly been taken away and given to the federal government over the past 200 years. This is, mostly a symbolic gesture. This article By Walter E. Williams, which I posted a while back, explains it much better then I can.

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance -- perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants -- has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "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."

New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) 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." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.​

The goal isn't to remove the state from the union, but to stop and potentially reverse the centralization of power in the federal government, and consequent loss of power and sovereignty at the state and local level.

 

[Calabrio]

This story is HUGELY important!
It's not about gun rights, it's about state's rights.
And it could lead to a huge roll-back in federal power if taken to the Supreme court! Hopefully more states will begin doing similar things.

Apr 29, 2:57 PM EDT
Montana fires a warning shot over states' rights
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...GHTS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
By KAHRIN DEINES
Associated Press Writer

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control - and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states' rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana's leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped "Made in Montana." The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it's illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

"I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress," said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

"Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is essentially indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its "Made in Montana"-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation.

Supporters of the measure say the main purpose is not extending gun freedoms, but curbing what they regard as an oppressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and federal overreach into such things as livestock management and education.

"Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I'd like to support that," said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill's sponsor. "But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It's about state rights."