There ‘is’ a rebellion – ‘in America’, a new Civil War to undo the loss of State Sovereignty that has happened over the last 100 years. Since the 17th amendment of 1913, the incremental abandonment by the fed of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the peoples and “STATES RIGHTS” has existed. This is due to the destruction of the “American Federal Constitutional Republic” and representative government, and then the subsequent introduction of the tyranny of a Federal Democracy. This all began in 1913 folks!
By de Andréa
So what rights and powers do the states actually have according to the U.S. Constitution??? The States actually have any power that the Federal central government is not allowed in the main body of the U.S. Constitution. 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." In short, if a power cannot be found written in the U.S. Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Government, it then belongs to the States or the people, “the common citizens” or and of the many States.
The most violated parts of the U.S. Constitution by the Federal Government since the bill of rights were signed into law at the constitutional convention is the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Ninth is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
The States may finally be revolting in mass - to take back the power that the Fed has surreptitiously and incrementally stolen from the states. The states are one by one, becoming ‘referees’ of the feds' constitutionality.
A new proposal would let state committees review Federal legislation for nullification something in my opinion, the useless U.S. Supreme Court has neglected to do.
So far two states have introduced legislative plans that would set up standing commissions whose members would be tasked with reviewing "all existing federal statutes, mandates, and executive orders" to determine their constitutionality, then recommending to lawmakers whether that state should "nullify" any federal law or regulation "that is outside the scope of the powers delegated … to the federal government.” If one fully understands the ramifications of this endeavor, one could see up to 80% of the Federal Government dissolved, as well as the majority of federal law nullified, HOT DOGGY! There may be hope for this country yet…
28 more states are considering the same move. Sometimes there have been inquiries from lawmakers; and sometimes the requests for information and help have come directly from the governors' offices.
This is a huge leap beyond what already has developed among the states whose officials are telling Washington to back off on individual issues ranging from state marijuana laws, Federal anti-gun laws, National Guard control, and the imposition of Obamacare.
Already introduced in Montana and Arizona, the legislation is from The Patriots Union, a Wyoming-based organization that is taking in hand the battle against what it considers an overreaching and tyrannical federal government.
In Arizona, the bill already has overwhelming been approved 5-2 in committee, and it is now headed up the ladder in the state legislature. "Our view is we must save the states first, in order to save this nation. So that's where we focus," spokesman JB Williams said in an e-mail to me after and inquiry about the program.
Barbara Ketay, head of the organization's Constitutional Justice Division, was integral in researching and drafting the proposal, which was distributed to members of state legislatures where it now either has been introduced or is being developed.
She said her proposed legislation has options for states to describe the size and composition – or even designation – of their individual state commissions. But the focus is the rights of the states which, according to the U.S. Constitution, includes everything not specifically assigned to the federal government. "This is not anything new," she said "We just reiterated the power that the states have always had.” But she said “over the past 70 to 100 years, the "federal government has been encroaching on the rights and responsibilities of the states."
Bills such as those to nullify Obamacare or federal firearms rules are all fine, she noted. But this is a "broad sweeping bill" that will cover almost any dispute that a state would have with the federal government,
Potential to address issues
"This bill has the potential" to address a large number of issues, she said. "States have to realize they are sovereign under the law. They have a compact with the federal government. The federal government was established to serve at the pleasure of the states."
In Arizona, the "USPU Nullification Act" was introduced as SB 1433 by Sen. Lori Klein, and it's being support by several cosponsors already. It first was introduced in Montana, where House Bill 382 is sponsored by Rep. D. Skees. "If passed, the bill reasserts the states' right to nullify any federal statute, executive order or judicial intrusion which the state legislature deems unconstitutional and abusive toward the states or the people of the states," the Patriots Union explained. In other words the States are having to the the Job that the U. S. Supreme Court is charged with. The project was helped along by the work of Stand Up America, the organization run by Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely.
According the Patriots Union, "The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states' interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate. (This was the end of State representation and the beginning of a pure Democracy) "Since then, all branches of the federal government have increasingly acted against the best interests of the states and the people, reaching farther and farther beyond the scope and authority granted them in the U.S. Constitution and today, the federal government functions with utter disdain for both states' and individual rights."
The explanation continued, "With no legitimate venue available in which to demand redress of grievances in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the federal government at present, we have determined that the people of each state, via their elected stated officials, must take broad but specific state measures to force the federal government to live within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and the enumerated powers."
Prohibits 'infringement' of rights
In Montana, the proposal is "an act prohibiting infringement of the state of Montana's constitutional right to nullification of any federal statute, mandate, or executive order considered unconstitutional."
It specifically repudiates the federal belief that the "Commerce Clause," the "Necessary and Proper Clause" or the "General Welfare Clause” as foundations for complete federal control over the many states.
"Congress and the federal government are denied the power to establish laws within the state that are repugnant and obtrusive to state law and to the people within the state," it states. "[This act] serves as a notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist all activities outside the scope of the federal government's constitutionally designated powers."
Arizona's calls for its secretary of state to "transmit copies of this act to the legislatures of the several states to assure that this state continues in the same esteem and friendship as currently exists and that this state considers union for specific national purposes and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states."
It also specifies that the President of the United States, The President of the Senate (the vice president), Speaker of the House and members of Congress be notified of the plan. They both provide that if adopted, their state committees, "may recommend for nullification existing federal statutes, mandates and executive orders enacted before the effective date of this section.” Following the committees' recommendations, the state legislatures would vote on the validity of the federal action.
'Of no effect'
"Until the vote, the issue in question is of no effect. If the legislature votes by simple majority to nullify any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order. Further, the "committee shall ensure that the legislature adopts and enacts all measures that may be necessary to prevent the enforcement …"
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government, Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers ... a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
A multitude of nullification acts are already in the works across the nation on issues ranging from firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, a rejection of Washington's mandates on cannabis laws and even Obamacare.
Center founder Michael Boldin said the idea that states would reject a Washington demand is not radical, it's reasonable. He said what's radical is "the idea that the federal government can be the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers."
28 more states are considering the same move. Sometimes there have been inquiries from lawmakers; and sometimes the requests for information and help have come directly from the governors' offices.
This is a huge leap beyond what already has developed among the states whose officials are telling Washington to back off on individual issues ranging from state marijuana laws, Federal anti-gun laws, National Guard control, and the imposition of Obamacare.
Already introduced in Montana and Arizona, the legislation is from The Patriots Union, a Wyoming-based organization that is taking in hand the battle against what it considers an overreaching and tyrannical federal government.
In Arizona, the bill already has overwhelming been approved 5-2 in committee, and it is now headed up the ladder in the state legislature. "Our view is we must save the states first, in order to save this nation. So that's where we focus," spokesman JB Williams said in an e-mail to me after and inquiry about the program.
Barbara Ketay, head of the organization's Constitutional Justice Division, was integral in researching and drafting the proposal, which was distributed to members of state legislatures where it now either has been introduced or is being developed.
She said her proposed legislation has options for states to describe the size and composition – or even designation – of their individual state commissions. But the focus is the rights of the states which, according to the U.S. Constitution, includes everything not specifically assigned to the federal government. "This is not anything new," she said "We just reiterated the power that the states have always had.” But she said “over the past 70 to 100 years, the "federal government has been encroaching on the rights and responsibilities of the states."
Bills such as those to nullify Obamacare or federal firearms rules are all fine, she noted. But this is a "broad sweeping bill" that will cover almost any dispute that a state would have with the federal government,
Potential to address issues
"This bill has the potential" to address a large number of issues, she said. "States have to realize they are sovereign under the law. They have a compact with the federal government. The federal government was established to serve at the pleasure of the states."
In Arizona, the "USPU Nullification Act" was introduced as SB 1433 by Sen. Lori Klein, and it's being support by several cosponsors already. It first was introduced in Montana, where House Bill 382 is sponsored by Rep. D. Skees. "If passed, the bill reasserts the states' right to nullify any federal statute, executive order or judicial intrusion which the state legislature deems unconstitutional and abusive toward the states or the people of the states," the Patriots Union explained. In other words the States are having to the the Job that the U. S. Supreme Court is charged with. The project was helped along by the work of Stand Up America, the organization run by Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely.
According the Patriots Union, "The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states' interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate. (This was the end of State representation and the beginning of a pure Democracy) "Since then, all branches of the federal government have increasingly acted against the best interests of the states and the people, reaching farther and farther beyond the scope and authority granted them in the U.S. Constitution and today, the federal government functions with utter disdain for both states' and individual rights."
The explanation continued, "With no legitimate venue available in which to demand redress of grievances in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the federal government at present, we have determined that the people of each state, via their elected stated officials, must take broad but specific state measures to force the federal government to live within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and the enumerated powers."
Prohibits 'infringement' of rights
In Montana, the proposal is "an act prohibiting infringement of the state of Montana's constitutional right to nullification of any federal statute, mandate, or executive order considered unconstitutional."
It specifically repudiates the federal belief that the "Commerce Clause," the "Necessary and Proper Clause" or the "General Welfare Clause” as foundations for complete federal control over the many states.
"Congress and the federal government are denied the power to establish laws within the state that are repugnant and obtrusive to state law and to the people within the state," it states. "[This act] serves as a notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist all activities outside the scope of the federal government's constitutionally designated powers."
Arizona's calls for its secretary of state to "transmit copies of this act to the legislatures of the several states to assure that this state continues in the same esteem and friendship as currently exists and that this state considers union for specific national purposes and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states."
It also specifies that the President of the United States, The President of the Senate (the vice president), Speaker of the House and members of Congress be notified of the plan. They both provide that if adopted, their state committees, "may recommend for nullification existing federal statutes, mandates and executive orders enacted before the effective date of this section.” Following the committees' recommendations, the state legislatures would vote on the validity of the federal action.
'Of no effect'
"Until the vote, the issue in question is of no effect. If the legislature votes by simple majority to nullify any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order. Further, the "committee shall ensure that the legislature adopts and enacts all measures that may be necessary to prevent the enforcement …"
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government, Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers ... a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
A multitude of nullification acts are already in the works across the nation on issues ranging from firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, a rejection of Washington's mandates on cannabis laws and even Obamacare.
Center founder Michael Boldin said the idea that states would reject a Washington demand is not radical, it's reasonable. He said what's radical is "the idea that the federal government can be the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers."
BOTTOM LINE: Maybe there is hope after all…What is interesting here, are the possibilities of action and reaction. This is something I am sure those in the fed have thought of, or maybe dreaded the thought of. If one would use the advantage of history to play out this scenario, in a lot if ways it becomes quintessential and less problematic, a series of actions by the states and subsequent reactions by the fed. At the risk of over simplification I can see something like this happening…
The States ignore or nullify the illegal and unconstitutional federal laws. The Fed threatens the States with the loss of federal funds, a tool the states didn’t have in the last Civil War. The States threaten cession and cut off personal Federal income tax revenue, again a tool that didn’t exist in the last Civil War. The Fed threatens Martial law. The States say bring it on, and the civil war begins. Any way it goes, this should be interesting…
The States ignore or nullify the illegal and unconstitutional federal laws. The Fed threatens the States with the loss of federal funds, a tool the states didn’t have in the last Civil War. The States threaten cession and cut off personal Federal income tax revenue, again a tool that didn’t exist in the last Civil War. The Fed threatens Martial law. The States say bring it on, and the civil war begins. Any way it goes, this should be interesting…
Keep your powder dry, de Andréa
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment