Posted: 2/8/2009 10:15:43 AM EDT
|
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004
1/22/2009 Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution: House Concurrent Resolution No. 4. A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States. 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 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan's 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. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation. |
| I can see how that could be good however, how about one stating that the State can and will not superceed what is in the US Constitution, specially in dealing with the second ammendment. Kinda a two way street if you ask me. The Fed will not impose mandates on the State that are not in the US Constitution and the State wont mandate greater than what is in the US Constitution. Maybe it makes too much sense for them to figure out. |
|
Quoted:
This is the third state to do this that I have seen. Try TWENTY! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=88218 Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw Posted: February 06, 2009 11:50 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi WorldNetDaily Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level. So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania. "What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND. "Congress is completely out of line spending trillions of dollars over the last 10 years putting the nation into a debt crisis like we've never seen before," Brogdon said, arguing that the Obama stimulus plan is the last straw taxing state patience in the brewing sovereignty dispute. "This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we've ever had in Congress," he said. "A sixth-grader should realize you can't borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration's answer for a stimulus package," he added. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "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." Brogdon, the lead sponsor of the Oklahoma state senate version of the sovereignty bill, has been a strong opponent of extending the plan to build a four-football-fields-wide Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate-35 to Oklahoma, as WND reported. Rollback federal authority The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment. The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress. Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding. In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan). Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959. "We are trying to send a message to the federal government that the states are trying to reclaim their sovereignty," Republican Rep. Matt Shea, the lead sponsor of Washington's sovereignty resolution told WND. "State sovereignty has been eroded in so many areas, it's hard to know where to start," he said. "There are a ton of federal mandates imposed on states, for instance, on education spending and welfare spending." Shea said the Obama administration's economic stimulus package moving through Congress is a "perfect example." "In the state of Washington, we have increased state spending 33 percent in the last three years and hired 6,000 new state employees, often using federal mandates as an excuse to grow state government," he said. "We need to return government back down to the people, to keep government as close to the local people as possible." Shea is a private attorney who serves with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationwide network of about 1,000 attorneys who work pro-bono. As a counter to the ACLU, the alliance seeks to protect and defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values. Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, the primary sponsor of the sovereignty resolution in the Arizona House, told WND the federal government "has been trouncing on our constitutional rights." "The real turning point for me was the Real ID act, which involved both a violation of the Fourth Amendments rights against the illegal searches and seizures and the Tenth Administration," she said. Burges told WND she is concerned that the overreaching of federal powers could lead to new legislation aimed at confiscating weapons from citizens or encoding ammunition. "The Real ID Act was so broadly written that we are afraid that it involves the potential for "mission-creep," that could easily involve confiscation of firearms and violations of the Second Amendment," she said. Burges said she has been surprised at the number of e-mails she has received in support of the sovereignty measure. "We are a sovereign state in Arizona, not a branch of the federal government, and we need to be treated as such, she insisted. |
sadly, I agree.
|
Quoted:
We can only wish and dream. MI (or at least the counties that always determine the statewide Vote) Love Obongo, Granholm, and welfare. They'll be moving out of state when the big 3 inevitably crumble... the big automotive counties are what make us a blue state... look around at the rest of the state during any election and it's a sea of red... people clinging to their unions. |
About time the States showed some backbone. Maybe we'll even get off federal welfare altogether and mandate our own education, agriculture, drug control, and environment (among other things not federal). Sure it may take some time to ween away from the corporate tit, but who knows? I can dream right?
With no checks or balances within the federal government anymore, this is a great sign that Americans still give a shit about freedom. |
| The pork coming out of Washington in this stimulus has some SERIOUS strings attached for the state Legislatures to have to tip-toe through. You guys may have seen the vid between Chuck Rangel and Robert Reische where they were Reische was giving testimony and the conversation was how they could force the legisatures to keep from giving all these infrastructure jobs to white construction workers. No really that's exactly what they were talking about, and how the middle class is too busy feeding their kids to pay attention to it. |
|
Interesting:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus By TRAVIS ANDERSEN, Associated Press Writer CONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn't a life saver. It's the last straw. Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban. In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse's resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote. ...... n January, 22 percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center disapproved of the stimulus. That number rose to 34 percent in February. The survey — which polled about 1,300 respondents — has a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Two lawmakers say they have received hundreds of calls from constituents supporting their resolutions. Michigan state Rep. Paul Opsommer, a Republican, said about 250 people have called or e-mailed to say thank you, whereas most of his bills draw fewer than 10 messages. ...... Some in New Hampshire wish no one had thought of it. Richard Hesse, professor emeritus of constitutional law at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, said Itse's resolution could strip authority from state leaders, as well as from Congress and the president. "When you think about this claim that if a state believes a federal law is unconstitutional it can just ignore it, then I presume if a county believed a state law was unconstitutional it could just ignore it," Hesse said. "Really what's implicit in this is an unwillingness to recognize a lawful authority." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Full article |
|
Quoted:
Interesting: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Some state lawmakers fighting federal stimulus By TRAVIS ANDERSEN, Associated Press Writer CONCORD, N.H. – For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn't a life saver. It's the last straw. Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban. In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse's resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote. ...... n January, 22 percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center disapproved of the stimulus. That number rose to 34 percent in February. The survey — which polled about 1,300 respondents — has a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Two lawmakers say they have received hundreds of calls from constituents supporting their resolutions. Michigan state Rep. Paul Opsommer, a Republican, said about 250 people have called or e-mailed to say thank you, whereas most of his bills draw fewer than 10 messages. ...... Some in New Hampshire wish no one had thought of it. Richard Hesse, professor emeritus of constitutional law at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, said Itse's resolution could strip authority from state leaders, as well as from Congress and the president. "When you think about this claim that if a state believes a federal law is unconstitutional it can just ignore it, then I presume if a county believed a state law was unconstitutional it could just ignore it," Hesse said. "Really what's implicit in this is an unwillingness to recognize a lawful authority." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Full article I guess Mr. Hesse is not aware that it was the States that created the Federal government, and thereby it must answer to them as "lawful authority." Passing State resolutions to re-assert this "lawful authority" is the opposite of "ignoring" unconstitutional laws. Perhaps his membership in the Civil Liberties Union gives him a perspective that coincides with the current administration's plan of enhanced federal control. |