Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
swamptiger

MN state sovereignty resolution

12 posts in this topic

There is legislation being introduced in several states where the states are asserting their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. I haven't seen anything about this movement in the news or on tv, so I though I would throw it out there to see what the comments are. My understanding of the legislation is that the states are basically serving notice to the federal gov. that they have had enough of unfunded federal mandates. Text of the 10th Amendment, according to Wikipedia: "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."

The bill before the MN House is H.F. 997 - https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0997.0.html&session=ls86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the feds shouldn't hand down mandates that cost the state money unless they are willing to pony up the funds. But in the long run it all comes from us anyway, so the point may be moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States also make mandates for example in the schools. It all runs down hill you and I still pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of possible implications of this bill. I'm thinking it could be applied to a whole host of issues, such as wildlife management, gun control, property rights, etc. if adopted.

There apparently also is a legal precedent, because I have looked at several of the state resolutions, and several of them cite the state of New York case - "the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112

1.18S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory

1.19processes of the states"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds say if you don't do this or that they withhold money. Such lowering the BAC to .08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is very far from moot. The point is the very real differnce between the political parties. Is it better to have money collected at the Federal level and redistributed back or at the State/Local level and used. The whole thing comes down to a belief. Do you believe that a group in Washington should make more of our government spending descisions for you or would it be better handled at a more local level?

Some believe everything has to be pulled into a single overseeing hign level and then doled out evenly or it will never be fair. The more programs handled from this top level down the better. Others believe the less programs handled at the higher level the better. Federal level should be National Defense only everything else should be determined at a more local level. There is every level of belief between these two extremes. Where do you fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is very far from moot. The point is the very real differnce between the political parties. Is it better to have money collected at the Federal level and redistributed back or at the State/Local level and used. The whole thing comes down to a belief. Do you believe that a group in Washington should make more of our government spending descisions for you or would it be better handled at a more local level?

Some believe everything has to be pulled into a single overseeing hign level and then doled out evenly or it will never be fair. The more programs handled from this top level down the better. Others believe the less programs handled at the higher level the better. Federal level should be National Defense only everything else should be determined at a more local level. There is every level of belief between these two extremes. Where do you fall?

Great point! There is no question it should be handled at the local level. It is what our founding fathers intended. To much power on one level and you get: Over Taxation, Unfairness, misrepresentation, etc., etc.. Kind of like whats going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. But I'd put this having the same chance of making an appearance on the stage as Prohibition II.

Fun to debate, not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The text of the Oklahoma resolution:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE JOINT

RESOLUTION 1003 By: Key

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint 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.

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 laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; 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 AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND 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.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

Every State needs to pass and enforce one of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The text of the Oklahoma resolution:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE JOINT

RESOLUTION 1003 By: Key

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint 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.

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 laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; 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 AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND 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.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

Every State needs to pass and enforce one of these.

Another "war between the states" part 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • I have an old DC drake call that is deadly
    • The only form of alternative medicine that I've found to be effective is the use of leeches.  Treatment is fairly simple but almost always effective.  All I do is take the leech, put it on the end of a hook and cast it into a lake.  I start feeling better almost instantly. I've found you need to repeat treatment on a regular basis for best results. 
    • My Sister in Law died of metastatic lung cancer a few years ago.   She didn't know anything was wrong until it had already spread to her bones.    Lung cancer is one that is pretty tough to cure, since it often isn't caught early enough, among other reasons.  In the case of your mother, I would guess that the reason they didn't complete the procedure was that the cancer had already spread (metastasized) to other places, like the other side of the lung or other organs, or bones.   So it was a terminal situation at that point.   Could a more extensive evaluation, PET scans, MRI, etc spared her the surgery?   That is sure a possibility.  Did the surgery have an adverse effect on the course of her disease?  That seems less likely, although the surgery itself surely was a negative thing.    But in all cases, regardless of what the Chiros claim, manipulation of the spine to align subluxations would have done nothing to affect it at all.  Neither would Reiki,  copper bracelets, Laetrile, or an orgone box.  
    • Ha !..not so... Only bait I might fall for is a cold beer, and a chair at the computer.... #SICKHILLARY
    • Go it, I like the surgeons loop.  going to have to give that a try!   Thanks,
    • I guess you weren't watching during the nominating process.  Sure people are getting on board now.  That is irrelevant to my thesis. 
    • Thanks for the suggestion Hawg. The old window was single pane privacy glass, so all it did was let light in. I kind of figured that this will prob frost up and we have a fan that can put on it. The main reason I put it on there is because I didn't like the idea of having a piece of glass in the V on the traffic side.
    • *chuckle* That didn't take long. "What did you use for bait?" A black dude, Hillary, and a cat.
    • Keep voting democrat, Minnesota.....
  • Our Sponsors