Washington reminds itself about the 10th Amendment.
New Hampshire reminds itself about Jeffersonian principles of states' rights.
We shall see if these amount to anything more than high-sounding words.
[Via Nolan Chart and Nolan Chart]
UPDATE: And Arizona...
Wow. . . Is this the beginning of the end of the Union? Who would ever have thought things would get this far?
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think of where this will go when the Fed trys to push back. More and more I think Obama is our first Black POTUS and he will be our last as a union. . .
I think the New Hampshire lege is holding hearings on their resolution tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Montana's bill regarding the 2nd Amendment, and their refusal to submit to Federal Gun Laws for weapons and ammunition manufactured within Montana for use solely in Montana.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it's about damned time the States woke up and realized what un-Constitutional really means. If nothing else, those in power in each State do not want to lose power to the Feds - they'd rather retain that power for themselves.
The advantage to this is - even if the State's Officials abuse their power, it is far easier to bring them to task at a State level than it is to do so at a Federal level.
Personally, I'm all for encouraging this kind of behavior on a more universal basis amongst the states, and am considering sending copies of the three documents from Montana, New Hampshire, and Washington State to my State Legislators along with a request that they do something similar.
This opens a whole new front in the war against Tyranny in my opinion, one that is far easier for those of us in more liberty-leaning states to wage successfully.
III
Triptyx I did just that and sent links to my state senator asking when MA would stand up to the Feds
ReplyDeleteNew Hampshire's resolution has sand. It is written in straightforward, powerful and beautiful language. The others are lofty words--and better than nothing--but lack the forceful "or else" a bully needs to hear.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Oklahoma:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/02/04/other-sovereignty-bills/
Double also;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/hcr13.htm
Missouri.
This is a wait and see the way I see it. OK did this last year and I haven't heard or seen anything come of it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the various state legislatures are taking the temperature of the body politic and find within it a fever of liberty and resistance to tyranny.
ReplyDeleteThey are being dragged along by the temperment of their constituents. These legislatures are not in the lead on this sentiment, but are following the bent of their constituencies. That is a good thing.
We won't know if they mean it, until the Feds overstep the warnings. At that point the states so stating their non-compliance will either arrest and try the agents of the offending federal agency, even if it means armed conflict or they will roll over.
I'm betting roll over, but hope I am wrong.
The showdown is inevitable, because the federal government has been too long trained by us to expect only words of resistance and not acts of resistance. Therefore they will overstep. I pray we are not found wanting as men who would be free.
"I pray we are not found wanting as men who would be free."
ReplyDeleteAmen, brother.
This is not the final word, but it is a beginning...and that's encouraging. The idea has to start somewhere. Resistance does not spring fully formed from a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteThe rest is up to us.
We are responsible for preserving the Constitution. We are Sovereign Citizens. If we wait for someone else to act, or expect someone else to preserve our freedom, we deserve what we get.
Nobody said it would be easy or sacrifice free. After all, our Founders pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.
Can we do less?
Hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThis is right up there with all the state legislatures raising the legal age of alcohol consumption to 21 years of age in order to maintain the flow of cash from the federal government to the states. So if you are 18-20 years of age you are a "semi-citizen", with the right to vote, pay taxes, fight and die for your country, die for your crimes, serve on a jury and decide that someone else should either die for their crimes or have their liberty deprived, but you cannot legally purchase a beer, and in many states you cannot either purchase or carry a handgun and the ammunition for the handgun.
Ain't liberty grand?
When someone decides that it is "reasonable" to impose major restrictions of the rights of those over 65 year of age because it is really impossible to determine whether their mental faculties are comparable to someone 21 years of age then Brady laws will then begin to make sense. After all, none of us are responsible enough to handle one of those gun things. Someone might get hurt - the children!
Washington State is sending that to the feds.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap!
it's official, i'm looking for work in NH, and when i find it, i'm never looking back.
ReplyDelete"Washington reminds itself about the 10th Amendment."
ReplyDeleteBut hopefully does not forget about the 5th.
"Washington State is sending that to the feds."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is just proposed. And none of the sponsors come from Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Redmond, or Olympia -- most of the state population. Only one of them has a district touching part of Spokane -- the second largest city in the state -- and it doesn't include much of the city. Washington's "liberal" reputation comes from the first noted cities; the rest of the state is quite a bit more conservative but is swamped by the big cities.
Good turnout for the hearing today in NH.
ReplyDelete"For the first time in my adult life I'm proud to be an American"
::snerk::
for more info:
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2009/02/public-hearing-on-hcr-6-aar.html