Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Investors Business Daily via Patriot Post

Editorial Exegesis

"Idaho requires its attorney general to sue the feds if ObamaCare passes while Virginia, the cradle of liberty, heads the line of states in front of the federal courtroom. Somewhere Patrick Henry is smiling.

As the second coming of King George III seeks to impose the leftist mandate of national health insurance on the unwilling American people, the states are once again in revolt. This time they're unwilling to be the colonies of an imperial federal government determined to spend and tax us into bankruptcy while treating the Constitution as if it were bird cage liner. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they risked being hanged by the British crown because they said we shouldn't be taxed without representation? Well, we have representation, and they care not about the people they represent. ...

Not amused is Idaho, the latest state to jump into the fray last Wednesday, with Gov. C.L. 'Butch' Otter signing into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. 'The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' Otter told reporters. 'But I'll tell you what, you got 36 states; that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass.'

Otter shares the belief that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is a mandate to buy health insurance or anything else. ... He believes in the 10th Amendment, in states' rights as defined in the Constitution. All powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people. Mandating health insurance is not one of them. Some would say these states are stepping on Superman's cape, that federal law trumps state law. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that's true only when the federal law has some basis in the Constitution and is not in itself unconstitutional." --

Investor's Business Daily

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Monday, March 22, 2010

It Can Be Fixed

We will need a 2/3rds majority in order to overturn this massive takeover of America's economy.

Chris Stirewalt - Either learn to love Obamacare, or sue to stop it
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the bill passed Sunday night the “reform the American people want.”
Like the president, she assumes that the only reason people reject liberal policies is because fear and ignorance produce bitter resistance to change. What Pelosi meant was: “This is the reform that Americans would want if only they knew better.”

Michael Barone - Health plan means bigger deficits and higher taxes The result is a highly unpopular piece of legislation that has gotten worse with each iteration, driving down the president's approval ratings and threatening an electoral disaster for members of his party next fall. The bill, if it passes, will threaten the economic recovery and make our long-term fiscal problems even harder to solve.

Susan Ferrechio - Senate may struggle to meet House demands
Now that the health care bill has passed the House, Democrats will attempt to make critical changes to the measure through a corrections bill that the Senate will take up as early as Tuesday.

Mark Tapscott - Support surges for Stupak's re-election opponent after abortion funding deal with White House
Looks like Rep. Bart Stupak is already seeing the pushback from constituents to his decision to back Obamacare because President Obama promised to issue a meaningless Executive Order concerning federal funding of abortion.

Michael Barone - The Stupak five seem to make the difference
Did the Democratic leadership need the vote of Bart Stupak and several other anti-abortion Democrats to pass the Senate health care bill? The vote on the rule to consider the legislation suggests they did. The rule carried 224-208.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Channeling Emails

State-Run Media Wrongly Reports Rush Moving if Obamacare Passes: These propagandists just make up their own stories.

Land Grab By the Federal Government?: Government is staging a full-fledged control assault on this country and, as much as I wish this weren't true, we are the ones left to fight it.

It's Simply Delightful to Witness the Democrat Party's Implosion: It's Simply Delightful to Witness the Democrat Party's Implosion

Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns: New details about the involvement of the House speaker's office will likely fuel questions about when the leadership learned of the allegations.

Prediction: Moment of Frustration Will Expose Our Young President: Obama is a big mistake and America is realizing it

Labels: , , ,

|

Friday, February 05, 2010

No One Questions Our Authority

CNSNews.com asked members of Congress where the Constitution gave them the authority to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. They had a variety of answers.

Watch the video here.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Keep Them Reeling!!!

H/T Family Foundation

SB 417, the Senate version of the Health Care Freedom Act, passed the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. This is a BIG WIN! This bill was passed along with two other identical bills, SB 311 and SB 283. The bills should go to the Senate floor and could be voted on as early as Thursday. You should have seen the look on Senator Saslaw’s face when he realized two Democrats on the committee (Senators Colgan and Puckett) voted YES and the bill would pass the committee. Priceless.

Contact Senators Puckett and Colgan today and THANK them for voting YES on SB 417. Without these two Senators crossing the aisle and voting for the bill, it would have died a grisly death in the committee.
Senator Charles J. Colgan (D) (804) 698-7529 district29@senate.virginia.gov
Senator Phillip P. Puckett (D) (804) 698-7538 district38@senate.virginia.gov

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Monday, January 25, 2010

States Rights Legislation-Federal Healthcare Mandates

H/T Family Foundation

Lets keep them in shock. Thank you for standing up for the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Three Senate bills on a topic that has galvanized the Commonwealth and nation – a state’s sovereignty over federal intrusion into individuals’ health care – passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee today by the barest 8-7 votes. Democrat Senators Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) and Phillip Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) voted with a united Republican committee membership to shock committee liberals, including Majority Leader and committee chairman Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield).

These bills now go to the Senate floor and will be voted on in the next two days! Please contact your senator immediately and ask him or her to vote for SB 311, SB 417 and SB 283. If Senators Colgan or Puckett represent you, or if your senator voted for the bills in committee, please thank them. The bills are patroned by Senators Steve Martin (R-11, Chesterfield), Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester) and Fred Quayle (R-13, Suffolk), respectively.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Sunday, January 17, 2010

This Is Why We Elected Him

"No law shall restrict a person's natural right and power of contract to secure the blessings of liberty to choose private health care systems or private plans. No law shall interfere with the right of a person or entity to pay for lawful medical services to preserve life or health, nor shall any law impose a penalty, tax, fee, or fine, of any type, to decline or to contract for health care coverage or to participate in any particular health care system or plan, except as required by a court where an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes lawful medical services within the Commonwealth."

Incoming AG to feds: Hands off my state
Virginia leader chomping at the bit to fight 'Obamacare'

Officials in Virginia a short time ago joined attorneys general in a dozen other states to object to the provisions of "Obamacare," the pending legislation that would give the federal goverment unprecedented control of health care, and the state's incoming attorney general is chomping at the bit to get to work on the issue.

Ken Cuccinelli, who took the oath of office this weekend, said it's a simple matter of the government lacking authority to impose the decisions members of Congress are making for their constituents. "I believe the individual mandate violates individual rights," Cuccinelli said in an interview. "I do not believe the federal government has the legal authority in the [U.S.] Constitution to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance.

"A corollary to that is that the [Senate] bill, as it is currently written, requires state governments to set up healthcare exchanges to facilitate individual mandates. I do not believe that under the Constitution the federal government has the authority to dictate or effectively force states into its bureaucracy,” he said.

The opposition is just one of the moves afoot to challenge the Democrat plan should it eventually succeed and be adopted as law. The outgoing Virginia attorney general, Bill Mims, had joined with 12 other Republican state attorneys general to object to the Senate's version, which exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid fees.

The group wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., late last month asking that the provision by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., be struck from the bill to "avoid litigation."

They also warned, "By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation."

The Nebraska provision was inserted to exempt the state from paying significant costs of health care that taxpayers in other states will be required to pay. It was added to obtain support for the bill from Nelson, who had a number of objections.
Cuccinielli, a strong advocate for states' rights as outlined in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, said his office simply will not defend a statute that violates the state or U.S. constitutions.

He also said he will be working with attorneys general from other states on that very issue. For his own state, he's hoping the General Assembly will adopt a law that would protect its citizens from anything unconstitutional in the federal health care plan . State Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican, already has formulated a bill.

Labels: , , , , , ,

|

Friday, January 15, 2010

Underestimated

H/T FreeRepublic
An Open Letter to the Congress of the United States
The Vote Heard Around the World
January 12, 2010
by Peggy Newbrough

Dear Congress,

I’m sure it was accidental when you declared war on the American people. I’m positive you didn’t intend to turn the citizens of the United States against their own government, to create such an atmosphere of distrust for elected officials that we wake up each day afraid to read the headlines and find out which new “laws” you’ve conspired to pass in the dead of night.

Strong words you say? Webster defines war as: a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.

/snip

But it’s our move now as citizens scramble to get the word out to the public. We’ll use every peaceful means possible to stop this takeover of our beloved country. There are thousands of journalists who weren’t bought off by this corrupt administration who will fight you in print, they’ll call you out and expose your tyranny and Gestapo tactics.

There are millions of citizens who will fight with marches, protests, and with conversations in their homes, offices or churches. They will expose you for every evil action you’ve taken and your unforgivable goal of ruling a once-free nation. And the states will fight back with the 10th amendment, by challenging the constitutionality of this monster with all its backroom deals to buy votes with our own money.

Finally, we’ll fight you at the ballot box and the voter fraud you’ve funded and the illegals you co-opt won’t be enough to save you from the people’s revenge. So make no mistake, we’ll fight your tyranny and we will win because there is a fatal flaw in your battle plan, you’ve underestimated the will of the American people and the spirit of freedom.

You’ve underestimated your enemy.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

End the Corporate Tax in Virginia

We'll get by without it, if handled correctly.

Governor-elect McDonnell has already indicated a willingness to explore the energy reserves off the Virginia coast.

The extraction of energy from Virginias' reserves could potentially put us in the same position as Alaska.

Governor elect McDonnell should persue this option with the same energy and determination as he demonstrated during his campiagn.

This is a states' rights issue and the federal government has no business telling any state how to handle their natural resources.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

It Will Come Down To States' Rights and We Will Stand With the Commomwealth

Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
12/22/09 6:01 PM EST

Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina's attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader's office.

According to AP, South Carolina's Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal.

Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina's two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.

Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMasters, according to AP.

Graham has been all over cable news today visibly angry about the vote-buying by Reid that secured the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as possibly other senators as yet unknown.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Thursday, November 12, 2009

VA Campaign for Liberty

United Conservatives of Virginia stands firmly in favor of any event which promotes state sovereignty and re-affirms the 10th Amendment as the Law of the Land. We have not read the specific legislation as of the date of this post and cannot comment on the merits or the language.

We do support HR 61.


Virginia Campaign for Liberty will host a lobby day and rally on two 10th Amendment bills on January 18, 2010 at the Capitol.

The event is scheduled for all day.

With all the federal power grabs coming down from Washington, the citizens of Virginia are calling for 10th amendment solutions in defense of our individual liberty and state's rights. There are some legislators who are working to push for a State Sovereignty Resolution and introduced HR61 at the end of the 2009 session that never made it out of committee.

While their effort is to be commended, we at Virginia Campaign for Liberty believe that a Declaration of Sovereignty Resolution poses certain dangers in that it allows bad legislators to clean their skirts with a piece of legislation that does nothing to make the 10th amendment more binding. It is our mission to put the 10th amendment, the law of the land, into practice. That's just what our two bills will do.

The first one is modeled after the Montana gun bill called the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act (VFFA). This bill serves as a 10th amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause that prohibits the federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in Virginia. Delegate Charles Carrico has agreed to carry the bill in the 2010 session of the General Assembly.

You can view the full text of the bill here.

The second is the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA). This bill is a 10th amendment challenge to the powers of the federal government to mandate federally approved healthcare by every citizen under the threat of steep fines and jail time. Delegate Bob Marshall has agreed to carry this important legislation in the 2010 session.

You can view the full text of the bill here.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Friday, October 23, 2009

I Was Right

I do enjoy it when someone infinitely smarter than I am explains why I'm right about something.
You notice from the responses by the dhimmis, that they think we're arrogant for questioning their auhority to bypass Constitutional limitations.

IMAO, its the dhimmis who are the arrogant ones, for questioning why we question them.

Royalty-monarchs-serfs-peasants
rail-tar-feathers

From the Patriot Post/Federalist Digest
God Bless Mark Alexander

Government & Politics
A Serious Question

We have known for many years that Democrats view the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals, not as something to be revered or upheld -- despite their repeated oaths to do just that.

And as Mark Alexander warned last week, our Constitution is on life support.

More evidence of the trauma inflicted by our elected "representatives" surfaced this week when CNSNews.com asked the only truly relevant question in the health care debate: Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected:
CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

Though questions concerning constitutional authority are finally being asked inside the Beltway, they have been asked with ever-louder voices across the nation since Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that debate. Of course, since the last election, the national debate chorus has become much more unified.

For example, in The Patriot's home state of Tennessee (which Al Gore claims as "home" but which gave its electoral votes to Bush, twice, and then to McCain), there is a 10th Amendment battle underway, and not a minute too soon.

State Republicans are organizing a state sovereignty campaign in opposition to the federal government's abuse of states' rights. This week, a legislative committee approved a motion to invite representatives from the legislatures of the other 49 states to join a "working group ... to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers."

Can you say, "Constitutional Convention"?

Predictably, Obama's state cadre of Democrat sycophants are huffing and puffing. State Democrat Chairman Chip Forrester says, "It's unfortunate that Republican members of the state Legislature have jumped on this crazy train. This is nothing short of lunacy. The Tea Party organizers and their ultra-right wing cronies began this ridiculous issue to disrupt civil debate about how to move this state and nation forward. I hope they are not suggesting we fight another Civil War."

No, we should give the Convention a chance before taking up arms. And if it comes to the latter, I suggest Mr. Forrester say goodbye to the sun and slither down a very deep hole..

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Leadership Counts

Everyday Virginians are seeing firsthand that in this pivotal race for governor, Bob McDonnell is THE candidate of new ideas and strong leadership.

A new Public Policy Poll released today shows Bob McDonnell leading Creigh Deeds by 14 points. This comes on the heels of a Survey USA poll last week that showed Bob leading by 15 points.

It is clear: Bob has momentum because he is demonstrating the strong leadership and bold vision Virginians want in their next Governor.





Creigh Deeds, meanwhile, is stuck following Bob’s lead on issue after issue. And while he follows, he and his surrogates also continue to ramp up their attacks and criticism.

That’s not what Virginians want to see. It’s not what our Commonwealth needs.

With unemployment over 7%, Virginians want leadership. They want ideas. They want solutions. That’s why they are rallying behind Bob’s positive campaign!

Thank you for your support. Together we are going to win this race and bring new jobs and more opportunities to every region of Virginia.

Labels: , , , ,

|

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Where Cuccinelli Stands

From Ken Cuccinelli, candidate for Attorney General

August 1, 2009

Dear Fellow Virginians,
For those of you that have been asking, here is a checklist of some of the issue differences I have with my opponent. Mind you, this is NOT comprehensive, and certain issues are more directly and frequently related to the responsibilities of the Attorney General, but I won't go into that level of detail here.

Issue Δ
First, I have to explain what "Δ" means. I was an engineer before I was a lawyer, and I still think like an engineer. Much of the very little shorthand that I have uses engineering symbols. "Δ" is 'delta' in Greek, and in engineering it stands for 'the difference.' E.g., the Δ between 15 and 50 is 35. So, here it is, from lowest numbered constitutional amendment to highest and alphabetically:

2nd Amendment: I support it as an individual right for law abiding adults, while my opponent supports gun control.

5th Amendment (property rights/eminent domain): This is a little confusing because since the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, the 5th Amendment no longer protects property rights. I have been a premier leader in pushing to re-establish property rights - as the founding fathers wanted - both in Virginia law and in our state constitution. In 2007, after three years of work, I succeeded in getting a law passed protecting property rights, but we continue to work to get a constitutional amendment. My opponent has opposed these efforts, siding instead with the special interests that want to be able to easily take your property by using their political connections. This is why Verizon, among the biggest opponents of property rights, has sided with my opponent in this race. Because he's a guy they can "work with." You know what that means, right?

10th Amendment: This is the state sovereignty amendment, and it reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Sates respectively, or to the people." When the federal government oversteps its constitutional boundaries, as it seems poised to do in areas like our right to work laws, then the 10th Amendment gives states a way to fight back in court. In our only debate (you may recall that my opponent is ducking debates), I said that I would resist certain federal encroachments, such as in the area of right to work and in order to allow Virginia to maintain its own regulatory authority (cap and trade anyone?).

In that debate, I challenged my opponent to make the same commitment. He would not commit to protecting Virginia from such encroachments. And for those of you that may have attended a Tea Party recently, my opponent held a telephone conference call for the press last month in which he condemned the entire "Tea Party movement" (in case you weren't sure what he thought of YOU...).

Energy: I support drilling offshore for oil, while my opponent does not - this despite the fact that in our first debate he correctly stated that such energy production is important to our national security. I also have a much better record of protecting our coal industry while continuing to push for the cleaner use of coal. I support the aggressive expansion of our nuclear industry and making accommodations so market-competitive alternative energy can be brought on line.

Life: I am pro-life and he is not. He has a Family Foundation score of 13 - yikes!
Marriage Amendment: I supported it, he flip-flopped, coming out against it just before the election in 2006.

Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts: This is the June 25th case that caused me to ask the Governor to call a special session, which he did, but not until after my opponent called it "a political stunt." Thankfully, Governor Kaine agreed with me and not my opponent. I am on the right track in addressing this legislatively to make sure our prosecutors don't lose any more drunk driving or drug cases because of the Melendez decision. My opponent still hasn't said what his proposed alternative to legislation is in this area, AND he mistakenly claimed that he had a bill in 2007 (HB 2086) that would have fixed the Melendez problem in drunk driving cases, but he got the law wrong! Woops.

Right to work: I strongly support Virginia's right to work laws, while my opponent has repeatedly voted against protecting our right to work. He has a 100% voting record with the AFL-CIO, I have a 0%. This is a very important issue to Virginia's economy, and it is threatened by federal "card check" legislation (which is why our stands on the 10th Amendment are so important). Maybe this is why both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU both donated tens of thousands of dollars to my opponent in June!

Supporting small business: I earned my second 100% scorecard in a row from the NFIB (the small business folks, and the only pure business group left in Richmond). NFIB's scorecards cover two years each, so I've had a 100% voting record for four straight years, also earning their "Guardian of Small Business Award" in 2007 for my leadership on property rights protection (only a select few of NFIB's 100% voters ever get this award). On the other hand, my opponent has a 50% score on the most recent NFIB scorecard.

Taxes: Part of being for limited government means limiting taxes wherever possible. I have been a strong fighter against tax increases, while my opponent has regularly supported them. He has even voted for sales tax increases after campaigning hard against that particular tax (woops, another flip-flop).

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

A Bill of Federalism

From our friends at WST-Richmond
A Bill of Federalism


A proposed Constitutional Convention to affirm the validity of the Constitution of the United States and prohibit the legislature from interpreting the Constitution in any manner other the original intent.

The Constitution of the United States, with all amendments as written, is the supreme law of the land and applies only to legal residents of the United States.

Labels: , , , , ,

|

Sunday, May 24, 2009

HR 61

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 61
Offered February 26, 2009
Honoring state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Patrons-- Peace, Fralin, Byron, Cline, Cole, Gilbert, Landes, Lingamfelter, Marshall, R.G., Morgan, Ware, R.L. and Wright
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules

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, the states today 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 of the United States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says that “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, 505 U. S. 144 (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 other proposals that may be anticipated, may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, That the Congress of the United States be urged to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth of Virginia 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. The Commonwealth by this resolution serves notice to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. Further, the Commonwealth urges that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding shall be prohibited or repealed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Thursday, March 26, 2009

10th Amendment Musings

States Rebellion Pending: The 10th Amendment in Action

by Walter Williams

(March 25, 2009)

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.

Labels: , , ,

|

Friday, March 13, 2009

I Was Told...

that a bill has been submitted in the House of Delegates to re-affirm the soverignty of the commonwealth and remind the government that the 1oth Amendment still applies.

A very firm hand salute to Hanover Delegate Chris Peace for remembering the true meaning of Federalism.

Well Done, Sir, Well Done!!!!!!!!!

(Apparently this question has been answered. OUTSTANDING! from Cargosquid)

Labels: , , , ,

|

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Where's our Declaration?

Eleven states have declared Sovereignty.
Where's ours? Oh, right.
We have liberal suck ups as Governor and both Senators.
Thomas Jefferson would be SO proud......

Human Events .com - A.W. R. Hawkins:
(Emphasis mine)
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

Labels: , , ,

|

Saturday, July 28, 2007

FREDeralism

Over at I'm with Fred, Mr. Thompson opines on the explosive expansion of federal laws and regulations.

"The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended."


Mark Tapscott at Examiner.com provides a cogent analysis of how Thompson may restore the power of the 10th Amendment.
(If you scroll through the site, you'll find other nuggets of wisdom, too)

Labels: ,

|