Not Only Is Dear Leader Not Drilling For It, He's Giving It Away

About the author: Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Alaska PAC and Restoring Liberty Action Committee. Follow Joe at Facebook and Twitter.

Bet you didn't know about this:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.

The Obama administration must stop the giveaway immediately.Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action.

Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

Coal, National Security and Virginia Jobs

We have a petition opposing the Wacky-Marxist legislation.

It goes like this:

We, your constituents, have signed this petition against the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill and the Senate version of the Cap and Trade Bill and the trillions of dollars and the 100’s of thousands of jobs it will cost the Commonwealth and all of America.

This legislation will increase the cost of energy in the Commonwealth at a time when every feasible source of domestic energy should be explored and used, and at a time when Virginians can afford it least.

Virginia is a coal state. There are thousands of Virginians whose livelihood depends upon the production and use of coal; hard working, tax-paying Virginians who deserve better.

Coal is a reliable source of energy.

It is plentiful.

Clean coal technology works.

The theory of so-called “global warming”, or “climate change” is junk science.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Ya'll know how I feel about domestic energy production and specifically, the use of coal. You know I help build clean coal facilities for Dominion Power. I've told people over and over, clean coal works its viable, and its cheap.

This is, IMAO, a states' rights issue. A 10th Amendment Issue. Its Virginia's coal. We should be able to use our resources as we see fit, within the guidelines of good sense and economic viability.

The current crop of new candidates seeking election to the House of Delegates and VA Senate would be well-served to address this issue now. Do not allow the radicals and outside agitators to dictate Virginia's economy. The future of Virginia jobs and her citizens depend on you for protection.

Thanks to one of my Facebook friends I found a link to a website supporting coal production in Appalachia. You'll see a new avatar on the left hand side of this website.

Go and sign the letter, please.

From the website:
Coal energizes our communities and the nation. It fuels our economy and powers our homes and businesses. It provides good jobs and an economic future for our families. But radical activists are determined to end coal in Appalachia. They don't care about our jobs, our communities or our future. Without coal, our thriving communities will not survive. Sign the letter today.

Dear Elected Officials,
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has arbitrarily decided to halt for further review 79 pending coal mining permits in the Appalachian states. These permits have been reviewed and approved by both state and federal regulatory authorities, after the EPA had commented, or chosen not to comment, on each of the permit applications.

Only when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wholly rejected the challenges by outside environmental activists, did EPA decide to intervene and reassert the same arguments the courts had already rejected.

EPA's action, or inaction, is threatening more than 100,000 jobs and further destabilizes communities that have been battered by the recession. Moreover, millions of Americans depend on coal for affordable electricity, and the Appalachian states depend on coal for tax revenue that keeps their budgets afloat.

When nationwide unemployment is at its highest level in years, the government should not stop Americans from going to work. When states are facing major budget shortfalls and even bankruptcy because of the weak economy, the federal government should not kill significant sources of revenue.

The consequences of the EPA's actions will be severe. Please take action today to pressure the EPA to lift these bureaucratic roadblocks. The future of families across Appalachia depends on you.

Thank you,

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).

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.