Feb 05 2009
States Rights, 10th Amendment & Secessionist Movement 2009
According to Resistnet.com more and more states are finding that their Constitutional Rights are being challenged by the Obama administration and are taking steps to counteract it.
Already, 9 states: Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. 12 others: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures. Of course, the citizens of each state would have to ratify the bill, just as they would have to vote to join the Union.
Several examples of the reasoning are that Christians might be considered guilty of “hate crimes” when talking about homosexuality, or the Muslim jihadist. For example, Geert Wilders, parliamentarian, is being prosecuted for “hate speech” in the Netherlands for his film “Fitna”, which exposes the Islamic mentality. Others fear that their 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away. Others may object to their tax money being used to fund abortions. Some may be medical personnel who would be forced to perform abortions under the new law, and, who may object to abortions.
In fact, the Founding Fathers included the 9th and 10th amendments to give relief to the people from an excessively over-bearing, or dictatorial government. I believe some some of the States are considering seceding because of the trillion dollar “Generational Theft Act” which is presently being debated in the Senate. As someone calculated, if one were to spend a million dollars a day from the time of Jesus’ Nativity, it would add up to a trillion dollars. So this porky package that includes, doggy playgrounds, a butterfly and turtle park and so much other pork spending is nothing more that #44’s payback to his campaign supporters.
From another perspective it is part of the Cloward-Piven Manufactured Crisis Strategy which was theorized by the Columbia University Professors Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, to transform Democratic Capitalism into Socialism via “community organizers”. Obama was trained at Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, so he may have learned of this Strategy during his years at Columbia. There are now around 40 lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be POTUSA, and, so far, no court has granted “standing”. So, if the people do not have “standing” to question who is their President, then who does?
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791, and restates the Constitution’s principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. It is based on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.’ The 10th Amendment does not empower Congress to wage war upon those states that secede. Even though that is exactly what happened in 1860, as Jefferson Davis said “A question settled by force of arms remains forever unsettled.”
HYPOCRITICALLY CORRECT
Amendment X 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.
Hypocrisy and politicians! There is nothing new in this love-match made by Cupid’s arrow of self-interest, right? Wrong, in the current flurry of state legislatures passing or considering resolutions asserting state sovereignty, many politicians are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
With close to 30 states having approved or currently considering resolutions of sovereignty, it is noteworthy how many Republicans are now standing up to be counted as defenders of the Constitution, especially after their silence during the Bush administration’s eight-year-assault on the Bill of Rights. And what of the Democrats who were formerly vehement critics of Bush’s actions? They have suddenly gone silent as the Obama administration continues many of Bush’s policies they once opposed. Hypocrisy and partisan politics, of course, but above this is a more fundamental issue involving the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
After the Constitution was ratified by state conventions, the constitutional debate continued with the submission of a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton argued against such a bill, asserting that the people had not surrendered their rights in ratifying the Constitution, so such protections were unnecessary. “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Furthermore, Hamilton feared that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.
Opposed to Hamilton’s argument, Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as ambassador to France, supported such a bill. He wrote to James Madison, the author of the Constitution: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”
Madison was, like Hamilton, concerned that enumerating such rights could “enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.” Consequently, he submitted the following draft of the Ninth Amendment to the Congress: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
Madison further elaborated on these rights in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights: “It has been said, by way of objection to a Bill of Rights. …that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the power enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a Bill of Rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.”
Today, after the Bush administration’s restrictions of constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential Decision Directive 51, with Republican and Democratic congressional acquiescence, the rights debate has devolved to the States. Consequently, the Tenth Amendment has moved to center stage.
Ratified on 15 December 1791, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the States or the people. Based on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation where “each state retains its sovereignty,” it restates the Constitution’s principle of federalism, and in supporting States Rights, it makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.
Previously, States Rights was used to justify two indelible immoral stains on the national character: slavery and segregation. However, today the issues include 2nd Amendment gun rights, unfunded mandates and demands from Washington, D.C. on how to spend stimulus money, national identification cards, and a presidential declaration of martial law, among others.
While most of the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution did not grant the national government any power that it did not expressly mention, most American political leaders since the Civil War have opined that the Constitution grants the national government the authority to do more or less anything that is not expressly prohibited by the first eight amendments. And with the contemporary submission of Congress to the Executive, the debate is now between the States and the Executive.
The present debate is constitutionally necessary and long overdue. As the debate unfolds, hopefully not into a full-blown constitutional crisis – the last one resulted in the Civil War – partisan politics and party loyalties will undoubtedly be the surface politics on the television screen and talk radio. Will the public realize that the Constitution is not what George W. Bush called “just a goddamned piece of paper”? Since the Republican and Democratic Congresses have been missing in action, it’s time for the States to reclaim Jefferson’s “half a loaf.”
Brad Berner
bernerbrad@hotmail.com
Brad Berner formerly taught at Arizona State University and is currently teaching at Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. He is the author of The Spanish-American War: A Historical Dictionary, The World According to Al Qaeda, Jihad: Bin Laden in His Own Words, and numerous articles on political and historical subjects. .
Jefferson Davis was absolutely right.
Though he spent 4 years in a Federal Prison, he was released without charge as the govt. knew if the case went to trial, they would lose.
It seems we are in the middle of a class struggle with states rights vs. a strong Central govt. at the center stage.
Of course, the sheeple we have today are not cut from the same mold as our forefathers.
thanks for the information. I believe Lincoln was not portrayed correctly either. apparently he wanted to free the slaves, so he could send them back to africa.
another thing is that only a small percentage of the people actually fought against the British. I believe it was in the vicinity of 50 %
DAVID JOSEPH KRAMER’S RANT ON OUR CURRENT SITUATION
Types of Taxes
rain-stormwater runoff some places not even allowed to keep rainwater
air-coming with cap and trade
food-all the regs on farmers not to mention farmers paid not to produce
gas-self evident
electric-self evident
heating gas-self evident
heating fuel-self evident
driving-drivers license,registration, etc
car-extra taxes due to it being a luxury
tolls-self evident
cow fart-part of cap and trade-no shittttttttttt
hunting and fishing tax
business licensing tax
fica
state income
city income
federal income
sales and use
medicare
substance control -no shitttttttttttt
air emissions
franchize
non profit franchize
city/county/state/federal conservation fees
deed
property
insurance
lawful gaming
landfill
mortgage registry
petroleum
S corporation
hazardous waste
fur clothing
clothing
estate and trust
corporate
e-waste registration fee
mineral
partnership
solid waste management
sports bookmaking
water
water quality
wind energy production
withholding
use tax for individuals
federal production of money-this is the cost of our gov giving money to banks to make loans, this is our government loaning us our own money and giving the proceeds to whomever is behind the fed, ONE OF THE LARGEST SCAMS
gas prices-we sell our oil to other countries so we can buy their oil, i would like someone to explain this one to me, we have enough oil in our country alone to last 200 years but we dont use it, why? this, in the last two years has cost us over 10 trillion dollars and only more to come
many other fracked up tax types to numerous to mention
HERE IS A FRACKING QUESTION I WANT EVERYONE TO ASK THEIR SUPPOSED “REPRESENTATIVES”
I THOUGHT THE FRACKING CONSTITUTION PREVENTED “INDENTURED SERVITUDE-Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a “climate of fear” evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person’s will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).
Requiring specific performance as a remedy for breach of personal services contracts has been understood to be a form of involuntary servitude.[13]
Forced Labor[14]
Labor or service obtained by:
by threats of serious harm or physical restraint;
by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe they would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if they did not perform such labor or services:
by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.
My share of the debt on January 1 2010 with an estimated debt at 14,000,000,000,000 would be if you believe other estimates is appx. 38,000 dollars. My estimate is slightly different-take into account most bottom feeding frackers will never really pay any tax except on the money that is given to them-eliminate about 150 million people from the tax roles for them and all the superrich, government employees and an inordinate amount of others too long to list that really don’t pay any taxes-14 trillion/150 million=93,000 dollars. On top of my this, you can add all descendents to every real American to the slavery list in perpetuity.
YOU CAN KISS MY ASS, AS OF RIGHT NOW, I REFUSE AND WILL AVOID ALL POSSIBLE TAXES UNTIL MY AND OTHER FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE’S REQUEST OUR MET-AND YOU CAN QUIT USING THE REPUBS THIS AND DEMS THAT THE JIG IS UP AND YOUR
PROPAGANDA WING IS OBSOLETE. HAVE YOU NOT SEEN YOUR OWN NEWS SHOW THEY ARE ALL GOING OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THE SHEEPLE ARE WAKING UP-HEY I GOT A PREDICTION, THE NEXT BAILOUT WILL BE FOR THE PROPAGANDA WING OF THE GOVERNMENT-ALL MAJOR PAPERS AND TV CHANNELS
1 ROLL BACK ALL LAWS TO THE ORIGINAL FOUNDERS INTENTIONS
ELIMINATE ALL ILLEGAL LAWS-YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE
2 INSTITUTE AN ELIMINATION OF ALL FED BANKS-ILLEGAL
3 WITHDRAW ALL TROOPS FROM ALL COUNTRIES THAT WE ARE NOT AT DECLARED WAR WITH
4 PASS AN AMENDMENT THAT PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM RUNNING DEFICITS
5 KEEP THE FRACK OUT OF MY AND EVERYBODY ELSES FRACKING BUSINESS
6 CLOSE OUR BORDERS YOU DON’T GET TO SIDESTEP INCREASED COSTS OF LABOR BY BRINGING IN A NEW LABOR FORCE THAT YOU CAN STACK 50 TO A 3 BEDROOM HOME
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF COMMON SENSE IS THE BILL OF NO RIGHTS
I DO NOT KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THIS BUT IF YOU RAN FOR ANY OFFICE IN THE U.S. YOU WOULD BE ELECTED HANDS DOWN
ARTICLE I — You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.
More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II — You do not have the right to never be offended.
This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III — You do not have the right to be free from harm.
If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV — You do not have the right to free food and housing.
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V — You do not have the right to free health care.
That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in government run health care.
ARTICLE VI — You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII — You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII — You don’t have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.
We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight, if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX — You don’t have the right to a job.
All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X — You do not have the right to happiness.
Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness — which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
MY ADDITION TO THIS BILL OF NO RIGHTS AN ADDITION TO ARICLE VIII
ARTICLE XI—YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ME
THOUGH, YOU MAY THINK YOU KNOW WHATS BEST FOR ME AND MINE,
YOU DO NOT!
THE ARROGANCE OF THE ELITIST GOVERNMENT AND DEEP THINKERS OF OUR COUNTRY BEWILDERS ME, GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND TRY YOUR SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS. FORGIVE ME, I FORGOT, ALL OF THIS SHIT HAS BEEN TRIED. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN INSTITUTE THIS ON A GLOBAL SCALE, THIS TIME I BELIEVE THERE WILL NOT BE A HUGE WAR OR UPRISING TO STOP IT
I BELIEVE EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE HEADS OF THIS AND THE PUPPET MASTERS BEHIND THEM WILL JUST DISAPPEAR
THANKS FOR LISTENING TO MY RANT
thanks David.
See you at the Tea Party
What is interesting here is the following:
* When you read documentation as to why southern states seceeded, it is clear that it was in defence of slavery and opposition to Lincoln. Exagerated rethoric was used to paint Lincoln as a tyrant and abolitionist, and he was neither.
* When you look at documentation as to why states are at it again, it is more sneaky, other reasons are given, but underpinning the movement are big business efforts to preserve a slave-like workforce and opposition to Obama. Exagerated rhetoric is being used to paint Obama as a muslim and a socialist, and he is neither.
Both times the 10th amendment was used.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Obama was trained up in the Alinsky Industrial Founndation. His mother and grandparents were communists.
Show me where he is not a Taqquiya, American hating, Muslim
When we heard about AIG and others being “too big to fail”, it brought to mind something I have long held. The United States of America is just too damned big! And, too diverse for effective central governance. The culture, resources and challenges of the southeastern US are different from that of the northeast, or the northwest, or central, etc. I have always thought it would be a good idea to divide this country up into five or six sections that would associate itself only with a national government state department and defense department and their budgets, and then, only to the degree that the people of those sections agree to subsidize their budgets.
Being a Southerner, I am particularly interested in secession for the southern states, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, with our own constitution that is an addendem, so to speak, of the US Constitution, and our own addendems to the Bill of Rights. From a social standpoint, education, health care, etc., we run our own affairs, with rules and regulations agreed to by the people.
Does anyone know of any group or organization that is dedicated to this proposal? If so, please let me know. I’d like to see if what they are proposing makes any sense to me and determine whether or not I would wish to associate myself with it.
Down here in the South, a frequently invoked sentiment is, “Save yo Confedrit money, Boys; the South’s gonna rise agin!” We are unique and distinctive in our resources and challenges. We have the ability to govern ourselves in a manner that better addresses our uniqueness than to be caught up in the broad brush approach that deals with us the same way all other parts of the country are governed, and the same can be said for all those other parts.
DeNeece Butler
yes quite a few states have signed States Rights Resolutions in the last few months. Texas governor, rick Perry is very adamant about protecting Texas from Federal infringement. Sarah palin signed a resolution before she left office.
It will not occur. There will be no secession. The tenth amendment was a ‘catch all’ for rights the authors overlooked. It does not, in fact, mean very much of anything.
The real issue is: elections have consequences. The GOP have lost two consequtive federal elections. There will be another in 2010. The GOp needs to get its’ act together.
There is no right to secede. There was no right to secede in 1860.
I have heard that some states, like alaska joined and made certain requirements for it to remain in the Union. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I believe that the sovereignity clause or 10th Amedment keeps the federal government from infringing upon the state’sn ability to govern itself.
Some have suggested that, since the Obamacare is the same as Hitler’s Tiergarten death policy, that Obama should be impeached for promoting it. After all the “doctors” and people behind the euthanasia of the Tiergarten policy were tried by Nuremberg and hung.
He has been rebuked by congress once, and needs more rebukes for trampling on the constitution, or he needs to get out of the country.
is there any article mentioned in the constitution which insures secession request of by any of the USA states if requested how does it get implemented? procedures?
I am just curious about the bill of right of states and their people?
For secession to be succesful, you don’t need any rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution. If a state, say Texas, votes to secede from the Union, the ONLY challenge that the Federal government could make is either a political one (isolation, pressure on foreign governments to not recognize Texas as a country, embargo, etc.) or a military one. But the reality is that, in this present day, any military action would be broadcast across the world and repeated on every possible medium ad nauseum. The second that a soldier of the Federal government shot at a former U.S. citizen, the power and legitimacy of the government would disappear. Anyone can see that the person getting shot could have been from any state, any community. The country would be divided between those that sympathize with the secessionists and those that demand that all states remain with the Union. As soon as it is demonstrated that your government can and will kill you if you disagree with it, whether or not secession is legal, the Union will have been dissolved.
I wish I could agree with Brad P. but the truth is that the people of this country are just too comfortable as sheeple. Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Waco? In each case, the government decided it would kill the people who just wanted to be left alone. Documentation (Waco, Rules of Engagement) shows the Fed is willing to dispose of those who are organized in opposition to government control. We, the people, get irritated and moan and groan around the water cooler or at the local watering hole only to forget and then comply with government dictates. The sheeple just graze and await the sheerers to give them their annual due. And isn’t it interesting how happy they are when they get a tax refund of their OWN MONEY.
The American Revolutionaries were a very small portion of the population in the 1770’s.
All of the examples of reasons for secession are things that have not happened and are not about to happen. These are paranoid fantasies. It seems bizarre to be promoting such an extreme idea because something might happen in the future. For example, is it a good idea to plan my divorce on the chance that my husband might one day beat me, I mean we did have an argument recently…
A lot of folks have their rights impinged every day in this and every other country. How will your new country be any different? Better to stay and fight to change this country than waste blood and treasure on something that was already tried once and didn’t end well.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant and considered things that might happen “powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.” There are only 18 powers enumerated to Congress, and providing health care is not one of them.