Sovereignty Resolutions: TN and OK

[SnowSquirrel]

http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762
The House of Representatives of Oklahoma passed a new version of its state sovereignty resolution, in a version that can bypass the Governor's veto. (The previous version was vetoed.) The record says it will probably pass the state Senate.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/05/tennessee-senate-affirms-sovereignty-under-the-10th-amendment/
Meanwhile, Oklahoma's Senate passed its own version of the resolution on the 4th.

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?bill=HJR%2027&session=26
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/21/alaska-sovereignty-resolution-on-way-to-governor/
Alaska passed its version last month, and is listed as "awaiting transmittal to the governor."

Someone is tracking these at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/

[Let Freedom Reign]

:D:flag: Someone is tracking these at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/

WOW! 18 out of 50 states are either in the process or have passed the 10th amendment option.....this is 36% of the United States, folks...you would think the current president of our Nation would sit up and take notice.....

Probably only a wanna be dictator would not do so, me thinks...what say you?

[Let Freedom Reign]

Someone is tracking these at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/ (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/)
Thanks SnowSquirrel, I meant to give you the credit for post...

[BasicGreatGuy]

They are meaningless resolutions. All bark with no bite.

[Let Freedom Reign]

We shall see....it still begs the qustion...why does not the president of our Nation address this, or at least give respectful credence when 36% of our (50, not 57) states are obviously very concerned about the direction he is taking our country?

[Let Freedom Reign]

The 'Get Recovery' stimulus bill (which is going to put our great grandchildren in debt...all to promote more useless beaucratic entitlement programs which surve to further hinder the American Dream for everyone, at the expense of many) was passed in the middle of the night, without discussion or debate, and without anyone reading it.

[Jagergeist]

We shall see....it still begs the qustion...why does not the president of our Nation address this, or at least give respectful credence when 36% of our (50, not 57) states are obviously very concerned about the direction he is taking our country?

My guess would be the proclamations are ignored because the 10th Ammendment is pretty much widely ignored today and the federal governement takes whatever extra authority it needs, regardless of the wishes of the states. (Not saying it should be that way, just making an observation). I doubt 10% of random people on the streets could tell you what the 10th Ammendment is, or how the founders intended power to come from the states. Sad, but a fact of life nowadays.

[Raoul Duke]

loves me some paper tigers!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm

[BillyBobUSA]

My guess would be the proclamations are ignored because the 10th Ammendment is pretty much widely ignored today and the federal governement takes whatever extra authority it needs, regardless of the wishes of the states. (Not saying it should be that way, just making an observation). I doubt 10% of random people on the streets could tell you what the 10th Ammendment is, or how the founders intended power to come from the states. Sad, but a fact of life nowadays.

From Wikipedia:

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authori ty) (1985), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held "...we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA ... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision."
In United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez) 514 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 549 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html) (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-free_school_zone)" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.


So how is the 10th Amendment widely ignored again?

[SnowSquirrel]

From Wikipedia:

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authori ty) (1985), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held "...we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA ... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision."
In United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez) 514 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 549 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html) (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-free_school_zone)" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.

So how is the 10th Amendment widely ignored again?
The Gun-Free School Zones Act, and the similar Violence Against Women Act, were both struck down for being totally unjustified federal acts. However, the Court effectively reversed this trend of reining in government in Gonzales v. Raich. This decision held that the feds could punish a woman for growing marijuana in her own house, for her own use, because her non-interstate, non-commerce action affected interstate commerce. Raich followed a tradition established under FDR in Wickard v. Filburn (growing wheat and eating it is "interstate commerce") and later under federal civil rights acts that also used "interstate commerce" as a justification for regulating in-state economic activity. I would be not at all surprised if the Raich trend continued under Obama-appointed judges, and reversed the school-zones and violence-against-women rulings.

The connection to the 10th Amendment is that the 10th was intended to limit federal power to a specific set of tasks. We've used certain clauses, "interstate commerce" especially, as a magic wand to grant Congress and the President power over anything they feel like controlling. Because our federal governent now acts on the idea that it can do as it pleases, it treats the 10th Amendment as having no legal effect. What effect could it have, if Congress may tax, spend and regulate anything it likes? So, the best wording is that the Court has rendered the 10th meaningless rather than ignoring it outright.

[Liberal Linguist]

:D:flag: Someone is tracking these at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/

WOW! 18 out of 50 states are either in the process or have passed the 10th amendment option.....this is 36% of the United States, folks...you would think the current president of our Nation would sit up and take notice.....

Probably only a wanna be dictator would not do so, me thinks...what say you?

When 36 percent of America opposed Bush doctrines, you told us to shut up???

[avergbear]

They are meaningless resolutions. All bark with no bite.

When the time is right.

[Raoul Duke]

When the time is right.

the fed owns the purse

[bloods vs crips]

:D:flag: Someone is tracking these at:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/

WOW! 18 out of 50 states are either in the process or have passed the 10th amendment option.....this is 36% of the United States, folks...you would think the current president of our Nation would sit up and take notice.....

Probably only a wanna be dictator would not do so, me thinks...what say you?

why would anyone take notice? They are meaningless.

[bloods vs crips]

We shall see....it still begs the qustion...why does not the president of our Nation address this, or at least give respectful credence when 36% of our (50, not 57) states are obviously very concerned about the direction he is taking our country?

what is there to address?

[bloods vs crips]

When 36 percent of America opposed Bush doctrines, you told us to shut up???

ahahaha

[SnowSquirrel]

why would anyone take notice? They are meaningless.
The next phase is starting: nullification. Montana has signed into law a statement that federal gun laws (those justified under "interstate commerce") don't apply to guns made in that state ( http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm ), and Texas is working on a version with teeth, by adding that the state AG shall defend anyone prosecuted under such laws.

[Jagergeist]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act, and the similar Violence Against Women Act, were both struck down for being totally unjustified federal acts. However, the Court effectively reversed this trend of reining in government in Gonzales v. Raich. This decision held that the feds could punish a woman for growing marijuana in her own house, for her own use, because her non-interstate, non-commerce action affected interstate commerce. Raich followed a tradition established under FDR in Wickard v. Filburn (growing wheat and eating it is "interstate commerce") and later under federal civil rights acts that also used "interstate commerce" as a justification for regulating in-state economic activity. I would be not at all surprised if the Raich trend continued under Obama-appointed judges, and reversed the school-zones and violence-against-women rulings.

The connection to the 10th Amendment is that the 10th was intended to limit federal power to a specific set of tasks. We've used certain clauses, "interstate commerce" especially, as a magic wand to grant Congress and the President power over anything they feel like controlling. Because our federal governent now acts on the idea that it can do as it pleases, it treats the 10th Amendment as having no legal effect. What effect could it have, if Congress may tax, spend and regulate anything it likes? So, the best wording is that the Court has rendered the 10th meaningless rather than ignoring it outright.

Far more eloquently stated than my generic idea of the 10th being ignored. This is the point I was trying to make, that the federal government has several similar tools to grant themselves whatever power is not specifically expressed in the Constitution. By doing this, and having done it for so long, the end result is that the 10th is meaningless.