****** This legislation needs to be passed in every state.
February 13, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Please take a moment to read the following report from C4L Interim State Coordinator Kirk Shelley regarding recent action in the Oklahoma legislature to uphold the state's sovereignty under the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
Similar action is being taken all over the country, as resistance to the federal government's continual intrusion into our lives grows. I urge all our Oklahoma members to immediately contact their state representatives in support of final passage for House Joint Resolution 1003. More details are included in this report.
If you are in a state where such a resolution has not been introduced, contact your state legislators today and tell them to stand up for your state's sovereignty.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President, Campaign for Liberty
Paul Supporters Lead Fight to Restore State Sovereignty in Oklahoma
"State House to consider historic bill to take back state's rights under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution"
Oklahoma City - For far too long, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been known as the forgotten amendment. With power grab after power grab, Congress has slowly eroded the rights of states to keep powers not specifically granted to the federal government.
As more and more citizens and state legislators across the country begin to realize that this loss of states rights is at the core of many of our nation's problems, those legislators have set out to stop the out of control Congress and restore some sense of sanity and constitutional protections to the individual states.
On February 11th, Oklahoma became the first state to act on legislation to do just that. This action was directly brought about by a Ron Paul supporter, and it is Campaign for Liberty members that will see this battle all the way through.
You see, the 10th Amendment in our nation's Bill of Rights has long been despised by our big government foes. That amendment was drafted to enshrine in the Constitution what the Founders and the original states already knew: any power not expressly given to the federal government is kept by the states and the people. Although a lot of freedom-minded individuals have long fought for full compliance with this amendment in modern times, there has been a void of leadership and a lack of focused action - until now.
That void has been filled by the formation of Campaign for Liberty, which was born from Ron Paul's galvanizing 2008 Presidential campaign.
Campaign for Liberty is fighting in state legislatures across the country and in Congress to preserve and restore constitutional rights to all citizens, to subdue an out of control federal government, and to win back our lost freedom.
The fight in Oklahoma is a great example of the kind of battles we face in the next stages of the Ron Paul Revolution.
With the support of Dr. Paul's activists throughout the state, the Oklahoma legislature has taken up a vital bill to put Congress in its place and to remind it that there are limits to federal power.
This past Wednesday, the Oklahoma House Rules Committee unanimously supported House Joint Resolution 1003 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HJR1003_int.rtf), which expresses the sovereignty of the State of Oklahoma and clearly calls for an end to unconstitutional federal government mandates.
Representative Charles Key (R-Oklahoma City), the sponsor of this bill, has spearheaded a national movement to put the federal government on notice that the separate states are sick and tired of having their actions dictated by Washington, D.C.
Rep. Charles Key is a supporter of Dr. Paul - in fact, he was the first elected official in Oklahoma to endorse Ron Paul's candidacy for President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa5sCO-3ly0) because of Dr. Paul's strong support for the US Constitution.
Oklahoma IS an example of how the R3volution is leading the battle to restore constitutional rights and freedoms to our citizens. The fight to reclaim our Republic and restore our Constitution is just beginning, and, with the continued efforts of Campaign for Liberty members all across the country, it is a fight that we can and will win.
Kirk Shelley
Oklahoma Interim State Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty
2008 State Coordinator, Ron Paul for President
P.S. If you live in Oklahoma, please contact your State House representatives and senators immediately. You can find their contact information here: http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
Colonel.....thanks for the info.
So Timothy, Bush did not start it, he only gave it a big shove.
As far as who started it? How about every president that has stolen money from the Social Security fund? Clinton included. How about Clinton and the treasury department that started the sub prime mortgage crap! Start putting some blame where the blame belongs. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans for the deficit, they approved the spending.
Mooch
However, it doesn't take much to get a legislature to pass a Joint Resolution. It's a first step but is definitely a "feel good" action. Real change will take legislation from more than one state that defies the federal government and ends up in the Supreme Court (with a crowd outside carrying pitchforks)!
The only embarrassment during the campaign was that Ron Paul and the campaign kept on coming and telling the truth. Truth hurts in a covy of liars.
Jim Crow laws?
Poll Taxes?
Take care.
~M
The first time I notice a big difference was in the Clinton Administration. Every little thing became a partasan issue between the two parties. The only reason he was not impeached for lieing to Congress was because he made a political issue of it just as he did with everything else. That carried over into the Bush years and pushed even further into the relm of politics instead of what was good for the country. It has become two countries in that the NeoCon Republicans and Democrats have taken over from the traditional two parties. "We the people" have been conned big time and continue to be conned.
~M
Interesting! I believe that the issue of just what the constitution means is usually determined by the Supreme Court and find nothing in the constitution to nullify that. However, if states want to pass such things wherein they claim "sovereignty," which they already have, over their states, I've no problem with that. perhaps it will remind the federal people that the states do want to play a role in the whole thing.
The people become very frustrated at times and many will seek out was of expressing that discontent. This legislation by a state is an expression of that frustration.
I live in the south and I for one am very glad we lost the Civil War. My country is far more important than my state. With that said....states often have the final say but usually under the threat of having funds revoked from the federal level if they don't fall in line. I.e. Seatbelts laws.
I don't have the answer to this problem. Not so fond of Oklahoma since one idiot sponsored the English as the only language recognized in Oklahoma (which would have required them to change the name of their state). Oregon has held it's ground pretty tightly but they also have their fare share of compounds with people I don't want to associate with. But I admire their standing up against the govt. in the Alberto Gonzales v. The State of Oregon case at the Federal Supreme Court case. I think in cases between states and Federal government that is where the real battles will be fought is in the Supreme Court.
By what right does the federal government do that? The people of a state pay taxes to the federal government and should be able (no have the right) to share in the benefits of said taxes without any coersion from the federal to do anything.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?memberId=278246&articleId=281474977602574&nav=MyGather
I don't approve of it either but we got mandatory seat belts under Regan and lowered speed limits under Carter. Both parties have done it and continue to do so. I totally disapprove but I don't believe that has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. This is one where I agree that the fed has overstepped it bounds. Making state legislation by back door methods is no different than making it directly, when it is made under threat of lost funds.
It would be interesting indeed, to see that one go to the Supreme Court. Can you imagine if they threw out the entire income tax and tax on wages? some provision would be made in short order to legislate wages as income and prepare a constitutional amendment if needed.
Most often I have seen states want to restrict individual rights, such as mpose religious teaching in schools.
In California we have legal medical marijuana. The Bush administration insisted on sending the Federal Drug people out here to arrest cancer patients.
James mentions seat belt laws and the old 55 speed limit, hardly a loss of "States Rights"
The purpose of national laws is national interest.
As far as individual rights, no matter what state one lives in. The constitution sets those.
As for the Civil War. It was about slavery. No slaves, there would have been no Civil War.
The federal government was not trying to eliminate slavery in slave states, but did want to keep it from the new western states. I cannot believe that anyone has the nerve still to this day to say the Civil War was not about slavery.
I am going to repeat. If there had been no slaves, there would have been no Civil War.
or War Between The States, or The Southern Rebellion, or however how you choose to say it.
It is true that the war was not about freeing slaves in the slave states, but it was very much about not allowing slaves in the new western states.
You are absolutely correct, that the status of the new states was a significant factor in the war. The last states added before the war were divided into slave and non slave. But, as you stated, the war was not fought to free the slaves, that was a side issue.
My mention of seat belts and speed limits was not intended to document loss of states rights but to point out that the federal is doing things by proxy that is forbidden to them otherwise. I don't see many of the things cited as loss of states rights being in truth, loss of states rights. And I don't see the limitation on the federal government that they may not do things which are not addressed in the constitution.
I don't believe that a nation the size of ours could properly function without exploring the various clauses of the constitution to its fullest. And if the people want something, and the thing they want is not expressly prohibited in the constitution, then the people can have it. They must work through their congressional people, of course. But the powers reserved to the people are very broad.
"That amendment was drafted to enshrine in the Constitution what the Founders and the original states already knew: any power not expressly given to the federal government is kept by the states and the people."
That should answer your question Taday's, BTW it is not a petition. It is a Resolution and will have a vote by the OK legislature.
You are totally wrong, wrong, wrong about the Civil War. You must be a Yankee. It was not the War Between The States, or The Southern Rebellion. It was The War of Northern Agression and it was about State's Rights. Slavery was not even a question until after the Yankee news started it.
In the first place the Yankees were charging the Southern Planters enormous sums to process cotton and then again for shipping it. There was a lot of pressure not to allow the South the right to process their own crops. There was also another important issue.
The Southern States broke away from the Union because they had the RIGHT to do so. The Union at the time was more of a loose Confederation of States. The War settled the question of weither an individual or group of states could break away from that union and form an independant nation.
Before the war the Federal Government only had a token army. The war was fought with Militas from the various states. Only After the Civil War was there established a strong Federal Military. After the war was when the central government gained power over much of state affairs.
It is a case of the victor writes the history. It is also a case of the North trying to justify their actions.
You are correct, that history is usually written by winners. That is one of the things they win. And your take on what happened may be absolutely correct but it is not what I have read or was taught. So how does one determine which source of information is actually correct. Personally, I'm inclined to thing that all rework the facts in the telling, regardless of which side. Heck, two people seeing the same exact thing will tell it two ways and differ materially on them.
One needs only to look at the power of the Central Government after the war as compared with before the war to determine what the results were. I imagine there were a lot of reasons or excuses for the fight, it is the results that mattered.
If the Confederacy had won I don't believe they would have stayed out of the union very long. Neither side could have prospered without the other, not the way the country has done.
On the issue of Slavery, The North had slaves too only they called them "Indentured Servents".
I've found a lot of people don't know that the emancipation proclamation did not free all the slaves. Only those who's owners were in rebellion against the union. The constitution had to be amended to actually free them.
Do they actually bother any president who thinks he is right? And they all think they are right!
Are you people never happy with anything our country does? This constant kvetching is getting old.
I'll say the same thing to you "states-rights" avocates that you used to say to me in the 60's: America -- love it or leave it.