- This topic has 4 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is an example of exactly what I was talking about when I said we nee to get back to the literal words of the constitution. This was on Drudge today:
WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTYTue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ETAUSTIN ? Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states? rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.?I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,? Gov. Perry said. ?That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states? rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.?Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government?s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states? right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.Developing...
I am very curious to see what comes of this. I also support this effort 100% and will be informing my Congressman in my home district in Texas of that fact. This is a chance to see if small government conservatives are willing to stand on their principles.
Let's hope this goes somewhere. But go to Drudge and read Napolitano's document about right-wing extremist domestic terrorists. (caution, the link is v-e-e-e-ry slow. The document is also on thelibertypapers.org, but that is slow too…good thing I downloaded the PDF this morning) Anyone who owns a gun, is against abortion, and prefers state's rights over the federal government needs to be “watched.” Translation: if you disagree with ZerObama, you are a terrorist.I wish this was a conspiracy theory thing, but it is not.
You should read A State of Disobedience by Tom Kratman. The similarities between the novel and some of what is happening now are amazing. We do indeed, live in interesting times.I saw the homeland security paper. I guess I am a threat now. Not only am I a combat vet (which means I will kill people easier), I am also a conservative (which means I don't agree with everything the liberals want to do). What will the new guillotine be and when does the new terror start? Maybe I should start wearing a red cap and plant a liberty tree in my yard to deflect suspicion.
I am very curious to see what comes of this. I also support this effort 100% and will be informing my Congressman in my home district in Texas of that fact. This is a chance to see if small government conservatives are willing to stand on their principles.
That is interesting and I wonder where it will go from here. This is the first time I've heard about a move in this direction on a national level (aside from judicial discussion about it). The problem is that the power of the federal government has crept up for so long that it has become entrenched in the current power structure. Also, the general public is used to the status quo which makes it harder to get massive support behind states' rights issues. However, the fact that the Texas governor is saying something means that a tipping point has been reached at which people say to the feds - "no more".
It started with the elastic clause (so-called necessary and proper clause) and goes over the top with the verrrrrry broad application of the commerce clause.Tough to admit but we're dipped!
The success of any pushback against federal abuses of the commerce clause will depend on how the argument is framed. It has to be framed as a defense against unwarranted mandates from the feds and an assertion of the rights that the founders specifically wanted the states to have. They also also have to specifically cite abuses of the commerce clause as what they are, which are usurpation's of the states ability to govern itself. there are penty of examples out there of abuses. One in particular, is Louisiana and the federal drinking limit, another is California and medical marijuana laws. Whether you agree with the law or not, it is well within a states power to regulate the drugs within its borders, what is the constitutional authority for the FDA or even OSHA for that matter?
Here is a link to the text of the Resolution HCR 50 and a link to the Governor's statement Governor Perry Press Release
