Oklahoma Legislature Claims State Sovereignty
Oklahoma appears to be sick and tired of being bludgeoned and battered by the federal government. The legislature is striking back and making Oklahomans feelings kown. Ol' BC understands that other states are considering similar measures. Here's an account from Hot Air.
The Oklahoma House defied
a veto from Democratic Governor Brad Henry to approve a resolution asserting
its sovereignty under the Constitution. The Senate had approved the initial
resolution 29-18, just shy of the two-thirds needed to sustain an override, but
this new bill does not require his signature. Backers are optimistic
that they will succeed in sending a message to Washington DC to start limiting
themselves to truly federal task
The federal government has been out of control for years and years and apparently, the Oklahoma legislature is going to send a message to Washington.
Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House
members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s
sovereignty.
Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution
1028 does not need the governor’s approval.
The House passed the measure
73-22. It now goes to the Senate. …
Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed,
would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled
Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to “get
back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal
government should “cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its
powers.
Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says
powers not delegated to the U.S. government “are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required
of the U.S. government, he said.
The Constitution has been and is being trampled to the nth degree and enough is enough. Here's hoping other states follow Oklahoma's lead.
Just an observation. (BTW the bold type was added by Ol' BC)
H/T's The Baron and Hot Air
posted by Ol' BC @ 12:50 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
This debate reminds me of how people stand in relation to the Bible. Early in my Lutheran education, our pastor told us that Christianity had changed and that certain laws of the Bible just did not apply anymore. At the time I respected this take. Here was a pastor saying that the Bible, in some respect was not a document to be followed to the letter for, in hiw own words, people and their needs change, therefore so must Christian ideas, at least to some degree.
I will have to familiarize myself more with how the Fed has over-reached, yet I must retain the sentiment that the government must change according to the will of the people to some degree. Like the Bible, we cannot hope to ask people to conform to every letter of a document. We must, at times, alter the document because, naturally and realistically speaking, people change and needs change.
Clinging to ideas on a piece of paper and claiming that they must be followed to the letter regardless of real world needs and regardless of the reality that we are natural and changing beings, flies in the face of discretion.
Having said this, certainly there are some very firm things within the Constitution that should be unalterable. But, we must be careful taking the whole document to be--- gospel.
Right you are, it the framers' foresight regarding changing needs was, in fact, amazing. They realized the exact same thing and they allowed for just that - at the state and local level. They had come from a country with a dominating central government and very limited freedoms and tried to prevent that situation from occurring here. The "union" of states has become a nation with a tyrant of a central government and a judicial branch that has far exceeded any level of authority imagined at the time. But, yes, you must allow for changing times and needs and the framers did a damned fine job. It held up pretty well until Abe Lincoln began amassing federal power and it has just increased in size and scope continuously ever since (with a brief and slight reversal under Reagan - who managed to increase revenues dramatically, spend most of it breaking communism in the world and still reduced the size and scope of the federal government.)
Increase revenues? I think not. The net effect of all his bills DECREASED revenues by 1%.
Source:
Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis. 2003, rev. September 2006. Working Paper 81, Table 2. http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-11-28.
Reagan INCREASED the size of government more than all presidents from Washington to Carter... COMBINED.
Ronald Reagan did not reduce the size of government. That's a myth.
Actually, the federal government spending was 25 percent higher when Reagan left office than when he took office. And the federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million, and that's not including the huge increase in Defense Department civilians that Reagan brought in.
Furthermore, Reagan increased the size of government more than President Bill Clinton. While Reaganite Republicans falsely claim Clinton was in favor of "Big Government," the fact is that during eight years of the Clinton presidency the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by only 11 percent -- less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending under Clinton diminished from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent -- more than double Reagan's reduction.
If you want to see some of the actual numbers, see http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=32ja98.txt
For an alternative viewpoint, examine these numbers:
Carter (D): +20% revenue, +13% spending
Reagan (R): +15% revenue, +25% spending
Bush I (R): +17% revenue, +18% spending
Clinton (D): +35% revenue, + 9% spending
Bush II (R): +10% revenue, +25% spending
Ronald Reagan brought about large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt.
I also took the liberty of researching what "tyrant" actually means, and it has nothing to do with our present governmental situation. A tyrant is singular individual that places his or her own interests before those of the people and acts with harsh and cruel tendencies.
The Founding Fathers did come from a tyrannical past, in that they had been governed by a harsh king. However, the Federal Government does not wield cruel, harsh power that has its own interests as its goal. It is an elected representative government that still must answer to the people. Therefore it is not a tyrranical central government. Please define your terms before you set out to speak in this way.
I would also argue that due to advancement in communication, transportation, and population, the idea of statehood is somewhat outdated. It is good to have local control and local authority apart from the Fed, yet we live in an increasingly connected country where borders are essentially irrelevant. We also live in a global economy, in which to survive, we must operate as a nation with stronger overlying laws and structure.
What we do in Indiana can affect much more than our state. It behooves us as a country, then, to take this into consideration and legislate accordingly.
Mark,
So, does everyone get to decide what laws to follow and which to ignore? Can any legislator declare that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death? Or that America shall be a Catholic nation?
Who gets to decide how we screw around with the documents which we once supposed would keep the United States from becoming a Rwanda-style dictatorship? Can we fudge the Constitution just a wee bit to require that women shall keep all skin covered while in public?
The US Constitution was meant to be followed to the letter. There is a prescribed way to amend it, but no one seems to want to go to the trouble.
Vincent,
I'll agree with you that Reagan wasn't exactly the god-king that conservatives like to believe, but in the end, he was the best President in the 20th Century, if only because he lowered taxes for the entrepreneurial class, putting an end to Carter's economic collapse and starting a business boom which would've continued to this day had the Democrat Congress come through with the spending cuts Reagan requested (and Congressional leadership agreed to). And had GHW Bush not lied about not increasing taxes. And had Clinton not lied about not increasing taxes. And had GW Bush decreased taxes as much as he said he would. And had B Hussein not lied about just about everything.
Reagan didn't do away with the war on drugs. He didn't close hundreds of wasteful, needless government programs that would've rendered a lot of spending unnecessary. He closed a lot of income tax deductions while he reduces the tax rate, but his successors increased the tax rates without reopening the deductions--so that now we pay far more than we did in the early 1980's, even if the tax rate remains the same....which is doesn't.
Reagan has a lot to answer for, but not as much as every other President since the evil Abraham Lincoln.
Bottom line ...
It's about time the States asserted their proper powers, period.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Very quietly yesterday, the Obama administration did something the previous Bush administration could never do: issue a memo to all federal agencies to be mindful of states rights. That's right -- Obama's administration issues a pro-states rights memo. Believe it or not, according to NBC's Pete Williams, the Bush 43 administration never put out a basic guiding memo to federal agencies on how to handle state regulations when they potentially conflict with federal regulations. Williams says that Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton also issued a memo like this, but Bush 43 never did. The wording of this memo may seem contradictory to those on the right who want to believe that the Obama administration wants to concentrate MORE power with the federal government.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
Vince, don't confuse these guys with facts. It is a waste of time. Their minds are made up. They can only see the world through their conservative lenses, and there is no taking those lenses off. Save intellectual debate for those with a modicum of ammunition.
Vincent,
Now if we could only get him to recognize individual rights.....
The very superior and god-like elitist Mark,
Obviously your memory doesn't match your delusions of superiority, as I've repeatedly stated that I'm in no way conservative. I'm simply a capitalist and an individualist, as all intelligent men, who examine the alternatives, must be.
I missed the part where any readers or commenters on this site were fans of Bush 43. Nice try though, Vince.
BC,
The thing about GWB is that he's cut from the same cloth as B Hussein. Barry is just a mite more glib and crafty--that's about the only difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home