Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!

[xfahctor]

But you can't deny what that last paragraph in the New Hampshire resolution contained, which was passed, and Georgia has a bill with that paragraph in it pending as well.  The wording cannot be construed as anything but advocating secession.  Sure, the resolution is a great bill, but that one paragraph ruins the entire thing.

Actually New Hampshires didn't passed, it was ITL'd by a margin of just over 30 votes. The outrage in the gallery was staggering. Prople shouting death threats to the floor, in unison reciting article 10 of the New Hampshire state constitution (right of revolution),many in the gallery were armed and open carrying. It was pure pandemonium and damn near an armed coup. the public support for this resolution was massive and yet many legislators ignored that and voted to kill it out of cowardess.

[Irobot]

Combat vet and patriot Guy Razer has started a State Sovereignty group site and is looking for state leaders. Would you like to participate and or help promote it here?

Other than the "introductions" section of the forum, I am not sure how best to promote this idea.

Here is the site.
http://statesstand.ning.com/

Let me know your thoughts and any suggestions you may have.

Thank you in advance. James

PS:
Ohio Joins Call for Restoring State Sovereignty -  H.C.R. 11 Introduced in House

http://adap2k.blogspot.com/2009/03/ohio-joins-call-for-restoring-state.html
.

[JTCoyoté]

But you can't deny what that last paragraph in the New Hampshire resolution contained, which was passed, and Georgia has a bill with that paragraph in it pending as well.  The wording cannot be construed as anything but advocating secession.  Sure, the resolution is a great bill, but that one paragraph ruins the entire thing.

Actually New Hampshires didn't passed, it was ITL'd by a margin of just over 30 votes. The outrage in the gallery was staggering. Prople shouting death threats to the floor, in unison reciting article 10 of the New Hampshire state constitution (right of revolution),many in the gallery were armed and open carrying. It was pure pandemonium and damn near an armed coup. the public support for this resolution was massive and yet many legislators ignored that and voted to kill it out of cowardess.

NEW HAMPSHIRE DECLARES SOVEREIGNTY
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0274
09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

(...)

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

JTCoyoté

"All government without the consent of the governed
is the very definition of slavery."
~Jonathan Swift

The part that I put in bold in that quote completely ruins the entire resolution, and i bring that up because my state has a copy of this resolution pending as we speak.  This makes me weary of COINTELPRO, advocating secession at the slightest infringement of our sovereign Constitution.  I figured of all people JTCoyote would be the one to address this.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr470.htm

Your bolded clause above is precisely why this resolution continues to be defeated. This portion smacks strongly of secessionist sentiment and points directly away from the lawful process that the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement is attempting to create.

As I have pointed out before, there is a procedure in this movement, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service. The way I described this is much like the final moves in a chess game. The 10th Amendment Resolution puts the federal agent's King in check, at which point you inform your opponent that his king is in danger. The resolution demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of their federal mandates.  Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can push to continue their little game... or they can resign it.

If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state.

In effect this shuts down all federal power within the state, over and above that which the state determines by law, to be Constitutional... this opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted power, including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect... "Checkmate!" The feds game is lost.

By adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, as being the basis of, and for this inquiry via the 10th Amendment, and thus necessitating that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and Constitutional complaint against the federal government, in so doing, the movement remains lawful and true. Secession, or the breaking away of any state, would spell disaster!

Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone and not by some convention. I'm sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue government to exploit the states and the people and to render us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.

The Bill of Rights begins at the 1st Amendment with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment... amendments begin with the words, "Congress shall have power..."
Think about it...

As has been correctly pointed out here, there is latent secessionism, as you have shown, in the New Hampshire resolution. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group.  They have their roots clear back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any possible lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power, and twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession... then they are a Global/FED, whether they know it or not.

JTCoyoté

"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

[Irobot]

Idaho’s Resolution Affirming Sovereignty won easy approval in the state House.


BOISE - Promoting his state sovereignty resolution on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives on Monday, St. Maries Rep. Dick Harwood declared that the United States is really a “confederacy.”

“To be accurate, we’re a confederated republic,” the fifth-term Republican then told the House.

http://adap2k.blogspot.com/2009/03/idahos-resolution-affirming-sovereignty.html

[70983]

Your bolded clause above is precisely why this resolution continues to be defeated. This portion smacks strongly of secessionist sentiment and points directly away from the lawful process that the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement is attempting to create.

As I have pointed out before, there is a procedure in this movement, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service. The way I described this is much like the final moves in a chess game. The 10th Amendment Resolution puts the federal agent's King in check, at which point you inform your opponent that his king is in danger. The resolution demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of their federal mandates.  Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can push to continue their little game... or they can resign it.

If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state.

In effect this shuts down all federal power within the state, over and above that which the state determines by law, to be Constitutional... this opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted power, including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect... "Checkmate!" The feds game is lost.

By adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, as being the basis of, and for this inquiry via the 10th Amendment, and thus necessitating that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and Constitutional complaint against the federal government, in so doing, the movement remains lawful and true. Secession, or the breaking away of any state, would spell disaster!

Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone and not by some convention. I'm sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue government to exploit the states and the people and to render us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.

The Bill of Rights begins at the 1st Amendment and the words, "Congress shall make no law..." By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment... amendments begin with the words, "Congress shall have power..."

As has been correctly pointed out here, there is latent secessionism, as you have shown, in the New Hampshire resolution. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group.  They have their roots clear back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any possible lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power, and twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession... then they are a Global/FED, whether they know it or not.

JTCoyoté

"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

If the states refuse to recognize that the Federal Government has any power whatsoever, then what is the difference between that and secession?  If there is no unifying buffer that connects the states, then they truly are separate nations.  Don't you think that instead of totally refusing to accept the Federal Government as legitimate, that the states instead should begin the process of nullifying any law or mandate that they deem unconstitutional by consensus.  Then, after doing so, they begin the process of trying, or calling for the trial of, the people who commited this form of treason by excersising powers that they were never delegated.

[JTCoyoté]

If the states refuse to recognize that the Federal Government has any power whatsoever, then what is the difference between that and secession?  If there is no unifying buffer that connects the states, then they truly are separate nations.  Don't you think that instead of totally refusing to accept the Federal Government as legitimate, that the states instead should begin the process of nullifying any law or mandate that they deem unconstitutional by consensus.  Then, after doing so, they begin the process of trying, or calling for the trial of, the people who commited this form of treason by excersising powers that they were never delegated.

I will assume what you are referring to here, is the bolded portion of the New Hampshire resolution. As I pointed out in the first paragraph of my last post, this is exactly why the New Hampshire resolution is constantly being defeated. It is because it contains secessionist language. As do a couple of other state resolutions that have used New Hampshire as a model.

In the third paragraph of my above post, I show the next step if the feds do not cease and desist upon receipt of the resolution...

"If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional State
Sovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes
that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal
government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be
within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power.
Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state."

In my last post, I boiled down into one page, the entire process and procedure that must be adhered to in order to obtain lawful service and remedy. It worked well in the 90's, in getting these passed, before the unlawful false flag of OKC deflected and diverted the movement until now.  My last post would be well worth reading and rereading in order to understand why state legislatures are rightfully leery of signing on to legislation such as New Hampshire's.

The process of law is clear, for both sides, thus must be adhered to by both sides, and most assuredly by our side. The bottom line on New Hampshire's resolution is one of secession, and as long as that clause remains within the body of that resolution, it will not pass -- and of right should not pass!

JTCoyoté

"It [the Market Crash of 1929] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence....
The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they
might emerge as rulers of us all." ~ Rep. Lewis T. McFadden (R-PA)
Chairman of the House banking and finance committee (1920-31)

[70983]

Ok that clears it up for me, but i still have one question.

You say the states, after passing this Constitutional Sovereignty Act, are responsible for approving Federal actions before they are done.  Is that not unconstitutional in and of itself?  The only time the states can lawfully come together to make decisions without the involvement of the Federal Government is during the Constitutional Convention process, which we all know would be just as dangerous or even more so than secession itself. 

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

The Federal Government, I believe, is entitled to its powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and those powers cannot be lawfully taken away or "approved" by anyone, without a Constitutional Amendment.  That said, I agree with you that the States are able, individually, to nullify, with proof, any act of Congress, executive, or judicial order that may be reaching beyond its Constitutionally granted powers.  However, they CANNOT have the power to approve or dissaprove forcefully of a legitimate Act of the Federal Government.  It would be beyond the States' power to do so.

[JTCoyoté]

Ok that clears it up for me, but i still have one question.

You say the states, after passing this Constitutional Sovereignty Act, are responsible for approving Federal actions before they are done.  Is that not unconstitutional in and of itself?  The only time the states can lawfully come together to make decisions without the involvement of the Federal Government is during the Constitutional Convention process, which we all know would be just as dangerous or even more so than secession itself.  

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

The Federal Government, I believe, is entitled to its powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and those powers cannot be lawfully taken away or "approved" by anyone, without a Constitutional Amendment.  That said, I agree with you that the States are able, individually, to nullify, with proof, any act of Congress, executive, or judicial order that may be reaching beyond its Constitutionally granted powers.  However, they CANNOT have the power to approve or dissaprove forcefully of a legitimate Act of the Federal Government.  It would be beyond the States' power to do so.

Your first paragraph:

The Constitutional State Sovereignty Act enforces with actual law, the sovereignty resolution, it provides teeth. The resolution was created out of necessity, upon seeing that the federal government is mandating acts upon the state that are unconstitutional. The resolution informs the federal government that the state is aware of the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution, ratified in convention on December 15, 1791. The state understands the meaning of these two amendments, and it's power under them. Thus, of necessity, the state wishes to inform the federal government that it must, by law, abide by these two amendments with regard to its dealings with the state.

Once the process of Resolution has been accomplished, if the federal government fails to act upon that information by curtailing its barrage of unconstitutional mandates, then the state must by law take the next step which is to pass a law mandating to the satisfaction of the state legislature, (the lawmaking body of the state -- therefore the body that would be enacting into state law any federal government mandates), that the federal government now show chapter and verse from the Constitution where any and all federal mandates foisted upon the states, past and/or present are constitutional, as the state may require.

Once there are 38 states, each doing this independently, within the body of their legislature, then the Federal downsizing begins.  Each state has the right to question not only the mandate itself, but any precedent, any amendment, or any federal statute that the federal government may cite, regarding its constitutionality. So there will be no convention nor need for one, since the states will not be conferring with one another at the same time as would be the case with a convention, yet each would independently be in direct communication with the federal power. It would be just like normal legislative procedure within each state, with the difference that each state would have the federal government's attention for a change. Thereby, the state, and the people of that state, engage and preserve their rights and powers as guaranteed under the 9th and 10th amendments.

Your second paragraph...

...is from article 1 section 10 of the Constitution. The term compact here refers to any extra-constitutional compacts. What is being engaged in here, is protected by the 10th amendment, a constitutional re-affirmation communication that is being independently engaged in within the legislatures of each state. If I were to use your definition, as I infer it, of what this means, then the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional because it is a compact between the state's. This particular clause deals with anything in the compact vein that isn't protected by constitution. The annual State Governors conference would be much closer to an extra-constitutional compact, than the 50 states independently within their respective legislative processes, holding the federal government's feet to the constitutional fire using the 10th amendment as the precedent.

Your third paragraph:

There is already a constitutional amendment... it is called the 10th amendment. And the federal government does not have the right or the power to force an unconstitutional federal law upon any one, or any number of the states. The states have the absolute right and power within the Constitution, through their legislative body, to demand a demonstration of constitutionality for every federally mandated law without exception. And if 38 states independently by a vote of their legislatures find a particular federal law unconstitutional as it stacks up to the Organic Law... then it is unconstitutional... This absolutely requires that the Organic Constitution for the United States of America and The Bill of Rights, as ratified in convention, in the City of New York on December 15, 1791, be re-affirmed and upheld as the undeniable Law of the Land and final arbiter of constitutionality.

The federal government is being put on notice that they now must prove "legitimacy", given their unconstitutional activity of late. This has glaringly come to the attention of the states, and thus, reigning it in, which is the states prerogative, would be timely now, if not long overdue. The federal government is being informed that it is now under close state observation, regarding all it's shenanigans of power grabbing far beyond its constitutionally prescribed boundaries, and it must cease and desist this activity now, or "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."  In other words, IT will be fired.

JTCoyoté

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

[menace]

Idaho's house pass Idaho's, it now goes to the Senate.

[Jay of Nebraska]

Ok, I have an important account to share about the importance of sovereignty and its clairity for every nation.

I realize this yet in the High School  Government Text Book of North Platte, Nebraska, in the year 2002, for Seniors while assisting a study for a test for my wife whom returned to High School at the age of 20 to finish High School after dropping out we discovered a very different definition.  I was not the first person to recognize it during the study time to assist my wife.  The discovery was made by a familly friend that was assisting and whom was exmilitary.  Afterwords we sought out other exmilitary and showed them the change.  Everyone was alarmed and I fully realized that this was the worst kind of news yet how to reach the most people at once was the difficulty and my other attempts online met with something worse than resisstance but out and out acceptance of the new definition and the insistance that I was mistaken of the original definition.  This will not stand.  Coming from a military family and a strong list of patriotic history makes this a sad thing, although vital, to report.

The definition that I was rased with in the mid 1980s and those before me have concurred was like this.

Sovereignty: The right of a nation to raise an army to defend its borders from encroaching enemies.

The definition int he text of this Government Class and several others as I have discovered debating it online is as follows.

Sovereignty: The absolute power a nation has over its people.

Now, to me that is treasonous and it is not the proper definition of Sovereignty.

Do you agree with my conclusion? It seems to be a totally facist redefinition of Sovereignty which disallows comprehension of what it really means and dismisses the possilblity of personal or state sovereignty.

By confusing the young by redefining the definition of key terms, it allows for a complete undermining of the USA Constitution.

Now, I actually feel guilty for not speaking up sooner and I have realized that it was bad news the entire time, so I did what I thought best and told as many exmilitary as I could meet with personally about this turn of events.

I challenge everyone in this country to report this to others and check the Government Text Books of your School Systems to see how far this has gone.

Sovereignty is NOT supposed to have a definition of ultimate power over the people and is in fact and prectice nearly the opposite.  For sovereignty gives the power to the people and the leaders to defend its borders from invaders both foreign and domestic.  The current definition that is settling in for the past ten to fifteen years has subtily taken hold and is having a disastrous effect.


So, here i sthe Challenge.

Personally investigate the definitions of Sovereignty and the rest of the definitions as well in Social Studies, Government, Debate, Politics, Western Politics and other texts to see how far this has gone.

The reason I offer this challenge is two fold.  First to inform and allow for people to find independant confirmations and report findings in each area of the nation to see how wide spread this has gone.  Second it is to allow for a PROOF of how far the undermining of our most precious document by uprooting and disfiguring the meaning of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The current definition that I am exposing is the means by which the enemy invaders of both foreign and domestic origins will conquer us.

Because we demand sovereignty they plan on giving it to us yet the definition has changed dramatically.


One more time for quicker reference.

The definition I and many other generations have been raised with.

Sovereignty: The right of a nation to raise an army to defend its borders from encroaching enemies.


The impostor that destroys our actual national, state and personal sovereignty.

Sovereignty: The absolute power a nation has over its people.

We must prevail against such abomination!

With Honor, Jay of Nebraska

[70983]

Your first paragraph:

The Constitutional State Sovereignty Act enforces with actual law, the sovereignty resolution, it provides teeth. The resolution was created out of necessity, upon seeing that the federal government is mandating acts upon the state that are unconstitutional. The resolution informs the federal government that the state is aware of the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution, ratified in convention on December 15, 1791. The state understands the meaning of these two amendments, and it's power under them. Thus, of necessity, the state wishes to inform the federal government that it must, by law, abide by these two amendments with regard to its dealings with the state.

Once the process of Resolution has been accomplished, if the federal government fails to act upon that information by curtailing its barrage of unconstitutional mandates, then the state must by law take the next step which is to pass a law mandating to the satisfaction of the state legislature, (the lawmaking body of the state -- therefore the body that would be enacting into state law any federal government mandates), that the federal government now show chapter and verse from the Constitution where any and all federal mandates foisted upon the states, past and/or present are constitutional, as the state may require.

Once there are 38 states, each doing this independently, within the body of their legislature. Then the Federal downsizing begins.  Each state has the right to question not only the mandate itself, but any precedent, any amendment, or any federal statute that the federal government may cite, regarding its constitutionality. So there will be no convention nor need for one, since the states will not be conferring with one another at the same time as would be the case with a convention, yet each would independently be in direct communication with the federal power. It would be just like normal legislative procedure within each state, with the difference that each state would have the federal government's attention for a change. Thereby, the state, and the people of that state, engage and preserve their rights and powers as guaranteed under the 9th and 10th amendments.

Your second paragraph...

Is from article 1 section 10 of the Constitution. The term compact here refers to any extra-constitutional compacts. What is being engaged in here, is protected by the 10th amendment, a constitutional re-affirmation communication that is being independently engaged in within the legislatures of each state. If I were to use your definition, as I infer it, of what this means, then the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional because it is a compact between the state's. This particular clause deals with anything in the compact vein that isn't protected by constitution. The annual State Governors conference would be much closer to an extra-constitutional compact, than the 50 states independently within their respective legislative processes, holding the federal government's feet to the constitutional fire using the 10th amendment as the precedent.

Your third paragraph:

There is already a constitutional amendment... it is called the 10th amendment. And the federal government does not have the right or the power to force an unconstitutional federal law upon any one, or any number of the states. The states have the absolute right and power within the Constitution, through their legislative body, to demand a demonstration of constitutionality for every federally mandated law without exception. And if 38 states independently by a vote of their legislatures find a particular federal law unconstitutional as it stacks up to the Organic Law... then it is unconstitutional... This absolutely requires that the Organic Constitution for the United States of America and The Bill of Rights, as ratified in convention, in the City of New York on December 15, 1791, be re-affirmed and upheld as the undeniable Law of the Land and final arbiter of constitutionality.

The federal government is being put on notice that they now must prove "legitimacy", given their unconstitutional activity of late. This has glaringly come to the attention of the states, and thus, reigning it in, which is the states prerogative, would be timely now, if not long overdue. The federal government is being informed that it is now under close state observation, regarding all it's shenanigans of power grabbing far beyond its constitutionally prescribed boundaries, and it must cease and desist this activity now, or "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."  In other words, IT will be fired.

JTCoyoté

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

Alright, I understand what you mean now.  The state legislatures have the right collectively to demand proof of the constitutionality of any Federal Law. 

But, you profess to be what I would interpret as a champion of the United States Constitution, and yet you believe that the government established therein should be "fired."  That is a very powerful, yet obscure thing to say, as it can be interpreted in many different ways.  When you say "the Federal Government will be fired", do you meanyou are advocating the restructuring of the government, under a new constitution?  Do you support the idea in a few of these emerging resolutions, that "all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually"? 

If you do, then I ask you, what do you believe could possibly be a better framework of Government than the one that we now currently live under?  In my opinion, the founders of our nation created the most brilliant document in human history, and I will never support the trashing of it as long as I live.  Here is a little blog I wrote on the Campaign for Liberty about this very topic:  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13774


If you don't support this form of quasi-secession, then more power to you.

[JTCoyoté]

Alright, I understand what you mean now.  The state legislatures have the right collectively to demand proof of the constitutionality of any Federal Law. 

But, you profess to be what I would interpret as a champion of the United States Constitution, and yet you believe that the government established therein should be "fired."  That is a very powerful, yet obscure thing to say, as it can be interpreted in many different ways.  When you say "the Federal Government will be fired", do you meanyou are advocating the restructuring of the government, under a new constitution?  Do you support the idea in a few of these emerging resolutions, that "all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually"? 

If you do, then I ask you, what do you believe could possibly be a better framework of Government than the one that we now currently live under?  In my opinion, the founders of our nation created the most brilliant document in human history, and I will never support the trashing of it as long as I live.  Here is a little blog I wrote on the Campaign for Liberty about this very topic:  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13774


If you don't support this form of quasi-secession, then more power to you.

The governmental structure of the federal agent is fine as it is set out in the Constitution... but that is not the structure, nor is it the Government that now rides ruff-shod over the states and the people in our time... The best way to say it, and truer words were never spoken no matter your opinion of the man that spoke them.  This was said on the campaign trail in Columbus Ohio on Sept. 16th and 17th 1859...

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but
to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln

If you have been reading my posts, you will notice that I am emphatic about adherence to the 1791, convention ratified, Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I also like the amendments that had been proposed and ratified before 1820, and the original 14th Amendment, but became the 13th Amendment after the original 13th disappeared mysteriously from the Amendments.

With that said, in other threads I have laid out the shenanigans of subterfuge used by the royalist globalists and their minions to undermine these United States, they finally plunged us into civil war, and then consolidated their power by a parallel government corporation, artfully created by the DC organic act of 1871... These moves created the unprecedented power in the hands of the federal agent to create corporate agencies that operate outside of the normal constitutional boundaries of the government as it was originally laid out by the 1791 Constitution.

I am not familiar with what the Campaign for Liberty has in mind, but I will look into it. As to the power reverting back to the states... the power never left the states. We still have the power.  As a united front of states, by a super majority we can remove all unconstitutional laws, the states have the power to eviscerate the entirety of the corporate parallel government, and bring charges against all those engaged in this rampant treason in the District of Columbia, and bring them to justice. All the while, keeping those necessary agencies of necessary federal operation in working order under new more responsive, constitutional abiding people. People who take an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America and then uphold it.

The founding fathers, many of them still at the helm, when the original 13th amendment was proposed, and then ratified, foresaw the days we are now in, and sought to avert them with this Amendment. Once Jackson killed the second national Bank, the Crown tripled its efforts in undermining subterfuge the undoing nof our Constitution and had great success by provocateuring both sides, creating the Civil War.

The utilization of the 10th amendment within the states, up until the time of the Civil War, was the constitutional litmus used in proving a federal law nor mandate before became law within the state. That all changed after the Civil War however, and the 10th amendment was demonized as being the cause for the secession of the Southern states. Nothing could be further from the truth... since the 10th amendment requires that the Constitution before it, and the nine other Amendments of the Bill of Rights that come before as well, remain in tact as the power behind it. Therefore the 10th Amendment Resolution movement can never become a secessionist movement.

Contrary to popular belief the Constitution is not a federal document, it creates and spells out federal power, but it is POWER that is delegated by the states, sent by the people... whereby, in dealings at law within statehouses, the state constitution holds the specifics for that state. However, the Constitution for the US, states the General organic law that must be upheld through this agreement, by the states. Thus the people and the states as a whole hold all power over the federal agency, constitutionally... Therefore, it's about time we start exercising it before we lose our power forever to the hands of our historical longtime enemy, the tyranny of the crowned heads of Europe!

JTCoyoté

"This nation can never be conquered from without.
If it is ever to fall it will be from within."
~President Abraham Lincoln

[70983]

Therefore the 10th Amendment Resolution movement can never become a secessionist movement.

Contrary to popular belief the Constitution is not a federal document, it creates and spells out federal power, but it is POWER that is delegated by the states, sent by the people...

But, the States have given up some power to their creation, the Federal Government, and that power cannot be added unto nor taken away without a Constitutional Amendment.  A State, as long as it continues within this agreement, does NOT have the power individually, contrary to what is stated in a few of the sovereignty resolutions, to either remove a power from its delegated position in the Federal Government, or to assume such power to itself.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the States have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the Federal Government by any form other than a Constitutional Convention.  That, to the extent of my knowledge, is the only way for the States themselves, to amend any powers delegated to the Fed.  The other way is for Congress to propose amendments, or even an entirely new Constitution, and that the States ratify them.

I completely agree with you that many of the dealings within the Federal Government are currently unconstitutional, and that the States collectively have the right to call these acts out, and to nullify them, but I do not believe that the States have any authority to direct the Federal Government in any of its legitimately constitutional actions such as the powers defined in Article 1, Section 8, or any where else in the Constitution of the United States, because they gave up these powers individually in order for the entire country to posess them collectively.

You said that the current government is not legitimately and physically the actual government created by the Constitution?  In what way do you mean this?  Are you saying this with regards to the District of Columbia itself and its jurisdiction, or the actual people who are running it?

[JTCoyoté]

But, the States have given up some power to their creation, the Federal Government, and that power cannot be added unto nor taken away without a Constitutional Amendment.  A State, as long as it continues within this agreement, does NOT have the power individually, contrary to what is stated in a few of the sovereignty resolutions, to either remove a power from its delegated position in the Federal Government, or to assume such power to itself.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the States have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the Federal Government by any form other than a Constitutional Convention.  That, to the extent of my knowledge, is the only way for the States themselves, to amend any powers delegated to the Fed.  The other way is for Congress to propose amendments, or even an entirely new Constitution, and that the States ratify them.

I completely agree with you that many of the dealings within the Federal Government are currently unconstitutional, and that the States collectively have the right to call these acts out, and to nullify them, but I do not believe that the States have any authority to direct the Federal Government in any of its legitimately constitutional actions such as the powers defined in Article 1, Section 8, or any where else in the Constitution of the United States, because they gave up these powers individually in order for the entire country to posess them collectively.

You said that the current government is not legitimately and physically the actual government created by the Constitution?  In what way do you mean this?  Are you saying this with regards to the District of Columbia itself and its jurisdiction, or the actual people who are running it?

The states did not give up the powers enumerated in article I section 8. They are merely communicated from the several states, in exchange for value of the equal worth from the central agent. Article IV contains some of these exchange goods, with article IV section 4 being particularly noteworthy.

As I've pointed out in one of my earlier "lengthy" posts, several of the states resolutions will not pass because they are not abiding by the rules of lawful service. I'm sure you can surmise what that means, and most state legislators understand what it means as well. In that post I also spelled out the proper procedure.

Your comment:
 
"Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the states have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the federal government by any form other than a constitutional convention."

This is a curious statement, it presupposes that the state is deleting power granted by the Constitution, or attempting to delegate powers to the federal government that are not enumerated therein. This is not the case in this movement at all. The 10th Amendment Resolution portends housecleaning only, since the powers delegated by the constitutional agreement between the state's are still state powers, that have been ceded by provisions in the agreement between the states, to a 3rd party, to the federal agent. Much the same way that power of attorney is granted by you to your legal agent. The states by the 10th amendment, still have the power to access and resend, through the individual 10th amendment effort of each state throughout the 50 states, together, without the communication of a convention, but from the laws of necessity, as spelled out in the Declaratory Enabling Act that gave rise to the Constitution. 

This knowledge is quite well known among the powerful in Washington DC, who remain silent about it and hedge every bet against it... this is why, when the 10th amendment state sovereignty movement was about to reach a crescendo in the mid-90s, the folks pushing it, those Constitutional patriots, had to be demonized and stopped. The Oklahoma City bombing was engineered precisely to take care of this problem.

The reason for the aforementioned housecleaning is pretty obvious, and is apparent to a majority of the states presently. The federal government has been giving unto itself, power at the expense of the states, which it has no constitutional right to grant itself. It is doing so only by deconstruction of word, grammar, and definition, and inventing against the Constitution, webs of convolved meaning, beyond the bounds of what any intelligent man can tolerate.

Only the states, and their people have the power, through constitutional process, which includes the 10th amendment process, to rein in an agent who is bent upon the absolute destruction of the principals (the States), by misuse of the agreement that created it.

So you're above quoted statement seems to me, a bit of a non sequitur given the discussion thus far, at least as far as I have advanced it. I see in it, however, what seems as an attempt at wrenching meanings from my words that are not there at all.

A super majority of the 50 states, by individual initiative, has the power under the 10th amendment to accomplish without convention, the opening up of the entire amended law after the date of ratification, December 15, 1791 without much problem, and to reiterate, certainly without a convention.  The only reason for a convention, would be to open the 1791 Constitution to change... and that, is what we, this effort, this movement, absolutely, emphatically, and without a shadow of a doubt, DO NOT WANT! NOR WILL WE ACCEPT!!

I will once again refer you to Thomas Jefferson:

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

This is a very important quote that has been ignored by virtually all interpreters of the Constitution, since John Jay was the Chief Justice of the court. As we pull away in time from the date of the framing of this monumental work, more and more people within government, know less and less about the foundation documents, and have mistakenly come to see the federal government as the center of power. This is of course wrong.

It is also the reason why the states must, every 200 years or so clean up the complacent trash that has been gathering around the agreement they all so honorably signed, which may include firing the attorney and hiring a new one. But the agreement between the states, the Constitution, which is guarded at its conclusion by the 10th amendment of that Constitution and Bill of Rights, will remain. All else is within the 9th and 10th amendment state powers to dissolve.


As to the last part of your post dealing with our current rogue federal government operating every minute outside of the Constitution, because of its corporate structure and its sneaky way of utilizing the power of the Constitution without having to abide by the Constitution, I suggest that you read closely the following linked material, then we can discuss it.

Much was weeded through here, before we could get to the level in the discussion that leads to the "aha eureka" phenomenon of understanding how it was accomplished. Here is a link...

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63062.0

This will help... but it does get rather esoteric in the grasping department, though it is pretty concrete in the factual. It is a lot like looking at one of those early holograms that looked like a bunch of dots and squiggles in pastel colors on the paper that you held in the sunlight to see. It was impossible to see at first, until that one time, when it popped out at you... then you never had a problem being able to see it from then on.

JTCoyoté

"A government that is large enough to supply everything
you need is large enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

[username2]

the constitution is part of new world order
franklin came up with putting the eye on the seal and freemason presidents have been around for awhile
Manly P. Hall states:

"European mysticism was not dead at the time the United States of America was founded. The hand of the mysteries controlled in the establishment of the new government for the signature of the mysteries may still be seen on the Great Seal of the United states of America. Careful analysis of the seal discloses a mass of occult and Masonic symbols chief among them, the so-called American Eagle. ... the American eagle upon the Great Seal is but a conventionalized phoenix..."

"Not only were many of the founders of the United States government Masons, but they received aid from a secret and august body existing in Europe which helped them to establish this country for A PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PURPOSE known only to the initiated few." (Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, pp. XC and XCI)

The European group he is talking about is the Illuminati. They claimed America to establish the New World Order. This is the peculiar and particular purpose known only to certain high ranking freemasons.

[70983]

The states did not give up the powers enumerated in article I section 8. They are merely communicated from the several states, in exchange for value of the equal worth from the central agent. Article IV contains some of these exchange goods, with article IV section 4 being particularly noteworthy.

As I've pointed out in one of my earlier "lengthy" posts, several of the states resolutions will not pass because they are not abiding by the rules of lawful service. I'm sure you can surmise what that means, and most state legislators understand what it means as well. In that post I also spelled out the proper procedure.

Your comment:
 
"Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the states have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the federal government by any form other than a constitutional convention."

This is a curious statement, it presupposes that the state is deleting power granted by the Constitution, or attempting to delegate powers to the federal government that are not enumerated therein. This is not the case in this movement at all. The 10th Amendment Resolution portends housecleaning only, since the powers delegated by the constitutional agreement between the state's are still state powers, that have been ceded by provisions in the agreement between the states, to a 3rd party, to the federal agent. Much the same way that power of attorney is granted by you to your legal agent. The states by the 10th amendment, still have the power to access and resend, through the individual 10th amendment effort of each state throughout the 50 states, together, without the communication of a convention, but from the laws of necessity, as spelled out in the Declaratory Enabling Act that gave rise to the Constitution. 

This knowledge is quite well known among the powerful in Washington DC, who remain silent about it and hedge every bet against it... this is why, when the 10th amendment state sovereignty movement was about to reach a crescendo in the mid-90s, the folks pushing it, those Constitutional patriots, had to be demonized and stopped. The Oklahoma City bombing was engineered precisely to take care of this problem.

The reason for the aforementioned housecleaning is pretty obvious, and is apparent to a majority of the states presently. The federal government has been giving unto itself, power at the expense of the states, which it has no constitutional right to grant itself. It is doing so only by deconstruction of word, grammar, and definition, and inventing against the Constitution, webs of convolved meaning, beyond the bounds of what an intelligent man can tolerate.

Only the states, and their people have the power, through constitutional process, which includes the 10th amendment process, to rein in an agent who bent upon the absolute destruction of the principals ( the States), by misuse of the agreement that created it.

So you're above quoted statement seems to me, a bit of a non sequitur given the discussion thus far, at least as far as I have advanced it. I see in it, however, what seems as an attempt at wrenching meanings from my words that are not there at all.

A super majority of the 50 states, by individual initiative, has the power under the 10th amendment to accomplish without convention, the opening up of the entire amended law after the date of ratification, December 15, 1791 without much problem, and to reiterate, certainly without a convention.  The only reason for a convention, would be to open the 1791 Constitution to change... and that, is what we, this effort, this movement, absolutely, emphatically, and without a shadow of a doubt, DO NOT WANT! NOR WILL WE ACCEPT!!

I will once again refer you to Thomas Jefferson:

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

This is a very important quote that has been ignored by virtually all interpreters of the Constitution, since John Jay was the Chief Justice of the court. As well, as we pull away in time from the date of the framing of that monumental work, more and more people within government, know less and less about the foundation documents, and have mistakenly come to see the federal government as the center of power. This is of course wrong.

It is also the reason why the states must, every 200 years or so clean up the complacent trash that has been gathering around the agreement they all so honorably signed, which may include firing the attorney and hiring a new one. But the agreement between the states, the Constitution, which is guarded at its conclusion by the 10th amendment of that Constitution and Bill of Rights, will remain. All else is within the 9th and 10th amendment state powers to dissolve.


As to the last part of your post dealing with our current rogue federal government operating every minute outside of the Constitution, because of its corporate structure and its sneaky way of utilizing the power of the Constitution without having to abide by the Constitution, I suggest that you read closely the following linked material, then we can discuss it.

Much was weeded through here, before we could get to the level in the discussion that leads to the "aha eureka" phenomenon of understanding how it was accomplished. Here is a link...

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63062.0

This will help... but it does get rather esoteric in the grasping department, though it is pretty concrete in the factual. It is quite like looking at one of those early holograms that looked like a bunch of dots and squiggles in pastel colors on the paper that you held in the sunlight to see. It was impossible to see at first, until that one time, when it popped out at you... then you never had a problem being able to see it from then on.

JTCoyoté

"A government that is large enough to supply everything
you need is large enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

Oh, don't take what I said the wrong way, as I am in no way in support of a Constitutional Convention.  It's just that I never knew there was another way for the states to change the power of the federal government.  Some of us are still going through the learning process  .  I can see that you are a great fan of the Constitution of the United States, and I am proud to be able to call myself one as well.  I just am unsure as to what will happen once three fourths of the states submit their sovereignty resolutions.  From what you have said, it sounds as if the Federal Government will be stripped of all power, and given full direction by the States.  So, for each action that is needed to be carried out by the federal government constitutionally, what will be the process for doing that?  Take for example, monetary appropriations for the military.  Will three fourths of the States have to submit their approbations before any money can be sent?   Or for the coining of money, will three fourths of the States need to send their approval to Congress before it can proceed with coining our currency.  The same question can be asked with regards to every other power delegated to the Federal Government.

[lord edward coke]

How the Fifty States of the Union are Separate, Distinct, and Foreign Nations

to the United States Government

 

 

A State is a Sovereign Nation

 

1. British Colonies became Sovereign Nations

            Declaration of Independence – These United Colonies are … Free and Independent States; that are … absolved from all Allegiance … to the State of Great Britain.

 

State – An organized government with independent sovereignty … making war and entering into international relations – Blacks Law Dictionary

-         ‘state’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and Guam, and American Samoa. – 26 CFR §31.3132

-         One of the 22 territories owned by the U.S. government

‘United States’ - Territory over which sovereignty of United States extends- Black’s

- means the several states (including the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, …The term ‘citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, …26 CFR § 31.3132(e)-1

 ‘Foreign State’ – A foreign country or nation – Black’s

                       - Not domestic - IRC

 

2. A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States - Chisholm, Ex’r  v. Georgia 2 Dall. 419, (1794)

 

3. The United States is not one nation. M’Culloch v. The State of Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819)

 

 

The Formation of the Union
4. Article I- The Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”

Article II- Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not delegated to the United States. Articles of Confederation – 1778

 

5. The Northwest Ordnance of 1787 provided for the government of the Northwest Territory. It is the model for establishing governments in 22 such territories belonging to America. A complete list is in the Domestic Mail Manual. Examples are American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

6. A Congress is an assembly of international envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc, from different sovereignties. It is also the legislative assembly of the United States.

 

7. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. government are operational within a State. A Federal government is a government of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.  Blacks Law Dictionary, 1968

 

8. The Constitution gave territory, the District of Columbia, that was foreign to the sovereignty of any state to the United States government. The 10th Amendment withheld authority from the United States for those things not specifically delegated to it. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 17

 

9. “Each state possesses all the powers of an independent and sovereign nation, except as they have been ceded away by the constitution. The federal government must show an express or implied authority in the charter of its appointment to give validity to its acts.” People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal 234 (1850)

 

10. Other federations of sovereign states: UK (Wales, Scotland and Ireland); Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (15 states such as Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, etc); Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia; European Union (15 states including Germany, France, England, Ireland and Italy, etc). United Nations (180 states)

 

11. States of the Union are to control the United States government through Congress. Congress is not to give direction to the States except for things delegated in the Constitution. The original Constitution had Senators appointed by the State and the President elected by State Electors.

 

 

U.S. Government is Foreign to the States of the Union
12. U.S. Territories are foreign to the States of the Union. The 22 territories are under the sovereignty of the United States government. The Presidents Executive Orders only apply to the District of Columbia, the federal territories, and the enclaves within the states that have been ceded to the United States.

 

13. “That is the settled view of the Supreme Court that, on questions of private international law, the states are foreign to the United States would seem to be clear from the decision in State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Is. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888). In that case Wisconsin, … against a Louisiana corporation, brought suit in the U.S. Supreme Court. On the theory that Wisconsin was a foreign state…’By the law of England and the United States the penal laws of a country do not reach beyond its own territory, except when extended by express treaty or statute to offenses committed abroad by its own citizens; and they must be administered in its own courts only, and cannot be enforced by the court of another country.’ That case has been frequently cited by the Supreme Court and never has it been qualified in any manner… ” 

 

“ Statutes of the several states and the United States stand upon an equal footing. They are to be enforced or not enforced according to the rule of comity in private international law and not by reason of any constitutional mandate…The Constitution does not require us to treat the United States in a matter of this nature more favorable than we do a sister state of the Union.” Robinson v. Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A.2d 467,  (1945)

 

14.  The government of the United States is foreign as to the states of the union … the penal statutes of one sovereignty will not be enforced by another…Salonen v. Farley, 82 F. Supp. 25 U.S. District Court, Kentucky (1949)

 

15. “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 19 C.J.S. Corporations §883, citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479 (1894)

 

16. “Township school district was not required to furnish free educational facilities for children who resided on grounds of federal Veterans Administration Hospital, which was located in the township, where jurisdiction of grounds had been ceded by the Commonwealth to the United States…Neither the parents nor the guardians of these children reside in O’Hara Township. To be a resident of a particular political subdivision of a State, a person must reside on land over which the State has jurisdiction. It has long been held that persons living on Federal reservations are not residents of the states wherein such reservations are situated…When title is acquired by purchase by consent of the legislatures of the states, the federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all state authority…

Schwartz v. O’Hara Tp. School Dist. et al., 100 A.2d 621 (1953)

 

17. A contract between the United States and a state does not constitute a delegation of authority of the citizens of the States of the Union. Such a contract operates only on the State government and can create no obligation on the people

 

18. Public international law deals with the authority of the States of the Union have delegated to the United States government to represent American interests outside of American society.  Private international law deals with the role of the federal government within American society where federal legislation might conflict with state law.

 

19. The laws enacted by Congress are domestic to the District of Columbia, the federal territories or insular Possessions, and the enclaves within a state that jurisdiction has been ceded to the United States government. Without a specific constitutional footing, the laws of Congress are foreign to the States of the Union, and … foreign law never supersedes nor takes precedence over any law that is domestic to the State.

 

 

Limited Authority of Federal Law
20. “Congress as a legislative body, exercises two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia…

            It cannot be denied that the character of the jurisdiction which Congress has over the district, is widely different from that which it has over the states; over them , Congress has not exclusive jurisdiction. Its powers over the states are those only which are specifically given, …”, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

 

21. Territorial courts are not courts in which the judicial power conferred by Article 3 can be deposited; yet they are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty, which exists in the government over the territories, or the clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.” United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76, 15 S.Ct. 16 (1894)

 

22. “Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction…Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states … And it is only these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction…”

            “All powers which pertain to Sovereignty, which have not been delegated to the federal government, belong to the States and the people.” New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. 662 (1836)

 

23. Chelsea Creek in Boston Harbor is not in the United States. Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246 (1907)

 

24. “There could be no complete code for the entire United States, because the subjects which would be proper to be regulated be a code in the states are entirely outside the legislative authority of Congress”, Justice Walter S. Cox of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 1 D.C. Code, Volume 1, p. 10, 1981 edition.

 

25. “Legislation of Congress… is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)

 

26. “ This statute [Revenue Statute §5392 defining the crime of perjury] is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States…The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

 

27. “An act of Congress does not have sanctity of constitutional provision, … the operation of the act can affect only those subjects over which the central government has jurisdiction.” People v. Kelly, 122 P.2d 655 (1942)

 

28. “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” 40 USC §255 and 50 USC §175

 

29. “Because these parcels are not federally owned, the United States does not have any legislative jurisdiction. I trust that you are aware that the jurisdiction ceded under California Government Code §126 is legislative jurisdiction and that the cession process is based on Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the United States must have a real property interest in the land prior to a cession. Consequently, if the United States does not have a real property interest, the State of California cannot and has not ceded legislative jurisdiction to the United States. ” James R. Frey, California State Lands Commission, 1996

 

 

Diversity of Citizenship
 

30. “…technically, there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States…Consequently, one who is created a citizen of the United States, is certainly not made a citizen of any particular State. It follows, that as it is only the citizens of the State who are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States…then a distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini, and citizens of the several States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted;” Ex Parte-Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)

 

31. “That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other, is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

 

32. “This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights of national citizenship, as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship…the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights which are inherent in national citizenship, but denied it to those which spring form state citizenship…We think it quite clear that the right to carry out an incident to a trade, business or calling such as the deposit of money in banks is not a privilege of national citizenship.” Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)

 

33. “No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction … owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to confer the status of citizenship upon a class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because they were native born without the status of citizenship.” VanValkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)

 

34. The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, recently decided by the Supreme Court. The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. Page 829, (1873)

 

35. “…the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. … Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993)

 

36. “State has right to extend qualifications for state office to its citizens, even though they are not citizens of the United States… Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966)

 

37. As of 1940, only citizens of different Territories could file suit in a District court. Citizens of a Territory could not file suit against a citizen of a State of the Union because the court did not have jurisdiction over them.

 “The Act of 1940 permitted action between a citizen of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, but not between a citizen of New York and Puerto Rico in the District Court. The 1985 Amendment extends the 1940 amendment to apply to controversies between citizens of Territories or the District of Columbia and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof.“

“ (d) The word "States", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” 28 USC 1332 (d) and Revision Notes

 

38. Citizens of the States of the Union are nonresident aliens to the Internal Revenue Code. Frank Brushaber was a Citizen of New York and Union Pacific was incorporated in Utah Territory.  “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24, 1916, It is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.” Treasury Decision 2313, March 21, 1916

 

 

The Territories: The Inchoate States of the United States
 

39. A territory is a state as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers… The territories are inchoate states under the sovereignty of the United States. “If Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory, which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. 

            “1. The District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states.

            “3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties… 

“4. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.”, O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933)

 

 40. Under the Treaty with Spain, the territories were called “states” for the purpose of ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property. It is these inchoate states, and not the sovereign States of the Union, that are subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Congress does not include the States of the Union in the definition of “United States” or “States” in 26 USC 7701.

 

41. Congress deleted references to Alaska and Hawaii in Title 26 as each of these Territories was admitted into the Union, thereby recognizing that the Internal Revenue Code has no inherent operation within the States of the Union.

 

42. The federal codes typically refer to the “States of the United States” as places where federal law has operation. These are the territories owned by the United States, not the States of the Union.

“ (a) When used in the regulations of this subpart, the term ‘state’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and Guam, and American Samoa.

“(b) When used in the regulations of this subpart, the term ‘United States’, when used in the geographical sense, means the several states (including the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, …The term ‘citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, …26 CFR § 31.3132(e)-1

 

 

43. Any civil action for the collection of internal revenue taxes may be brought in the district where the liability for such tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer's residence, or in the district where the return was filed. . 28 USC 1396 Internal revenue taxes

 

44. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division is authorized to determine administratively whether the Federal Government has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed upon lands acquired by the United States, and to consider problems arising therefrom. 28 CFR 0.56 Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction

 

45. The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.”  United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)

[MaxPhear]

INDIANA ( HOOSIERS ) LISTEN UP

Here's an update...

Action Alert! S.R. 0042 is the Indiana State Sovereignty resolution

S.R. 42 has passed out of committee with a unanimous vote- that's even the Democrats!
It will proceed to the full Senate for consideration next week.

Everyone please contact all the Senators to urge them to vote YES on SR-42 immediately.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/legislators/

The Senators listed on this page are supporting passage of this legislation.
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&request=getActions&doctype=SR&docno=0042


Senate Resolution 0042 - Indiana State Sovereignty
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&session=1&request=getBill&docno=0042&doctype=SR
"A SENATE RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power."

[jofortruth]

10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement - Legislation Per State
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13407482/10th-Amendment-State-Sovereignty-Movement-Legislation-Per-State

Just updated this today - Added West Virginia and word "ADOPTED" by the States that have already adopted a Resolution. If you see anything that needs to be added or edited, please send me a message.

Thx

[jofortruth]

Wow! Lou Dobbs showed a map of the States joining the 10th Amendment Sovereignty movement and discussed the movement. It's on Lou Dobbs tonight Tuesday, April 14. He's on again 12 midnight EST I believe. I saw it on his early show. We need to find this video and put it on you tube and give to Alex.

1st time I've heard it on a mainline news show. ABOUT TIME!   

[JTCoyoté]

Our friend Michael G. has ferreted out this copy of the paper trail for the 1995 MAINE 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, from it's introduction to it's adoption on April 11, 1995. Thanks Michael.

Click on the thumbnail images below to read the document full size...







JTCoyoté

"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

[Optimus]

Resolution Passes Claiming Oklahoma's Sovereignty
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/613607.html
posted 04/16/09 6:40 pm

Oklahoma City - State lawmakers have passed a resolution that claims the state's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It comes a day after Texas made headlines for doing the same thing.

House Joint Resolution 1003 was authored by Republican Representative Charles Key of Oklahoma City and was championed in the Senate by Republican Senator Randy Brogdon of Owasso.

"The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp," the legislation reads.

The 10th Amendment states that "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."

The resolution passed in the Senate by a vote of 29 to 18. It previously passed in the House in February by a vote of 83 to 13.

"Today, thousands of regular citizens showed up at this state Capitol to say they want the federal government to follow the United States Constitution," said Key. "

Oklahoma became the first state to pass 10th Amendment legislation last year. But, the House resolution hit a road block in the state Senate when the legislature adjourned with no action being taken.

"We now have an opportunity to be the first state to have it signed it into law," Key added. "Once the resolution is on the governor’s desk, I hope he will quickly sign House Joint Resolution 1003 into law.  I also hope that when it is distributed to President Barack Obama and other elected officials of the federal government that they will recall the oaths to the United States Constitution that they all took and take heed.”

The resolution is now on its way back to the House.

[jofortruth]

Great News, Route24!

[11011001]

THE LAW IS CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT

yah and what do you all do bitch and mone and point to the admements you think they are going to lissin to you? your not a threat
 talking is over you pepole have tryed your damnist to get bills past to take back your freedome its not working . its like the bully at your school keeps takeing your lunch money and you think by makeing a note that says give it back is going to work? Wake up
unless you all remote these pepole by force and chnage the laws yourselfs its not going to happen your just kidding yourselfs thinking the system is going to work for you when they make the system to f**k you over. why does everyone have such a hard time understanding this.

[menace]

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

http://www.newsok.com/article/3366762

[dlvrme]

North Carolina General Assembly’s Select Committee on
Federal Education grants heard a splendid address by a prominent and
learned North Carolina lady, Mrs. Alice Wynne Gatsis, of Rocky Mount, whose
distinguished husband is a retired general of the U.S. Army, Andrew J.
Gatsis. General and Mrs. Gatsis are stouthearted defenders of the U.S. Constitution.
They are exceedingly knowledgeable about the perils confronting this
Nation as a result of constant tampering with the intent and the meaning of
the Constitution. In short, Alice Wynne Gatsis and her husband understand
the miracle of America. That, Mr. President, is why the North Carolina General Assembly’s Select Committee on Federal Education Grants invited Mrs. Gatsis to address the committee on November 10 of last year. Mr. President, I have in hand the  text of Mrs. Gatsis’ address and, being enormously impressed with her remarks, I have decided to share them with Senators and others who read the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the text of Mrs. Gatsis’ address be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows: ALICE WYNNE GATSIS—NOVEMBER 10, 1997—
SPEECH TO THE N.C. GENERAL ASSEMBLY—
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—SELECT COMMITTEE
ON FEDERAL EDUCATION GRANTS
NOTE: For purposes of definition, and the benefit of any egalitarians among us, I will be referring to man and men generically in the sense of man being the human race—it is not my intention to slight the ladies. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and gentlemen I have been invited to speak this morning on the Tenth Amendment, that heart of the   U.S. Constitution which says, ‘‘The powers not delegated by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
states, respectively or to the people. You may be asking yourselves, busy people
that you are, an important committee with an important mission, why this subject at this time? It seems to me that every now and then in a nation there comes a time when there is a need for restoration, a resetting of the pillars that are the foundation of all that is great in America. It must be apparent to many in both public and private life that the time has come.
It must be apparent, as well, that for some time an evolutionary process of unconstitutional usurpation of power has escalated to an alarming degree, and in spite of the law of the government (the Constitution) which forbids it.
All aspects of the domestic affairs of the people have become a federal concern to the point where we now have a president and congressmen, and, yes, innumerable bureaucrats, bureaucrats who appear to be accountable to nobody, addressing daily the domestic affairs of the people from soup to nuts.
It was not pleasing to hear Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, say, at her confirmation hearings in the first Clinton administration, that the President views the states as `laboratories' for the federal government. Her statement represents the apotheosis of many years of usurpation and preemption which has taken place in all administrations, not just the Clinton administration, for the last fifty years. It has slipped into our great free system on quiet little feet, taking a step forward and a step back but steadily advancing in the path toward centralizing and unifying the divided and enumerated powers which have made us a free people. There are reasons innumerable that such unlawful inroads have been made, perhaps federal money, perhaps false philanthropy, perhaps expediency. It is not necessary to engage in the `politically correct' subjective analysis of `why.' Objective judgment reveals that the problem exists and must be addressed, if the first great republic in history is to be the inherited blessing of our descendants.
Attention to the 10th amendment is growing as its importance cannot be overestimated. What would the system be like without it? Where would you be?
The founders were not ignorant men; they drew on their knowledge of Greek and Roman law, the American colonial experience, the English legacy of common law and checks upon power, the Christian theories of natural law and then they added that best and newest ingredient, government at the local level. State legislators sit at the pinnacle close to the people with their powers enumerated over all domestic law. There is no finer elective position in the country. The authority of state legislators, faithfully executed has power in many ways to keep America stable.
Thankfully, it can be said that the 200 year old Constitution stands, relatively unchanged, amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. Within it, the 10th Amendment , in spite of assaults against it, stands unchanged too, because when Con-cons and conferences of the States come along, the people realize that their Constitution is endangered and combine to preserve it.
One of the strongest reasons for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment , once the emotional aspects of it were put in perspective, was that it was a major 10th amendment issue, the second part of this amendment transferred all authority over the domestic affairs of the nation to the Federal level. Not everyone realized that this was the true goal but constitutionalists did.
Standing in the way of ratification of the United Nations Treaty on the Political Rights of Women and the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child is the Tenth Amendment .
The discredited health plan of the first Clinton administration ran into roadblocks as the bevy of lawyers assigned to the health care commission were told, `You can't do that because of the 10th amendment .'
The recent Supreme Court ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional, drove a dagger into the heart of some conservatives who will bend the Constitution a bit if their issue is at stake, but Religious Freedom Restoration Act really is unconstitutional. The ruling of the court made it clear that the enforcement power of the 14th amendment does not override the broad powers of the 10th .
One great ally of the Tenth Amendment is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He has enunciated hard nosed positions limiting federal power. Writing about him, Joseph Sobran said, `In the 1995 Term Limits Case, he insisted on the pertinence of the Tenth Amendment and added a brilliant new twist to the debate. The Tenth not only limits the federal government to its enumerated powers, he argued, it reserves to the states and to the people all powers not specifically denied to them.'
The clear purpose of the founders when they produced the U.S. Constitution was to create a federal government with strictly limited powers. It was the states who created the federal government not the other way around. Their shared attitude was best expressed by Thomas Jefferson when he said, `In questions of power then, let no more be said of faith in man, but bind him down with the chains of the Constitution.' Also he said, after reading the new constitution, which he, of course, had no part in writing, `I assume that if the federal government were to be involved in education, there would have to be a constitutional amendment .' There has been no constitutional amendment in this area, because it is understood that the American people do not want education transferred to the federal level. They are the rightful authorities over the education of their children; their authority is protected by the 10th amendment and state legislators are obligated to uphold that right--no where in the Constitution is `here-in granted' for the federal government to make laws about education and no where is there authority for legislators to transfer voluntarily their enumerated power to another branch of government.
There are those who would, if possible, scrap the Constitution. They have openly said so; they are prominent people, known public figures. One of their spokesmen, Professor James McGregor Burns said it, during the observance of the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution. I thought it a strange way to celebrate this occasion, but he said `let's face reality, the framers have simply been too shrewd for us. They have out witted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down, to put together what they put asunder, we must directly confront the constitutional structure which they erected.' This quote comes from page 160 of Professor Burns book Reforming American Government.
Threads of this agenda from Reforming American Government surface from time to time. For instance in Newt Gingrich's new contract with America 2000. He wants that year's Republican candidates for the House, Senate and Presidency to run as a team committed to enacting a 10 point contract with America. He foresees a parliamentary-like campaign in which the entire national party runs on a unified platform. This has the net effect of solidifying allegiance to the Party and diluting allegiance to the Constitution and Congressional constituents. The Contracts with America are 10th amendment issues, because they generally address domestic affairs--but never mind that--`conservative' activists are already trying to get their issues into the Contract.
Identifying the undermining of local state government, several legislatures have passed 10th amendment resolutions, and more of them will be as evidence mounts that the federal government is out of control, and that ignoring the oath that public servants take is dangerous to the liberty of all.
State legislators are so important. You are not only, by decree, closest to the people, along with county and city government, but you come from among us--the people. You are our neighbors, our friends and part of the businesses and activities that make up our various communities. Any qualified citizen can sit in the halls of the legislatures if fellow citizens so elect. Once that happens and the oath is taken, you become a citizen-legislator who can represent the rest of us only by strict adherence to the law of the Constitution. Since the majority are not always right, that adherence to the Constitution assures justice for all. The 10th amendment , then, protects the law-makers and the people to whom they are bound. This is an arrangement worth preserving.
Why then have state legislators been allowing their just powers to slip away? Federal bureaucracies are doing more and more unconstitutional runs around them.
It is time for a wake up call. As this committee prepares to take up its duties, more end runs are occurring in Washington. On Friday president Clinton traded off some of his national education standards for a couple of years, and the House voted overwhelmingly to fund charter schools by one hundred million dollars, giving them a certain autonomy if they teach performance-based education. The President, who has no enumerated authority, any more than Congress does, over education has highly endorsed charter schools as long as they teach national standards. The net effect will be the nationalizing, long term, of the school system, putting it into the hands of special interest private boards, gradually absorbing current public and private schools.
So much for elected local school boards, so much for local legislators if they let it continue.
The more these federal intrusions into education create massive failures in education, the more bent these federal `nannies' seem to be on more of the same.
Will state legislators seize the initiatives which are rightfully and lawfully theirs? If they do not, as I have said before, they will end up figure heads in a regional satrapy run from somewhere on high.
Never before in recent times has the choice been so well defined--On the one side is the Republic of the United States of America a nation under God as defined by the Declaration of Independence, a nation governed by God's law as incorporated into the Constitution. It establishes limited government, and divided powers. Most of all it leaves citizens free to guide and direct their own lives. God given rights are unalienable and may not be taken away; they are eternal.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the United Nations Charter which enshrines the religion of man (generically speaking) as the source of rights. Man through government can give and take away rights from other men, women and children. It is government farthest from the people run by councils of `wise' men. We will have to choose whom we will serve. Knowing that where the spirit of God is, there is the spirit of liberty. I trust that citizen and legislator alike will not remove the ancient landmarks which our fathers have set.
In summary, this select committee has some very serious matters to investigate, probably the tip of the iceberg--in an ongoing chore. I wish you well and hope that you will ever keep before you the basic truths of the 10th amendment base. The law is on your side.

[dlvrme]

News: Texas House Passes HCR50 -- Tennessee House Passes HJR108
( read more and comment at http://www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com )

[jofortruth]

Made a few updates today to this 10th Amendment State Legislation Summary:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14536220/10th-Amendment-State-Legislation-Summary

[egypt]

When I read the summary, is it what is in red, that is the update?

I'm hoping so, because I've been watching for Nevada to adopt  AJR 15    It seems there is another associated with it SJR1 4/28/95.  Can you explain about these "two?"  Thank you.

I hope everyone is watching Black's very closely.  I have two, an eigth edition and a fifth edition.  After Clinton's comment about "remember the definition of 'is'"  -- indeed, the definition of "is" was taken out.

Part of nwo shennanigans is to change the definitions of legal words.  Maybe in the documents, the exact definitions should be contained, as well, if they are not already.

Please now, I am but hugely a layman when it comes to law.  I use Black's in helping victims of Child Protection Services.  Black's was also needed because we'll begin creating briefs.  Hopefully, if all goes as planned, we won't have to deal with CPS and their gestapo operations in America, anymore.

Love, e

[jofortruth]

When I read the summary, is it what is in red, that is the update?

I'm hoping so, because I've been watching for Nevada to adopt  AJR 15    It seems there is another associated with it SJR1 4/28/95.  Can you explain about these "two?"  Thank you.

No, the red is just highlighting to set it apart from the other parts of text. The important part to look at is STATUS. If you look at Nevada's Status: you will see that someone nipped that one in the bud, and won't allow it to go forward. Something about some legislature rule.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=871


The reference to SJR 1  4/28/95 is just saying that the State of Nevada did propose a similar bill back in that year and that it was adopted at that time. Why this isn't still valid is the other question. JT has made comments to the fact that he thinks they should still be valid, but I'm not clear on this.

[dlvrme]

No, the red is just highlighting to set it apart from the other parts of text. The important part to look at is STATUS. If you look at Nevada's Status: you will see that someone nipped that one in the bud, and won't allow it to go forward. Something about some legislature rule.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/history.cfm?ID=871


The reference to SJR 1  4/28/95 is just saying that the State of Nevada did propose a similar bill back in that year and that it was adopted at that time. Why this isn't still valid is the other question. JT has made comments to the fact that he thinks they should still be valid, but I'm not clear on this.

From what I have been learning about the subject of the previous bills still being valid.  Unless something is specifically overturned, then this is why it stands, or if they don't have an expiration date.  My understanding comes from the issue of the con/con's that they too don't expire, and further, they are not sure if the states that rescinded their measure for a con/con may not even be valid.   

Its like any measure if not specifically stated having an expiration, would not. 

But if you know something I don't (that's a loaded statement ) then I would love to learn! 

[luckee1]

JT take a look at this will you and confirm my suspicions will you ?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=87719.new#new

post # 18  in red 

[Optimus]

Alabama to Consider Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/alabama-to-consider-sovereignty-under-the-10th-amendment/
Posted on 11 August 2009

by Michael Boldin

On August 10, 2009, Alabama State Representative Mac Gipson along with 22 other co-sponsors, introduced House Joint Resolution 10 (HJR10).  The purpose of the resolution is to “affirm the rights of all states including Alabama, based on the provisions of the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution.”

HJR10 was introduced on the first day of the Alabama Legislature’s 2009 First Special Session.  An Extraordinary (Special) Session can consist of no more than 12 Legislative (meeting) days, within a 30-day calendar period.

The resolution was read and referred to the House of Representatives committee on Rules.  Two similar resolutions were previously introduced in the Alabama 2009 session, but neither were brought to a floor vote.

If HJR10 passes both houses of the legislature, Alabama would be the eighth state to pass a resolution affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, joining Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.  Similar resolutions have been introduced in thirty-seven states in the past year.

While the resolution is not legally binding, supporters say it’s an important first step to “serve notice” to the federal government that it’s exercising powers not delegated to it by the People in the Constitution.  They say that state-level nullification of federal laws is the next step, and efforts have already begun on this in a number of states.

Montana and Tennessee, for example, have passed laws exempting people of their state from certain federal firearms regulations.  In 2010, Arizona voters will have the option of approving a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban a future national health care plan in the state.  Similar laws and amendments are being considered in states across the country.

Read the Full Text of House Joint Resolution 10 below:

WHEREAS, the Alabama Legislature declares that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the Congress assembled; and
 
WHEREAS, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised”; and

WHEREAS, these recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, where the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and as the Tenth Amendment, where 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; and

WHEREAS, the several states of the United States of America, through the Constitution and the amendments thereto, constituted a general government for special purposes and delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary right to their own self government; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, BOTH HOUSES THEREOF CONCURRING, That based on the above principles and provisions, we hereby declare by this resolution, that any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order by the federal courts which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens shall abridge the Constitution. We further declare that acts which would cause such an abridgement include, but are not limited to, each of the following:

(1) Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that state.

(2) Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(3) Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of eighteen other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(4) Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

(5) Any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press.

(6) Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the Alabama Congressional Delegation.

[70983]

Ray Mcberry, gubernatorial candidate for the State of Georgia, has several pieces of legislation planned to be introduced in the next session of the General Assembly, 2 of which he has already posted on his website.  These bills WILL aid in the fight for Sovereignty here in Georgia and this State plans to be the leader in the fight for sovereignty in America.
http://www.georgiafirst.org/governor/bills.shtml

[JTCoyoté]

JT take a look at this will you and confirm my suspicions will you ?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=87719.new#new

post # 18  in red  

YES!... it is a call for a "conference of states"... which can and no doubt will morph into a constitutional convention!!!!

Right out of the '90s play-book... they tried it in '94-'95 and we stopped it... here we go again.

--Oldyoti

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in their struggle for independence."
~C. A. Beard

[Cywar]

Where can I find a link to all the states that have passed the S Resolution?

[jofortruth]

Where can I find a link to all the states that have passed the S Resolution?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14536220/10th-Amendment-State-Legislation-Summary

I've tried to keep up with it as best I can. If you know of any changes, please advise!

[SUPREMEMASTER]

"Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order"


Um... sir, what if the "10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve" only saves just the United States but not the rest of the world?

We're not the only country/nation/place with the government hi-jacked and controlled to the point where the current President is just a jibbering teleprompter reader that controls NOTHING but is there only to give the illusion that he makes his own decisions, isn't controlled AND [the illusion] that he does control anything.

We might defeat the "New World Order" when it comes to them maintaining and expanding control of THIS country, though.

But other places that do not have governments that operate like the United States does, probably will not have such opportunities.

[Cywar]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14536220/10th-Amendment-State-Legislation-Summary

I've tried to keep up with it as best I can. If you know of any changes, please advise!

Thank you - great list!

I was trying to check in on the Texas Gov site and the server seems to be down.

[jofortruth]

Thank you - great list!

I was trying to check in on the Texas Gov site and the server seems to be down.