Texas Joins the Party

[freddd]

I know there are a number of other states that have already done this, but it's on now in Texas.  Texans: call/email/write your State Reps now.  Don't wait.

This is just step one of a long process, but it's a step and it needs to happen.

By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50



CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads as follows: "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 Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the
Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated
as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.

[RevDisk]

What took ya guys so long?   

[taurusowner]

Does any of this actually mean/do anything?  Michigan has one of these laws to, but that isn't really stopping this state from bowing down to whatever the feds say.

[RevDisk]

Does any of this actually mean/do anything?  Michigan has one of these laws to, but that isn't really stopping this state from bowing down to whatever the feds say.

Not directly.  But it's an attempt to send a message.  Enough states telling the feds to knock off the excess might have some impact.  We'll see.  It's certainly better than nothing.

[zahc]

link?

[freddd]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HCR50

Typically speaking a resolution has no teeth.  It's just a statement.  In this case it's basically saying, "you can't do that".  That's nice and all, but it's pretty useless.  But, if you add a statement like Montana is working on (see here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18063.0) then it starts to matter.  Basically, the next step is to act based on the declaration of "you can't do that" i.e. "void" a federal law that isn't explicitly allowed in the Constitution. 

Like has already been said, hopefully if it happens enough they'll listen. 

[RocketMan]

Count me as a pessimist, but these things are just for show.  All the Feds have to do is say, "Boo!", and the states that have issued these resolutions will fall all over themselves to jump back in line.  It's that little thing about being reliant on federal dollars.

[MicroBalrog]

Weren't the Federal politicians that trample on the Constitution and the people who passed these declarations elected by the same people?

[freddd]

Weren't the Federal politicians that trample on the Constitution and the people who passed these declarations elected by the same people?

Very valid point, but one group actually listens to their constituency and has read the Constitution.

[MicroBalrog]

Very valid point, but one group actually listens to their constituency and has read the Constitution.

Consider this: Why does the constituency continue electing the Federal politicians that keep destroying the Constitution?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the 64-thousand-dollar question.

[freddd]

Consider this: Why does the constituency continue electing the Federal politicians that keep destroying the Constitution?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the 64-thousand-dollar question.

MOST of Texas representation in Washington have the same values as those back home.  We just get outvoted in DC. 

[MicroBalrog]

MOST of Texas representation in Washington have the same values as those back home.  We just get outvoted in DC. 

I mean no offense to Texas. But think of the dozen or so of states that passed these already - they include places like California and so forth. This doesn't seem to be boding well.

[Perd Hapley]

Basically, the next step is to act based on the declaration of "you can't do that" i.e. "void" a federal law that isn't explicitly allowed in the Constitution. 

Like has already been said, hopefully if it happens enough they'll listen. 

I'm not quite following you.  You mean Nullification, ala 1832?  Has that even been done since the Civil War?  If I remember right, Calhoun got them to lower the tariff a bit with that maneuver.  Not sure how effective it would be right now. 

[taurusowner]

I mean no offense to Texas. But think of the dozen or so of states that passed these already - they include places like California and so forth. This doesn't seem to be boding well.

Precisely what I meant in my post.  Michigan has one of these laws.  And we're pretty close to the top in terms of being liberal and statist.  It may be the law on paper, but the attitude of Michigan is to basically do whatever big government says.  So the idea that these types of laws are some statement by a handful of freedom loving states standing up to the feds is an illusion.  Some of the most liberal and pro-government states have these laws and they mean nothing.

[Rudy Kohn]

Wanting less federal power does not necessarily require that one want less government power.
I would guess that pro-government states would rather that the feds do not get in their way.  Federal power expansion, in some cases, might mean turning back the clock in these states.  Imagine, for instance, if the federal government required shall-issue (but time-consuming or expensive to get) CCW--that would be an improvement in Illinois, but I'm sure the state-level gun control nuts would be very unhappy, and complain that the fed had overstepped.
After all, superficially well-intentioned but ultimately oppressive policies only failed because the states weren't in charge.

[freddd]

Here's the way I keep looking at it.  There are two diametrically opposing views these days.  One says I want government all up in my business doing everything.  The other says leave me alone as much as possible.  Some states don't want the federal government telling them to loosen up, while others are saying they don't want the federal government to tell them they are too loose.  Texas is the latter.  Illinois is probably the former. 

Again the issue is the diametrically opposing views of govt.  That doesn't seem to be going away, so why try to force either on the other that doesn't want it that way?

[KD5NRH]

Not directly.  But it's an attempt to send a message.  Enough states telling the feds to knock off the excess might have some impact.  We'll see.  It's certainly better than nothing.

Virtually every major change in the way things are run, from governments down to small businesses, begins with an official statement of policy.  It doesn't specify means or penalties, but just makes sure that everybody knows the overall goal.

[RevDisk]

Virtually every major change in the way things are run, from governments down to small businesses, begins with an official statement of policy.  It doesn't specify means or penalties, but just makes sure that everybody knows the overall goal.

Very true.  But also, many of those policy statements end up going nowhere.  Only time tells...

[Werewolf]

Consider this: Why does the constituency continue electing the Federal politicians that keep destroying the Constitution?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the 64-thousand-dollar question.

Because half the electorate are of below average intelligence and/or natural born followers easily manipulated by those with the means and where with all to manipulate them.

All it takes is a small portion of the other half to drink the kool-aid and you've got yourself a majority.