…if they pass this that is. This is actually one of the most powerfully worded resolutions I’ve seen to date.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
mike
When does this go to vote?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am very impressed.[/quote]
Yeah, but I bet not not one of these jokers read my disquisition on the 14th Amendment.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I am very impressed.
Yeah, but I bet not not one of these jokers read my disquisition on the 14th Amendment.
By the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I did some mo’ thinkin’ on that there confab. Why is the 14th so all fired powerful to the extent that it must incorporate (trump?) the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights were not “granted rights”; they were recognitions of existing rights. The subsequent amendments, 11 - 27, are essentially legislation or government granted rights. A distinct difference if I do say so myself.[/quote]
I guess that’s why we needed the 2nd to codify the natural right. Unless it’s in writing, the government won’t honor it. Which is also why each state’s Constitution is so important. Where the US Constitution is vague, the state Constitution can be clear. Compare the Article 2a of the NH Constitution to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution:
[b]NH: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
US: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[/b]
Under Article 2a, neither Heller nor the Chicago Gun Cases would have been necessary.
By the way, I sent Rep. Dan Itse, the sponsor of the NH resolution, an email yesterday as a show of support. He promptly responded and suggested I lobby the committee considering the resolution. Which I did.
Itse’s head is in the right place. From his bio on his website (the bold is his emphasis, not mine):
[i]Dan’s core beliefs by which he will represent Rockingham District 9 are as follows:
-
Self-government (self-control and personal responsibility) is the foundation of our constitutional republic.
-
My first job as a State Representative is to protect you rights from the government.
-
The people are the sovereigns of the State. The government and those in it are the servants of the people, not their masters.
-
Life begins at conception and continues through natural death.
-
The family is the principal building block of society and must therefore be protected from outside intrusion, including by the Government.
-
Self-defense, bearing arms is a fundamental right protected by both the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions.
-
We are the stewards of our environment; to use it, but not abuse it.
-
Education is the responsibility of parents, which can be facilitated by state government.
-
It is the responsibility of government to protect the people, and to not impede the people from achieving their full potential. This is best done by the following tactics: promote commerce, promote the development of infrastructure for transportation of goods, services and people, foster education to provide an exemplary work force, minimize the activity of government, minimize taxes, and most importantly to protect individual property rights.[/i]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I am very impressed.
Yeah, but I bet not not one of these jokers read my disquisition on the 14th Amendment.
Guess you shoulda been more vociferous.[/quote]
More vociferous? I was absolutely abulic!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I am very impressed.
Yeah, but I bet not not one of these jokers read my disquisition on the 14th Amendment.
By the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I did some mo’ thinkin’ on that there confab. Why is the 14th so all fired powerful to the extent that it must incorporate (trump?) the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights were not “granted rights”; they were recognitions of existing rights. The subsequent amendments, 11 - 27, are essentially legislation or government granted rights. A distinct difference if I do say so myself.[/quote]
Precisely.
The 14th confirms the “natural” rights of US citizens and those of the BofR, and stipulates that neither the States (nor Congress) can make no law negating them.
The conflict is in the definition of the rights of the US citizen, and which jurisdiction determines that.
So, perhaps those gents in NH could pass a law against men using umbrellas. (If you have ever been to NH in a rainstorm, or had the misfortune to meet a “Dartmouth Man,” you will understand immediately.)
But the 14th amendment guarantees my rights to port a parasol, particularly in Portsmouth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am very impressed.[/quote]
I am extremely impressed as well. I hope this passes. Finally, someone with their head on straight.
Here are more states that want to declare sovereignty under the 10th amendment.
Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009
New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html
Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/Formatdocumenta...s/hcr2024p.htm
Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
Michigan
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21r…-01-22-002.pdf
Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM
Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009...federal-power/
i <3 NH!
Tenth Amendment Center-Oklahoma Domino Effect?
February 5, 2009 · No Comments
Some interesting steps being taken by a number of states lately:
State Sovereignty for New Hampshire
Missouri claiming sovereignty under 10th amendment - HR 212
Arizona Warns Feds To Not Tread On 10th Amendment
Maybe Oklahoma started a domino effect with its legislation?
http://donttreadonmike.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/oklahoma-declares-sovereignty/
“Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty!” - June 13, 2008
It seems that perhaps my great state was the first to tell the Feds to go fuck themselves.
Rock on, Oklahoma!
Time to resurrect this old thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Here are more states that want to declare sovereignty under the 10th amendment.
Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009
New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html
Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/Formatdocumenta...s/hcr2024p.htm
Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
Michigan
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21r…-01-22-002.pdf
Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM
Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009...federal-power/
Hawaii
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/
Anyone know if any of these bills have been passed?[/quote]
None have been signed into law. I think, at best, the resolutions have been voted on and passed in one of the houses of legislature in each of the states, then have bogged down in the other house. To be clear, the resolutions are not necessary to asserting states rights under the 10th Amendment, but rather are intended to serve as a wakeup call to the feds. In fact one 1992 case ruling in favor of states rights (NY v. United States), the state did not adopt a 10th Amendment type resolution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html
You can track the progress of the 10th Amendment resolutions here:
New Hampshire’s HCR 6:
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-socialist-policies-igniting.html
That is a beautiful document and a movement that many of us could get behind. However, the socialists in places like CA, NJ and MA would never allow anything similar to gain traction in their kingdoms. If some states begin signing off on this, it will probably lead to even greater regionalization. Sad in a way to see such a divided country, but we have fallen prey to our own success and also to the traitors that have spent decades subverting our ideals.
This is certainly something to watch carefully.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
That is a beautiful document and a movement that many of us could get behind. However, the socialists in places like CA, NJ and MA would never allow anything similar to gain traction in their kingdoms. If some states begin signing off on this, it will probably lead to even greater regionalization. Sad in a way to see such a divided country[/quote]
Not at all. A federal system where the vast majority of power is held by the states is not divided, it’s what our Constitution intended. Localism is usually a GOOD thing. It’s certainly a conservative thing.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
That is a beautiful document and a movement that many of us could get behind. However, the socialists in places like CA, NJ and MA would never allow anything similar to gain traction in their kingdoms. If some states begin signing off on this, it will probably lead to even greater regionalization. Sad in a way to see such a divided country
Not at all. A federal system where the vast majority of power is held by the states is not divided, it’s what our Constitution intended. Localism is usually a GOOD thing. It’s certainly a conservative thing.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct and misunderstood what I was saying.
What I was lamenting was the deep cultural divide that has grown in the country. When I spoke of regionalism, I meant in a cultural sense. Think of the difference between San Francisco and Omaha. I don’t think that can ever be reconciled.