General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Help STOP firearms regulation through State Sovereignty!

<< < (2/7) > >>

rugermanx:
I realize I don't post much around here due to my busy schedule and other contributing factors, and due to this fact my opinion may not hold the sway of others (esp the board and the distinguished members who seem to be very intelligent and honestly great guys) However. I feel that this is a fairly important piece of legislation. I understand that it is a little repititive as far as it states the already stated. There are several things which the Federal government has made huge moves to destroy. Including as we all know the 2nd amendment. Health care "reform" or rather "ruination". And one of the latest IMO is the fact that we are being taxed without representation. Now I am not calling for rebellion or anything else (I have taken heat for that statement in the past) But I do believe that a statement should be made to the federal government. Both republicans and democrats that we as a nation are a group of states. We believe that the government does more messing up than fixing and that the closer we keep the power to us the better. (since a city/state rep is far easier to contact and make an impression on then some far off tv figure that you have never met.) I believe the federal government is grabbing power and this resolution makes it clear (on a far bigger stage) that we as a state disagree with what is going on. These resolutions seem to be a growing movement nationwide. With Montana, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Texas leading the way. These resolutions in the states of Montana and Tennessee have led to resolutions confirming the sale of guns inside the state to be non federally regulated transfers so long as the gun doesn't cross borders. They have led to Texas basically stating that if this Health care Mandate goes thru they will deny it. If more states get into gear here then there is a chance that the damage being done by the federal governments spending habits (if I spent like they are my wife would kill me) will be stopped. I realize that everyone says contact your senator or your HoR Reps but it seems that when we melted the phone lines and shut down email servers against the stimulus and the omnibus spending bill we were ignored. This bill basically tells them that they are not in charge. (and seeing as they don't seem to read or at least understand the constitution of the US then they need to be reminded in other ways.) This brings a larger voice to the table. One that is more local and has more sway than everyone of us sitting here and spamming the servers of our representatives with calls and emails 24 hours a day and 7 days a week (since every member of this forum/group can be to lincoln in under 12 hours and be sitting outside the capital waiting to talk to the governor).

I am going to go out on a limb and say that most of your are conservative and are at least a little active in your following of politics. I am going to go out even further and say that most of you just want to go to work, go to the range, and live your life (while protecting yourself from criminals) without being told when and how to do so. Crawling even farther, I would say that there are some (if not most) that read the news and see that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to what is going on in this country. and even a little farther onto this branch I would say there are many that believe that there is no accountability in the federal government. Even in the local government it seems that the corruption and the insanity seem to be taking hold but at least when the capital of the county is less than a few hours away we can be there ready to make a stand. The closer the power is to the people that hand it over to be safe guarded the better off we are. 

As far as your concern, armed and humorous, The federal "health care reform" is one such piece of legislation. In the bill they state that after a set amount of time it becomes a mandated program that will partially be funded by the states. (I believe if I remember correctly) that this set time is 10 years. Then it becomes the states problem to fund a portion. This bill has nothing to do with free market and is specifically aimed at killing the health insurance industry. Since at least one of the proposed bills has wording that makes it impossible to change plans without either going onto the public option, or paying the penalty tax. I believe the wording basically makes a plan that is "eligible" (in other words meets criteria) ok to have until it gets changed by the insurance company or you change plans. Then it becomes null and you have to pay the penalty tax. Even if the new plan would have met the criteria for "eligibility" under the initial rules.
The power grab goes on and on and on IMO.

Now I know that I have rambled on here for quite awhile, and have probably had a few people doze off or leave the thread but thank you to those that have made it to the end. The big thing for me is that since they don't read the constitution then technically for these people its not repetitive but for those of us that care, or were forced, or were inclined to read the constitution and bill of rights then, yes, its repeating well known facts. But that is lost on some people apparently.

armed and humorous:
Rugermanx:

I don't know that I would disagree with anything you've said.  I haven't really followed the healthcare issue.  It's not because it isn't important, or that I don't think it will affect me.  It's just more than I want to deal with.  If you think your comment was long and boring, try reading some of this legislation (well, you probably did).  I guess to me, it's just not worth my time and effort for what little I would be able to affect the outcome anyway.

I certainly wouldn't deny that the feds have often overstepped their authority, and I firmly believe we should be following the Constitution.  And, I have no real reason to vote against this proposed resolution.  But, even the tenth amendment itself is more or less a restatement of the main body of the Constitution.  Here is something I found on Wikipedia:

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

Still, I'm not opposed to the resolution, I just don't know if it really makes any difference.

FarmerRick:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/707279958

Nebraska legislators seek to assert state sovereignty

By Martha Stoddard
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
? Metro/Region


LINCOLN ? At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Congressional powers
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.

Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

?My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,? said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. ?We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.?

The tension between states' rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.

The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.

Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political posturing ? passing resolutions doesn't mean that states refuse to comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with mandates.

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

?The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states' rights,? he said. ?I'm not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.?

Colleagues denied links to that history. Fulton, an Asian-American, said he has no intention of promoting racism or segregation.

Interest in states' rights is spreading as the federal government has taken over businesses, mandated driver's license security measures and proposed a public health care program.

Seven states passed resolutions this year affirming their sovereignty, and resolutions were introduced in 30 others. Some states have filed lawsuits or taken legislative action to challenge federal laws.

In Iowa, State Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton offered a resolution this year calling on the federal government to ?cease and desist? in issuing mandates that go beyond what the 10th Amendment allows. The body's Democratic majority has kept the resolution alive but bottled up in committee.

The movement's rise followed the election of President Barack Obama. Most of its supporters, though not all, can be found in conservative camps, such as libertarian talk-show host Glenn Beck and his conservative Web site. The states passing resolutions all voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

Online petitions urge Nebraska's state lawmakers to act.

?Either states can use the Constitution to maintain the power they have always had, or they can give it up,? said Gregory Boyle of Omaha, who started one online petition this spring.

A constitutional scholar questions the effectiveness of legislative resolutions and legal challenges.

?This is an outlet for those who are worried that the federal government will take over everything,? said Mark Kende, director of the Drake University Constitutional Law Center in Des Moines.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.

?It's kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,? he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.

Fulton and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial and Ken Schilz of Ogallala are researching possible resolutions.

?I absolutely don't like where our government is going right now,? Christensen said.

Among his complaints are the mandates attached to federal stimulus funds and the new national health care proposals.

Fulton listed federal control of General Motors and mandates imposed on schools under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.

?I'm not saying that every interaction with the federal government is bad,? he said. ?I'm saying that some are over the line.?

Schilz's concerns include a proposal to extend the Clean Water Act to all bodies of water.

None of the three Nebraska lawmakers is ready to advocate giving up most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates, although Christensen supported the governor's decision to reject some unemployment stimulus money because of the strings attached.

Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk said he wasn't sure whether he would back a resolution, though he supports states' rights.

?Every day in the Legislature,? Flood said, ?it seems we deal with issues where the federal government has its tentacles, either on the policy or the money or both.?

South Dakota's GOP whip, State Rep. Manny Steele, introduced his state's successful resolution. Steele said change will occur if enough states follow sovereignty measures with legal challenges to federal authority.

Some challenges have already popped up, on both conservative and liberal issues.

Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made, sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The law's chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle.

Arizona lawmakers put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would exempt residents from a federal health care plan.

On the liberal front, Massachusetts cited the 10th Amendment in filing suit against a federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.

And six states sided with a California woman who argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that states had the power to legalize medical marijuana. The court ruled for the federal government in the 2005 case.

Kende questioned the states' chances of prevailing, saying the federal government won all cases from 1937 to 1995, although its record has been mixed since.

Courts already have upheld the practice of attaching strings to federal funds, Duncan said.

No matter the result of the court cases, states can make a difference through political pressure, said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. The howls that greeted a George W. Bush-era law increasing driver's license requirements, for example, forced the federal government to rethink that law.

?With each state,? Steele said, ?we gain power.?

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com

armed and humorous:
Thanks for that post, FarmerRick.  Lot's of good incite on the issue.

JebM:
I think FarmerRick's article pretty much explains why I am in support of this Resolution.  This resolution does not do anything binding like armed and humorous would like, and probably all of us would like, but it does add us to the list of states that are not happy with the way things are going. With enough states voicing their displeasure we may be able to change some things.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page