Tag Archives: oklahoma legislation

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)


The following article, originally written in Dec., 2001, has been edited and updated slightly to show that, if/when a medical emergency is declared, people will be forced to submit to a variety of inconveniences without their consent—including invasive medical interventions—or face severe consequences one generally associates with war zones. It is also plainly stated that no one working for or with the government will be held liable for death or damages to persons or their properties should they result from good-faith performance of their “lawful” duties. Since October, 2001, the tenets of MSEHPA has been sewn into the pandemic preparedness plans of most, if not all, of the several states. ~PandemicFluOnline

Within weeks after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began promoting health policy legislation that dramatically suspends civil rights during declared state of biological emergency. The text of the “Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)” gives public health officials and governors of the several states the power to arrest, transport, quarantine, drug and vaccinate anyone suspected of carrying a potentially infectious disease. The Boston Globe originally broke the October 31, 2001. The story was almost immediately forwarded to medical freedom activists throughout the country who responded en masse in outspoken opposition to the proposal. The article was quickly removed from The Globe’s website.

The 40-page MSEHPA was authored by Lawrence O. Gostin and James G. Hodge of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins universities. While stating that their proposal considered the “civil rights of the individual,” the appeals process described in the text describes the nearly absolute powers of public health authorities to detain people against their will and force them to submit to whatever medical intervention deemed appropriate by authorities. The process gives little hope that the individual will prevail in an appeal and that he will continue to be detained throughout the process.

Unless intentional harm can be proven, the proposal states, “Neither the state, its political subdivisions, including the governor, public health authorities, the police, or other state officials, [will be held liable for] the death or injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of complying with, or attempting to comply with this Act or any rules promulgated pursuant to this Act.”

Under the proposed law, one case of smallpox or swine flu in a public school could trigger authorities to urge a governor to declare a state of emergency. Once such is declared, the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and most cherished civil liberties will be immediately suspended in addition to states being empowered to take immediate possession of private property under the doctrine of eminent domain.

Under Section 406 of the proposal under the heading, “Compensation,” it is explained that, “Compensation shall not be provided for facilities or materials that are closed, evacuated, decontaminated, or destroyed when there is reasonable cause to believe that they may endanger the public health…”

Under the “Mandatory Medical Examinations” section (502) of the law, persons refusing to submit to medical examinations and/or testing are liable for misdemeanors and forced isolation. If public health authorities suspect individuals may have been exposed to broadly defined infectious diseases, or otherwise pose a risk to public health, officials

may issue detainment orders. In the case of an urban attack, or even one suspected, possibly thousands of people could be marshaled into isolation camps, according to the law. In this case, physicians, assisted by police, will be required to perform state medical examinations and tests.

Under the law, “infectious diseases” are very broadly defined. “An infectious disease may, or may not, be transmissible from person to person, animal to person, or insect to person,” the authors explain in the text.

Section 504 of the Act details vaccination and treatment protocols. Following these mandates, public health authorities may compel people to be inoculated and/or drugged with any medicaments selected by the state. Individuals refusing to be vaccinated or treated would be liable for a misdemeanor, subject to police arrest, isolation or quarantine.

“Section 807” repeals existing state laws that are in conflict with the Act. Under this part, for instance, previous laws granting medical, religious, or philosophical exemptions to vaccination would be repealed

See how Oklahoma measures up to MSEHPA;


Official MSEHPA update
The link below contains the most recent tracking of MSEHPA and plainly states the intent of the model act’s provisions. To be certain as to how officials in your state will be administrating a declared state of medical emergency, you can obtain copies of state andlocal pandemic preparedness plans online or through your local health department. You will likely discover that your state and local plans mirror the key provisions of MSEHPA.
From the weblink at
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) grants public health powers to state and local public health authorities to ensure a strong, effective, and timely planning, prevention, and response mechanisms to public health emergencies (including bioterrorism) while also respecting individual rights. Developed by the Centers in collaboration with a host of partners, MSEHPA has been used by state and local legislators and health officials nationwide as a guide for considering public health law reform in their states.
Legislative Status Update: Since its completion on December 21, 2001, the Centers has been tracking state legislative activity related to MSEHPA. As of July 15, 2006, the Act has been introduced in whole or part through 171 bills or resolutions in forty-four (44) states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariannas Islands. Thirty-eight (38) states [AL, AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY] and DC have passed a total of 66 bills or resolutions that include provisions from or closely related to the Act. The extent to which the Act’s provisions are incorporated into each state’s laws varies.

Read Entire Article;


Oklahoma Law mirroring MSEHPA


Oklahoma Electronic Insurance Verification System Not Reliable Yet

December 29, 2008

(relevant post Brogdon Reacts(relevant post- Woolly Boogers

A new electronic system to verify automobile insurance in Oklahoma is operational, but not yet reliable.

A law passed in 2006 takes effect Jan. 1, 2009, allowing law enforcement agencies and tag agents to check for up-to-date automobile insurance electronically through a database maintained by the Department of Public Safety.

The system is in place, but testing shows it is accurate only 60 percent of the time, Oklahoma Tax Commission officials said.

Because of that, law enforcement officials and tag agents are being told not to rely on the information it provides, said David Beatty, the department’s project manager for the Oklahoma Compulsory Insurance Verification System.

The system is able to verify coverage from some insurance companies, but a few have not entered clients’ information in the database, Beatty said.

Dan Ramsey, president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma, said the main delay has been in the issuance of new security verification cards, which now must include insurers’ five-digit codes from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Ramsey said state Insurance Department rules and procedures for verification forms were finalized in October, which put the insurance industry behind in getting its part done.

Beatty, who has worked on the project since February, said the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the Department of Public Safety, Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma and the state Insurance Department had input.

“Vehicle owners will have to continue to carry insurance verification in their cars and have it when renewing a tag or registering a new vehicle,” said Russ Nordstrom, director of the Tax Commission’s motor vehicle division.

Nordstrom said tag agents will not turn away anyone who has an authentic insurance verification card but does not pass an electronic check.

Beatty said he hopes the new system will be reliable within six months.

Information from: The Oklahoman, www.newsok.com

Wesselhoft’s DNA bill tabled, but issue still alive

Wesselhoft’s DNA bill tabled, but issue still alive


By M. Scott Carter

March 01, 2009 01:11 am

– OKLAHOMA CITY — State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft’s controversial bill to require deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples from people charged with a felony hit a brick wall last week — and it doesn’t look like it will recover any time soon.
Last week, Wesselhoft made a second run in the House Judiciary Committee to dislodge House Bill 2081. Yet, despite the Moore Republican’s amendments to make the measure more palatable to critics, HB 2081 was tabled for a second time.
“It didn’t make it out of committee,” Wesselhoft said last Thursday. “There was a lot of opposition to it. And there are other bills out there that do, almost, the same thing.”
Thursday was the deadline for House members to get their bills out of House committees. Bills which aren’t passed by committees are usually considered dead for the session.
Under Wesselhoft’s measure, a person arrested for a felony would be required to submit to a DNA sample which would then be catalogued in a statewide database. Should the person later be found innocent of the crime, or have the charges dropped, that person’s DNA record could be expunged, but at a cost of $150.
Current Oklahoma law requires convicted felons to provide DNA samples which are stored in the database.
Last week, Wesselhoft amended his bill, adding language which said those who are changed with a felony — but later found innocent or have the charges dropped — won’t be required to pay to have their DNA sample removed from the state’s database.
“It’s not fair if you’re found innocent,” he said earlier this month. “Once you’re innocent, the DNA would then be extracted from the database, or it wouldn’t even go to the data base, depending on the timing. Sometimes it takes up to 30 days or longer.”
But Wesselhoft’s amendment wasn’t enough to keep his measure alive.
“I didn’t get there. But I may try and bring it up later,” Wesselhoft said. “Since it was tabled, and since they didn’t vote “do not pass” on it, there’s a chance.”
However, at least two other measures also address the same issue.
Those bills include House Bill 1505, by state Rep. Lee Denny, R-Cushing, and Senate Bill 1074 by state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa. And while Wesselhoft said he expects HB 1505 to make it to the governor’s desk, he said all three measures have drawn fierce opposition.
That opposition doesn’t surprise one University of Oklahoma law professor.
Randall T. Coyne, the Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri professor at OU’s law school, said, “It’s hard to imagine what the benefit of the DNA sample would be (when taken) at that juncture.”
Coyne, who teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, capital punishment, constitutional law and the legal aspects of terrorism, said the bills aren’t needed.
“If there is a good reason, what’s the need to get the DNA sample prior to any adjudication of guilt? Why sample at all? Is this for the purpose of government convenience?”
Information from a DNA database, Coyne said, could fall into the hands of medical providers and be used to disenfranchise people.
“It’s troubling once it goes into a database,” he said.
Coyne said the bill’s ramifications to a persons right to privacy “are really important.”
“You don’t need DNA in order to access a person’s rap sheet. If there’s probable cause to charge someone, there’s a reason to keep them in custody and that’s gonna occur in the presence or absence of any DNA.”
He said taking a sample from someone who is just charged with a crime “is a search and it is a seizure, and under these circumstances it’s unreasonable. If the goal is to make us feel safer, I think it’s an illusion.”
Wesselhoft disagreed.
He said the earlier DNA samples are taken, the earlier authorities can use the database to solve crimes. “It can be a major tool for law enforcement,” he said.
But Coyne countered, saying the use of DNA in the hands of a prosecutor “isn’t as effective a tool as it is in the hands of defense attorneys”
“Its use is limited,” he said. “And I have a hard time understanding the rationale behind bills like this.”
Still, records indicate at least one of the three measures which address the DNA database remains alive. House Bill 1505 is awaiting action by the full House of Representatives.
M. Scott Carter 366-3545 scarter@normantranscript.com



Liberty Alert  from 2/23/09 CLOSED

HB 2081 is being heard again today at 4:30 PM in 412-C by the House Judiciary Committee. This bill authorizes the taking of DNA samples of being arrested on suspicion of a felony. It is urgent that you attend the Committee Hearing today to oppose this bill. If you cannot attend please contact the committee members to voice your opposition to this bill.

 The author of the bill is Representative Paul Wesselhoft.

Feel free to contact him to voice your concern as well. The committee members are listed below.


Representative Paul Wesselhoft

District 54

2300 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Room 332

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

(405) 557-7343


Oklahoma House Democrats to fight GOP bills

Oklahoma House Democrats to fight GOP bills
CapitolHouse minority leader says his party held out for big battles on chamber floor




Published: March 1, 2009


Oklahoma House Democrats promise to make more noise as legislation favored by the in-control Republicans is taken up on the chamber’s floor in the next two weeks.

Many bemoan that legislation they authored did not make it out of committees by last week’s deadline. In some committees, Democrats didn’t speak out against measures they were against.

“The opposition will begin now,” said House Democratic leader Danny Morgan of Prague. “What you’re going to see from the Democratic caucus is a lot more activity from us on the floor so that the arguments against these pieces of legislation can be heard by the entire body and not a half-dozen committee members.

“I don’t know that I’ve ever seen this caucus quite as invigorated as it is right now. Sometimes, failure promotes energy.”

House Republican leaders got all their key issues through committees – no surprise as Republicans control the House 61-40.

House Speaker Chris Benge had all his key proposals – including bills promoting the use of alternative fuels through tax breaks and other incentives – passed unanimously out of committees.

“It’s been a good, productive, first four weeks,” said Benge, R-Tulsa. “We’ve got a lot of good things going. The budget (shortfall) still is going to be a challenge, of course, but I feel good about things to this point.”

Democrats lost their showdown with Republicans over the autism insurance coverage mandate during a committee hearing on the second day of this year’s session.

Benge said more study is needed on the cost of mandating coverage.


Related Posts; OK Sovereignty Bill Passes House 13 Say NO https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/oklahoma-sovereignty-bill-passes-house/

State Soveriegnty Efforts and Stimulus Money

Thank you Okie Campaigns for not letting me miss this!


Assert sovereignty with 10th Amendment
by David M. Dickson

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.” Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to “reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment.”

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states’ shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan. However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan “doesn’t preclude taking the money,” said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation’s third-highest.

Mr. Perry sent Mr. Obama a letter Wednesday certifying that Texas also would accept stimulus money.

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote, clearly expressing his opposition to unfunded mandates.

Mr. Obama has promised that his administration will use federal funds to support his administration’s initiatives.

“[Mr. Obama does] not support imposing unfunded mandates on states and localities. They strongly support providing necessary funding for programs such as No Child Left Behind,” his campaign literature said.

The states are resting their efforts on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “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.”

Mr. Brogdon said prospects for passage of his resolution are “grand,” noting that a similar bill passed the Oklahoma House by a 97-3 vote last year and that Republicans captured a majority of the Oklahoma Senate in the 2008 elections. He predicted that the Legislature would easily override a veto from Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.


Mr. Obama proposed a slew of expensive programs during his presidential campaign, ranging from health insurance to policies addressing alternative energy and climate change. “The states are worried that these programs would increase the overall regulatory burden without providing the funding,” Mr. Alt said.

Some analysts dispute the financial impact of recent unfunded mandates on state budgets.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute who recently completed a two-year stint in Indiana’s budget office, said he hasn’t “heard states clamoring about unfunded mandates the way they were during the 1990s. What you hear more today are states begging for federal money.”

The reality is that states are being “hypocritical,” he said, noting that about a third of average total state spending comes from the federal government.

The biggest federal grants involve Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor.

“States were adding Medicaid benefits when times were good. Now the federal government must bail the states out through the so-called stimulus bill because the states’ revenues have taken a hit and they must operate under a balanced-budget mandate,” Mr. DeHaven said.

In 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, states collectively spent $1 billion for unfunded federal mandates from programs enacted since the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

“To a large degree, states are scapegoating their budget problems on Washington,” Mr. Riedl said. “It’s tough to be sympathetic for states and local governments when they got $467 billion in federal grants last year,” he said.

Mr. Riedl also rejected the notion that the No Child Left Behind Act constitutes an unfunded mandate. States are free to opt out of this and many other federal programs by not accepting federal money in exchange for federal regulations. States have effectively decided that the federal dollars are worth the strings attached to them, Mr. Riedl concluded.

Mr. Riedl acknowledged that Medicaid, which was created in 1965, does represent a major unfunded mandate. But he said that “a majority of state Medicaid spending is on populations and benefits that states have voluntarily added and could reduce at any time.”

The other major unfunded federal mandate that predates the 1995 law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, federal funding for IDEA has grown 71 percent faster than inflation since 2001, Mr. Riedl said.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, “through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law.”

Mr. Brogdon of Oklahoma did not take issue with that. “Federal law does not trump the Constitution,” he said.

He suggested that if he becomes governor, the federal courts likely will get a case involving the 10th Amendment and congressional powers.

Oklahoma Sovereignty Bill Passes. 13 say NO & 10 Change from YES to NO

3/2/09 *UPDATED*

Rep. Key has expressed his appreciation for the tremendous support they have been receiving and asks us to “Let the senators know that the people want this, they want them to pass it and they want them to pass it soon!” HJR 1003 could be scheduled any day.  Rep. Key tells us ”we can’t slow down now.  We’ve got to pick it up, take it to another level” If this bill passes the Senate-we are home free!  It does not go on to the governor-it becomes law right away. 


Find your Senator Here or if you are unsure who your senator is click HERE you can type in your address and find out who to call. 

Our legislators have noticed the calls, emails and attendance at the Capitol by the citizens of this state.  You are making an impression and sticking with it is definitely making a difference! 

Let them know your mind-they are there to represent you!    Let them have no doubt what your mind is on these critical issues-call them!

*UPDATED* 3/1/09 list of yays and nays from last year-same bill different number.  Thirteen representatives voted AGAINST HJR 1003 this session.    Out of that thirteen, ten of them voted FOR the Oklahoma Sovereignty measure as HJR 1003 this year.



Compare votes (below)


HJR 1003 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives yesterday so why am I simmering instead of celebrating?

What a disappointment to find that we have lawmakers that said no to a simple assertion of not only established law but THE Established Law. The Tenth Amendment is a vital element of our spare US Constitution that enables us preserves the balance of power in this country. All sectors of government must adhere to these basic principles is if we are to have any chance to live in a free America. Our Founders rejected subjugation to the crown and carefully constructed the US Constitution in such a way as to create checks and balances with the hope of sparing us from dictatorial rule. Thirteen of our elected officials rejected that wisdom yesterday. They would not put their “John Hancock” on what IS the Supreme Law of our Land. These people opposed a relevant reminder to the federal government that the Tenth Amendment exists and it is expected that the political body known as a state and comprised of individual citizens, be free to self-govern within its legal, appropriate bounds. Many Oklahomans see a need to remind Washington of their duty to keep from becoming the kind of overarching central government that the American people have traditionally shown little tolerance for.

Some do not seem to understand the reasoning and purpose behind making a resolution. For the very same reason we count 1…..2………………….3 in warning to our children when they are pushing the limit. It is a courtesy that demonstrates our reluctance to be harsh with them and gives them ample opportunity to cease behavior that the pre-established rules prohibit. If they chose to respect our boundaries before we reach three the unspoken agreement is no harm, no foul and generously intimates that previous provocations will not be nursed into a bitter grudge.

All voluntary actions begin with a resolution, a decision. Not a gnat is swatted without our resolve first to do so. Resolution is the step beyond identification that something is amiss as in “Houston, we have a problem”. We have established the fact that we do have a problem and have overcome bewilderment, our resolve is what follows, it is the moment of our common clarity captured and immortalized in a formal fashion.

This statement confounds me.

“It’s just a resolution”.

How does this statement stand and why is it modified by “just “? Should we progress without pause from dissonance to material action? Do we not, in good faith, count 1…..2………..3 in order to give ample opportunity for a return to respectful interaction?

It is just a resolution as opposed to what? A question? A law? A handshake? What would be more appropriate or useful at this particular point in time than a resolution?

It does occur to me that if the federal government will not hold to the agreed upon Supreme Law of this land that it is unlikely any particular measure enacted by our state will change much. This line of reasoning misses the point. We issue such a resolution because it is the correct and honorable procedure. How the government receives it is irrelevant.

Some people miss the irony of passing more and more laws in order to restrain the lawless. I don’t generally.

The way I understand it, this particular measure is a Joint Resolution, meaning that it goes before both bodies of the legislature and once passed carries the weight of law. It has much more heft than a simple resolution.

The legislative glossary used by the Oklahoma legislature provides this definition;

Joint Resolution – a resolution passed by both houses of the Legislature which, if signed by the Governor, has the force and effect of law. Some Oklahoma case law suggests that joint resolutions may only be used for temporary laws and not for permanent laws. Joint resolutions which are not signed by the Governor are also used to propose amendments to the Oklahoma Constitution or to ratify amendments to the United States Constitution.


I am probably naïve I have to admit. I really didn’t expect that unlucky 13 would ALL be Democrat. What does this indicate? I am holding my knee very firmly so that it will not jerk. No foregone conclusions-I want to hear from each of them as to why they voted against this resolution. Makes one wonder. . . what about the Fourth, the Ninth Amendment. Would they vote against a resolution to uphold these as well?

What should we do when we see that simultaneously the list of “laws” that impede our natural and legal rights grow while the brief collection of fundamental law provided us by our Founders atrophies as a result of the bureaucrats’ arrogant disdain and malfeasance in office? I don’t think standing idle while that which was intended to pointedly define and constrain the role government continues to be perverted is wise.


It really all boils down to this, we will certainly get no more than exactly what it is we settle for. The Tenth Amendment Resolution does exactly what it is supposed to by promoting renewed appreciation for the value of our Tenth Amendment and giving fair notice of our resolve to guard our freedoms more closely.

If you should like to satisfy your curiosity, here are the Representatives that voted Nay to HJR 1003.


John Auffet (D) District 86


 *Chuck Hoskin (D) District 6



Danny Morgan (D) District 32



Glen Bud Smithson (D) District 2



*Ed Cannaday (D) District 15



*Ryan Kiesel (D) District 28


Wade Rousselot (D) District 12



*Wallace Collins (D) District 45



AL McAffrey (D) District 88



*Mike Shelton (D) District 97



Terry Harrison(D) District 18


*Jerry McPeak
(D) District 13



*Jabar Shumate (D) District 73



2008  OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                     
                              Fifty-First Legislature                          
                               Second Regular Session                          
    HOUSE JOINT RES 1089Claiming sovereignty under Tenth Amendment to the United
    Key                 States Constitution                                    
    THIRD READING       PASSED                                                 
         YEAS:   92                                                    RCS# 1983
         NAYS:    3                                                    3/13/2008
         EXC :    6                                                      7:48 PM
         C/P :    0                                                            

    YEAS:   92

    Adkins             Faught                Martin, Sc         Roan              
    Armes              Glenn                  Martin, St.          Rousselot         
    Auffet              Hamilton            McCarter           Schwartz          
    Banz                 Harrison           McCullough         Sears             
    Billy                   Hickman             McDaniel, R.       Shannon           
    Blackwell           Hilliard               McMullen            Shelton           
    Braddock           Hoskin             McNiel                 Sherrer           
    Brannon             Hyman               McPeak               Shoemake          
    Brown                 Ingmire              Miller                   Shumate           
    Cannaday        Inman                Morgan                 Steele            
    Carey                  Jackson               Morrissette          Sullivan          
    Collins              Jett                     Murphey              Terrill           
    Coody             Johnson, D.         Nations                Thompson          
    Cooksey         Johnson, R.          Peters                 Thomsen           
    Covey             Jones                    Peterson, P.        Tibbs             
    Cox                 Jordan                  Peterson, R.       Trebilcock        
    Dank              Joyner                Piatt                      Turner            
    Denney          Kern                   Pittman                Walker            
    Derby             Key                    Proctor                  Watson            
    DeWitt            Kiesel                Pruett                   Wesselhoft        
    Dorman          Lamons             Renegar                Winchester        
    Duncan           Liebmann          Reynolds              Wright            
    Enns                Luttrell             Richardson           Mr. Speaker       

    NAYS:    3

    Gilbert            McAffrey           Smithson          

    EXCUSED:    6

    BigHorse           Ellis              McDaniel, J.      
    Cargill            Lindley            Worthen           



2 Questions Guys. 

 #1 Why did you vote Against the Tenth Amendment?

#2  To the Ten that switched; Why did you vote FOR it before you voted against it?

It seems very vile to suggest that anyone would cast their votes on such a simple but critical measure according to purely  partisan loyalty.   I also don’t want to suggest that bipartisan  politics is somehow the ultimate method of creating good policy.  It is not.  But partisanship for its own sake puts party loyalty ahead of policy and this is a sure fire way to create policy without respect for its real purpose which is to protect and defend the natural rights of the constuents that elected them for that purpose.                                            

 Please tell me that this is not the problem.








HJR 1003 Scheduled for House Hearing 2/18/09 1:30

Wednesday February 18th HJR 1003 is scheduled to be put before the Oklahoma State House for hearing at 1:30pm

Let’s support our Representatives in making a plain assertion of the fundamental principles of government that our Founders risked all for.

 They did the hard work.  

Will we honor our heritage, our birthright by the simple act of being there, making a call, or sending a fax to let our elected officials know that we expect and appreciate their vote to uphold the established law that our fore bearers were willing to risk all for? 

Many Americans are looking to Oklahoma for confirmation that our country has not lost her way and to show that not only does a crisis bring danger, but also opportunity.  Let’s demonstrate that we do not dwell in fear but rather have the courage to seize the opportunity to get back to the principles that made us a free and prosperous nation to begin with.


I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”  To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. 

        –Thomas Jefferson

Standing Up For States’ Rights HJR 1003

murpheycspanFrom the Edmond Sun

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_047224528.htmlMonday, February 16, 2009
Standing Up for States’ Rights
The steps taken in the past few days by Congress to give the federal government nearly 800 billion dollars worth of increased power reminds me of a column I wrote last November. In that article I wrote about the expected expansion of the federal government and how I felt the issue of state’s rights could once again be a significant issue in the Oklahoma Legislature this year.

It is important to note that in comparison to state governments, the federal government was created by our founders to be small and limited. This is because the people have a much stronger voice at the state level, whereas the ability of people to effect change is greatly limited at the federal level, and nearly non-existent on the global level of government.

Both political parties have used the expansion of the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas. Now a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

As a result, a bigger federal government will likely be most responsive to those only with enough money and influence to use that power to benefit themselves. This will leave the responsibility for paying for big government to the average taxpayer who cannot afford to invest in lobbyists and politicians in order to manipulate the system for their benefit.

This means that we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN (the possible recipient of 2 billion dollars because of the stimulus bill).

This week the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee voted unanimously to support House Joint Resolution 1003 authored by State Representative Charles Key. Key’s proposal should now be headed to the floor of the House where I look forward to supporting it.

HJR 1003 seeks to reassert Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and according to the resolution’s language, serves as “Notice and Demand to the federal government, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The Tenth Amendment states: “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.”

Representative Key has made it clear that during the last few decades he believes that the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.

While a similar resolution passed with the support of the Oklahoma House during the last session of the Legislature, it appears to have failed to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate. This year, with new leadership in place in the Oklahoma Senate, I am hopeful HJR 1003 will receive a fair hearing.

I consider it an honor to support Rep. Key’s efforts in this regard. But, it is also going important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill. No doubt advocates of Oklahoma’s participation in this scheme will say that we must bring in new federal dollars by adding more welfare recipients. I say it is time to stand up to the federal government and it’s latest expansions.

A Call for State Sovereignty

Table of ContentIntroductionhttp


Part 1 History and Purpose of the 10 th Amendment
Part 2 Why Georgia Should Declare Sovereignty


The purpose of this essay is to educate the citizenry of Georgia of the history and purpose of the constitutional autonomy of the state of Georgia. It is a statement of rights that our Constitution grants us. I believe that the first step in any political movement is to educate the citizenry, which is this purpose. This is to be used to educate and inform the citizenry of what we are entitled to as the rights of our state. I believe that the state has the right to determine its own destiny and to determine what is right for the citizenry and state.
It should be noted that this in no way calls for any sort of secession, but to reestablish the rights of the state provided and protected by the Constitution.

Part 1: History and Purpose of the 10th Amendment
The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to define the establishment and division of power between the Federal government and state governments. This amendment also protects these powers from both entities. This amendment was used to define the federal taxing power, federal police power, and federal regulations. At one time, it was read very simply, if it is not in the constitution, the federal government could not pass it to the
states. Through the years, the power of the federal government has expanded through the Supreme Court.
The Founding Fathers established this country on the Compact Theory. This theory
states that the federal government is a compact of the states, and that the government
was a creation of the states. This is evident in the Treaty of Paris and the Articles of Confederation. The Treaty of Paris stated that the 13 former colonies were “free sovereign and independent states.”
The Articles of Confederation also adopted this idea as the second article clearly states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
When they wrote the Constitution, they included the 10th amendment, which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” The
problem with this statement is that is was too open for implication by our government.
At this time, Congressional power came from Article 6, section 2, The Supremacy Clause. This stated that the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the state judges must abide by this constitution, even if it conflicts with the constitution of the state.
While this country was still young, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed this to be an overstep of Congressional authority, so they drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution. They believed that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus, it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress. They utilized the theory of Nullification, which stated that the States were to
interpret the Constitution, and any acts they saw unconstitutional were nullified. The original enemy to the cause of State’s rights and federalism was John Marshall. He was a Supreme Court Justice in the early
18’s. He handed down two major rulings to cut down State’s Rights. One was McCulloch vs. Maryland. In this case, he determined that the Constitution grants the federal government implied powers to implement the
Constitution’s express powers, as well as that the state’s action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. In the other case, Gibbons vs. Ogden, he established that the federal government had the right to regulate interstate
commerce by the Commerce Clause.
Chief Justice Marshall’s successor was Roger B. Taney. He established a system of Dual Federalism, where separate but equal branches of government are the best option. Dual
federalism is based on the federal and state’s government is split into separate spheres,
and is supreme in those spheres. It discusses specifically the role between these two
governments. This theory holds the federal government to certain limitations, these being: the government rules by enumerated power, government has a limited set of
constitutional purposes, state and federal government is sovereign within its sphere of operation, and the relationship between the federal and state government is best described as tension instead of cooperation. This system lasted for over a century. The 16th and 17th amendments both gave great power to the federal government. The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to levy an income tax. The 17th amendment
changed the Constitution in which they were no longer appointed by the state legislators,
but instead elected by the people. This took away the states ability of direct
representation. Through direct representation, the senators were more apt to protect
states rights, and were viewed as the states “ambassador” to the federal government.
Interesting fact, the state of Georgia has never ratified the 17th amendment.
President Franklin Roosevelt brought about his New Deal, taking more away from the
states. This measure brought about Cooperative Federalism. Cooperative Federalism is
where the national and state governments “cooperate” with each other. They cooperate
by the federal government telling the states what to do, and the states doing it. This form
of federalism brought about a change in federal aid as well. Funds are distributed
through grants, which gives the federal government more power over spending and over
the states, as these funds come on a quid pro quo basis.
Now, we have a movement called New Federalism, which was started by Ronald
Reagan and his revolution in the 1980s. There are several court cases in the 1990’s,
under Chief Justice Rehnquist, that displayed the cause of New Federalism. The case of
United States vs. Lopez decided that the federal government did not have the right,
under the Commerce Clause, to regulate firearms in school zones. In the case of United
States vs. Morrison, the court decided that victims of gender-motivated crimes could not
sue their attackers in federal court.
Part 2: Why Georgia Should Declare Sovereignty
There comes a time in a nation’s course when the citizenry must question its
government’s intentions. When we elect our officials, we hire them for their term;
therefore, as they represent us, they should listen to us. There is a problem with a
citizenry that allows its government to do their thinking for them. There is also a
problem with a government that believes it knows what is best for the citizenry.
This government has the belief that the populace is too stupid, lazy, or indifferent to take
care of themselves. The populace has a belief that since they elected them, they know
better than they do, thus should take care of them. A free people cannot be free with both
of these beliefs.
Take TARP for example. Several citizens spoke out against this. Petitions circulated,
protests were organized, and contact with our officials was made, yet they went largely
ignored. In addition, this is supposed to be the “government of the people, by the people,
and for the people.”
The sovereignty of a state is needed, as these officials cannot dictate what is right for
everyone. What is right for the Carolinas may not be what is best for Montana or Ohio.
When a state has the sovereignty to determine what it needs, the citizenry is better heard
and taken care of. If the Federal intervention is at a minimum, then the people better
determine their rights, as a government allows liberty, it is up to the people to declare,
define, and defend it.
The sovereignty can be used to defend its citizenry’s liberty. If a state believes the
federal government oversteps its bounds, then that state should have the right to declare
that act null and void within its boundaries, in accordance with the Constitution. A state
should be allowed to use its funds as it sees fit to the funds purpose, and funds should
not be offered on a quid pro quo basis, whereas the Federal government refuses funds
because a state refuses to pass legislation, for this is a coercive act. The Federal
government should not deny funds to a state for Federal programs within the state, nor
should they be allowed to force a state to accept a program, unless it is protected by the
Constitution. Even then, the state has the right to question if the program is
constitutional. Liberty should never be used as political leverage, as this would force the
state to choose between what it believes is right for its citizens and funding for programs
that the Federal government has installed in a state.
Even as I write this, Oklahoma and New Hampshire are taking actions against the
Federal government. Last summer, Oklahoma declared its state sovereignty, and New
Hampshire has introduced legislation that claims that if the Federal government
oversteps its bound, it will succeed from the Union.
Under state sovereignty, every state has the right to establish its own educational, environmental, economical, and social standards.
Every state has the right to take care of its citizenry, as it determines with respect to its relationship with the Constitution.
Every state has the right to determine how to take care of the impoverished, elderly, and retired.
Every state has the right to determine the handling of social issues, id est. definition of marriage, abortion regulations, etc. Every state has the right to define the separation of church and state on a state and local
level, not for Federal property within the state. All land within the borders of the state belongs to the state and citizenry, except for land used by the Federal government.
Every state has the right to use its land as it sees fit without federal intervention, and how to use its resources. A state knows what is best for itself, no the Federal government.
Every state has the right of protection from martial law, whereas, the Federal government cannot declare martial law within a state without the express consent of that
state’s legislature.
If the Federal government refuses funds to a state for Federal programs, that state then has the right to abolish that program within the state. As a state governs itself, the Federal government may make suggestions, but cannot punish a state for not enacting the suggested legislation. No level of government should ever play politics with the people’s liberty. What manner of government of free people use liberty as a bargaining chip? Does this government truly care for the liberty of its citizens of the sovereignty of its states whenever it is willing to disregard them to force the passing of legislation?
This is coming at a time when our Federal government is greatly expanding, as it has gradually done in the past. This is the most radical expansion of our government.
Newsweek, on its cover, jovially declared that we are all socialist. This is a struggle for our very way of life.
Lady Liberty is weeping at the condition of our Republic. People mistakenly think that we have Liberty because we have freedom of speech and thought, well what is the good
of either when they upon deaf ears? If they ignore the voice of the people, then our state should act as interpreter, as it must be assumed its voice is louder than ours is. If it is a common belief that elected officials are wiser and more knowledgeable than the
citizenry is, then it must be believed that 10 “wise” voices should be better heard than 100 “common” voices.
Now is the time for non-violent action. The smoke is on the horizon, the fire is roaring towards us. Either we can let the fire burn the house that Liberty built, or we can prevent the fire from reaching us. Call or write your representatives to express your concern for a declaration of state sovereignty. Educate the masses, tell people what is going on and what needs to be done. Pass this essay along if need-be, use it to educate the masses

HJR 1003 Tenth Amendment Resolution-Wed 18th!

News From the Capitol;

This is the latest update on HJR1003 – The 10th Amendment (last year’s bill was HJR1089). It passed out of committee last week by unanimous vote. It will be heard on the House Floor this Wednesday, February 18th. If there is an amendment proposed for the bill, the hearing could be pushed forward 24 hours. I don’t expect this to happen, but will keep you advised if it does. Session on Wednesday starts at 1:30pm. I invite each of you to come and view the vote and would like to have a good showing of support in the House gallery.

I encourage each person to call or email their state representative and ask them to support this bill. You could also forward this email to your email list and request that they do the same.

 Charles Key will be on the radio in the early AM Tuesday,
around 2:45 AM, with Jim Guest and George Noory discussing
the Tenth Amendment Resolution and sovereignty issues.  If
you are awake, tune in to Coast to Coast AM:

For more information about the Constitutional Alliance and

Date:      Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Time:      1:30pm – 4:30pm
Location:  State Capitol, OKC
Street:    2300 N Lincoln Blvd
City/Town: Oklahoma City, OK

More information can be found on the Facebook event posting: