Tag Archives: Representative Charles Key

Nebraska finds ‘Key’ inspiration for State Sovereignty

Click here to read the rest of the original story!

Rep. Key introduced a resolution in 2008 in the Oklahoma State legislature with the intent of centering legislative debate on a Constitutional basis. The resolution was a simple reiteration of principles articulated in the Constitution regarding the role of the federal government in relation to the States. A review of Article 1, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of the federal government.

Be a fan of Representative Charles Key on Facebook, by clicking HERE.


The Oklahoma State Sovereignty Act -Call to Action!

Call to Action

The State Sovereignty Act, HB 2810, which calls for federal taxes to be held in escrow by the state of Oklahoma before being paid to the federal government is being held up in a subcommittee and can now use your calls and emails to move it along.

There are only a few days left before this bill will die for the session.
Please call/email these critical decision makers and ask them to put HB2810 authored by Rep. Charles Key on the agenda for the General Government & Transportation Subcommittee
Representative Guy Liebmann

Chairman of the General Government & Transportation Subcommittee

(405) 557-7357


Representative Ken Miller Chairman of the Appropriations & Budget Committee

(405) 557-7360


Chris Benge Speaker of the House

(405) 557-7340


If you live in one of these gentlemen’s district, your input is especially important.

  • Rep Guy Liebman is HD 82 (Oklahoma City and Warr Acres in OK County)

  • Ken Miller is HD 81 OK County and Edmond, OKC area
  • Speaker Benge is HD 68 Jenks TULSA, Sand Springs or Sapulpa as well as CREEK or Tulsa Counties

House District Map of Oklahoma


Explanation of Bill:

Right now we pay our federal taxes directly to the IRS and the federal government takes it and hold it over our heads to get the states to do the federal government’s bidding.

HB 2810 is designed to reverse that role.

  • If HB2810 passes then we will all send our federal taxes to the state government who will in turn pay them to the federal government for all of us.
  • If the federal government should do something that the state of Oklahoma believes is not in accordance with the constitution, (there is a procedure for doing this) then the state can delay or even withhold the funds.
  • It gives the state government some clout by which it can protect the sphere of authority that is rightfully ours in which to govern.

Read the Bill


Download and Print!

Freedom is Brewing in Oklahoma! Tea Party 2/27/09

(maybe more if you can organize one fast!)

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 27th @ 11AM, or whenever you can get there

OKC – State Capitol Steps

Tulsa – Veteran’s Park, 21st & Boulder

Invited Speakers include, Senator Randy Brogdon, State
Representatives Charles Key, Dr. Mike Ritze, Jason Murphey
and Republican Party State Vice Chair Cheryl Williams and
Tulsa County Chair Sally Bell, and many others.

On February 17th, President Obama signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has sent the
national debt into the trillions of dollars and jeopardized
the American way of life.

All these government bailout initiatives amount to reaching
into our pockets and indebting our children in order for
the government to spend its way out of a crisis that
uncontrolled spending and intrusive government controls on
the economy caused in the first place.

After several trillion dollars poured down the hole of
inefficient, bloated corporations, who really need the
tough medicine of bankruptcy reorganization, this is too
much!  Like the over-taxed Colonies over 200 years ago, we
are stepping forth to show our displeasure. To President
Obama and Congress we Americans shout in unison, “ARE YOU

On Friday, February 27th at 11am at Veteran’s Park (21st&
Boulder) and on the steps of the State Capitol in OKC,
Oklahomans from all walks of life will rally together
responding to CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s call to protest this
gross negligence in government spending.  As part of the
Nationwide Chicago Tea Party they will be joined by
Americans in New York City, Washington, DC, Houston, Los
Angeles, and Chicago, in a show of united opposition to
bailout plans.

Tulsa area contact:
Jai Blevins (918) 760-8282 jaiblevins@hotmail.com

Oklahoma City area contact:
Alan Webb (405) 413-9322 okcteaparty@yahoo.com

This movement was spearheaded by [1]Top Conservatives on
Twitter, [2]Smart Girl Politics, [3]the DontGomovement.com,
[4]Americans for Tax Reform, [5]the Heartland Institute,

[6]American Spectator Magazine, and [7]R3publicans.
We invite you to join in support with these         
Official Facebook Event Page:

Please see http://r3publican.wordpress.com/ for more

Links from above:
1. http://www.tcotreport.com/
2. http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/
3. http://www.dontgomovement.com/
4. http://www.atr.org/
5. http://www.heartland.org/
6. http://spectator.org/
7. http://r3publican.wordpress.com/
8. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=665494086

Special Thanks to Sandra Crosnoe for her tireless efforts to motivate and connect people and information on this event.   Her example of Servant Leadersip is a source of inspiration to all who love their country and neighbors.

Much appreciation, Sandra!


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.








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:


Post by: WeThePeople1776 on February 06, 2009, 11:23:53 am
——————————————————————————–According to the Free State Project-



The Republic of Lakotah-Indian Nation


New Hampshire









Considering such measures:











States not on the list at all:
New York, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Louisiana, Wyoming, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Oklahoma Tenth Amendment Resolution Redux

Tenth Amendment-Oklahoma says the “Sooner” the better.

Last June news of the Tenth Amendment Resolution passed overwhelmingly by the Oklahoma house, went viral online, blazing across the Internet passed excitedly from one freedom loving American to another. State Representative Charles Key’s robust resolution, intended to remind the federal government of their clearly enumerated powers per the Bill of Rights, captured the interest and goodwill of people across the nation.

It’s back and more necessary than ever.

Rep. Key put out a letter Dec. 22, 2008 that states;

“I want to give you an update on the 10th Amendment Resolution. Last year the bill passed the Oklahoma House 92-3. It was not heard in the Senate because the Senate Democrats refused to let it be heard. I have refiled the bill for the upcoming session as HJR 1003.”


Charles Key has said “The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time. The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.”
He’s exactly right. The national government has indicated its intent to limit our unalienable rights by strong-arm tactics as illustrated by mandates such as the Real ID Act which would force us to submit to the collection of personal, biometric identifiers. That data is intended to be shared not only on a national level but internationally as well. Now, it looks like they have backup plan cooking, S.717 Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007. The states can apply for grants on this one is they act like good boys and girls. If the states accept that then they will have sold out our Bill of Rights.

Representative Key’s letter continues;

It is not guaranteed that the bill will be heard or passed. This is where I need your help. I need you and everyone who cares about preserving our constitution to contact your state representative and state senator and tell them you want them to support HJR 1003.

If you live in a state other than Oklahoma, please contact your state representative or state senator and ask them to file a 10th Amendment Resolution in your state. If you do have a legislator in your state that is interested in sponsoring a bill, please let my legislative assistant know and we will be in communication with them. My assistant’s name is Sharon Brown. Contact information for Ms. Brown and my office is:
sharon.brown@okhouse.gov or 405-557-7354.

Thank you for your efforts and help in saving our constitutional form of government.

Charles Key


“bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson



The nation is reeling from one assault after another upon our Constitution. This is THE time to raise the issue of sovereignty like never before.   The US government must be reminded of what it is that we hold dear. We must do all we can to see to it that our states take steps to preserve our natural rights and constitutional guarantees.

 We are answering a call for action that if attended to properly may prove to be very rewarding, unlike the recent fiasco when our representatives, who were in Washington and apparently too deafened by distance or dazzled and distracted by D.C. to hear us when we raised a din of opposition to against bailing out irresponsible banks.

We are fortunate in our state to have at least a handful of elected officials that will fight for to uphold the constitution and that the ones that will not, illustrating the genius of state sovereignty, are still close enough to be pinched.  This is precisely why we have to seize this opportunity that comes in the eleventh hour, to make resounding demand that our state hold fast to our founding contract.  If we, the “governed by consent”, fail to take the steps necessary to make it known that we do not consent to these tyrannical mandates we are likely to see our promised federation continue to be devoured by the central government as it continues to consolidate power at a breakneck pace. 

We are also fortunate that a number of the founders were cautious and exacting men that did not shirk from jousting with Hamilton in order to provide us the tools by which to avoid just such an eventuality.  The Tenth Amendment, though somewhat rusty now from disuse, is one of those tools.

We will be the ones to bear the shame if the generations that will inherit the future that we leave to them, have reason to believe that we did nothing.


Whoa Washington! HJM 4009 Tenth Amendment

Washington State asserts Sovereignty per the  Tenth Amendment!