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
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
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
Gilbert McAffrey Smithson
BigHorse Ellis McDaniel, J.
Cargill Lindley Worthen
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE: 0
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.