Tag Archives: state sovereignty

Immigration Reform Could Mean National ID Card for All Workers

On Friday, President Obama renewed his call for Congress to act on immigration reform this year.

The president said that the absence of legislation creates a vacuum that would lead to more counter-productive state and local initiatives like an Arizona law making lack of proper immigration status a crime under state law.

Translation;

The silly states can’t do anything right.  We need to handle this for them.

I am not happy at all with AZ’s legislation for a variety of reasons but one of the benefits of sovereignty is to allow for experimentation.  Although experimentation may cause a few accidents in the labs of the states, it also leads to discovery and innovation. The questing spirit which is responsible for the founding and unique of this nation is embodied in these two words-discovery and innovation.  How much standardizing, centralizing and control can America take before losing the spirit that gave  us the  reputation for being the land of freedom and country where the  enterprising can flourish?

Immigration Reform Could Mean National ID Card for All Workers

A national identification card of any sort has long been thought politically unfeasible in Washington, D.C.

But the idea is again receiving attention as part of an immigration reform plan gaining ground on Capitol Hill.

In 1981, a Reagan-era Cabinet meeting famously took up the idea of a national ID, according to the 1990 book, Revolution: the Reagan Legacy, by former domestic policy adviser Martin Anderson.

In that meeting, Secretary of the Interior James Watt fulminated against a national ID as “the mark of the beast,” a biblical phrase alluding to Satan.

Reagan quashed the plan with the sarcastic comment that perhaps newborns should be branded with an ID number.

Watt’s remark and Reagan’s acid jest reveal the deep-rooted resistance to national identification in the American political culture.

Enemies on both the right and left will greet any new ID scheme as evidence of an incipient totalitarianism.

Nonetheless, a national ID proposal of one form or another has returned with cyclical regularity. Most notably, this occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, when security concerns momentarily gave a national ID some traction, thought not enough to turn it into reality.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6b7a1a7d7e44be199a1cc6fa6e657324

Advertisements

What Can We Do About the Health Care Reform Act? NE Activist Answers

An educational flyer / handout about the recently passed health care reform legislation passed by the US Congress. Includes explanation of state sovereignty, nullification, interposition.

By Shelli Dawdy of Stubborn Facts

Random Tenth Amendment News

10th Amendment 101: Essential Reading for Tenthers
Tenth Amendment Center (blog)
This week, we present our essential reading (and listening) list- our “10th Amendment 101“. The links below are articles (and a few podcasts) we consider
See all stories on this topic


Time to Party Like It’s 1854
New York Times
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, is all the rage. (The Second Amendment is
See all stories on this topic


State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
The New American
Proponents of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution have been starting to rise up en masse to remind the national government of its proper
See all stories on this topic
Senate keeps after states’ rights
Salt Lake Tribune
Like SCR3, passed initially on Tuesday and finally on Wednesday, the new resolution asserted states’ 10th Amendment rights to powers not reserved for the
See all stories on this topic


NCLB – Federal Overreach in Education
Tenth Amendment Center (blog)
Another opportunity for a strongly enforced Tenth Amendment to make a difference. By Chris Slavens The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law by
See all stories on this topic


Sovereignty resolution draws Frederick crowd
Frederick News Post (subscription)
Alex Mooney, a Republican who represents Frederick and Washington counties, introduced the resolution supporting the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution,
See all stories on this topic


Examiner.com

Utah Senate trash talks congress
Examiner.com
This is all based on the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Basically it says anything not specifically governed by the federal government would be left
See all stories on this topic

Blogs – 10th amendment

Legal Tender Laws and the Constitution | Tenth Amendment Center
By Tenth Amendment
Cited as authority in the legislation is Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution and the principle of reserved powers under the 10th Amendment. A number of other states are also considering similar legislation – click here to view the
Tenth Amendment Center – http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/


Tennessee Health Freedom Act Passes Senate | Tennessee Tenth

By Lesley Swann
This bill is intended to step into the gap to offer Tennesseans some protection until the amendment can be passed. Lesley Swann is the state coordinator for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center and founder of the East Tennessee 10th
Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center – http://tennessee.tenthamendmentcenter.com/


10th Amendment Rights Townhall (Part 1) « Texasfor56
By texasfor56
The Tenth Amendment Town Hall, was organized with a definitive set of goals in mind for the people of Texas. This Townhall would explore solutions to restore Texas’ constitutional rights, and how to limit the growing power and influence
Texasfor56 – http://texasfor56.wordpress.com/


Consent Of The Governed: CT State Legislators Uphold The 10th
By Judy Aron
Tanya Bachand of Connecticut Tea Party Patriots said,”Today we are pushing back; we are demanding that our elected state representatives uphold the tenth amendment and say no to unconstitutional federal action” The Tenth Amendment of
Consent Of The Governed – http://yedies.blogspot.com/


Do you believe in the Tenth Amendment? Really? : Peoples Press
By David K. Williams, Jr.
All “conservatives” that support the DEA in this matter, please, never mention the Tenth Amendment again. You don’t believe in it. I will be at this event, waving a Tenth Amendment sign. I hope you’ll join me.
Peoples Press Collective – http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/

Oklahoma’s TENTH with TEETH, Real ID/PASS ID, Biometric Identification and RFID

 

Oklahoma’s Tenth Amendment Resolution, Real ID/PASS ID, Biometric Identification and RFID

Understanding the implications.

Many Americans had deep misgivings about the Real ID Act on a gut level from the beginning, but the devil here is truly in the details. If you don’t exactly get how it all works, don’t feel lonely. It is a complicated issue. New technology plus a climate of fear and uncertainty obscures comprehension. Here is what I have learned.

News article;

–The Homeland Security Department’s plans for sharing biometric information internationally
— designed to counter the threat of terrorism — face resistance from domestic privacy advocates and European governments that follow stricter privacy laws that protect personal data.

Senior DHS officials speaking at a recent conference on biometrics and privacy policy outlined the ethical imperative for technical standards that would foster unrestricted biometric data sharing.

And while they say they recognize and agree with the need for privacy policy, threats of terrorism require governments and private companies to completely eliminate barriers to biometric data sharing.

Robert Mocny, acting program manager for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, sketched the outline of a Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with their personal data held by governments and corporations.

http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html

Information sharing is appropriate around the world,”
and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally
shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with
biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations”——Robert Mocny

One thing we can do to protect our state from the many unconstitutional mandates being issued by the federal government is to tell our lawmakers that we fully expect them to protect the sovereignty of Oklahoma. They have indicated a renewal of fidelity and their solemn intent to defend our state’s sovereignty by virtue of majority vote and subsequent passage of the Tenth Amendment Resolution, HCR 1028, last session (2009).

Background

In 2008, the Tenth Amendment Resolution authored by Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key garnered an extraordinary amount of attention among small government advocates nationwide. The news of this resolution went viral on the internet but received no attention from the mass media.  Here is one of many articles written about Oklahoma and this resolution by Walter E. Williams, a much respected conservative commentator.


Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

[. . .] Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

Walter E. Williams, Oklahoma Rebellion
Thursday, July 17, 2008

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32534

 

The Tenth Amendment Resolution HJR passed the House with overwhelming support but was somehow lost in transit on its way to the Senate.

Resolutions often get no respect but this one should have; the states of this union are the precarious position of losing their rightful sovereignty.

Fortunately, in 2009, Oklahoma ultimately got their Tenth Amendment Resolution Passed. HJR 1003 was vetoed by Governor Brad Henry but another resolution; HCR 1028 (needing no signature from the governor) was quickly placed and passed.

Now we can see the value of a simple resolution.

All voluntary action begins with a resolution, a decision. Not a gnat is swatted without our resolve first to do so. Resolve is the step beyond identification that something is amiss as in “Houston, we have a problem”, and sets us a hairsbreadth away from doing something to rectify the situation.

Upon passage of this Resolution (HCR 1028) Oklahoma gained the moment of our common clarity. Captured and immortalized it in a formal fashion, HCR 1028 The Tenth Amendment Resolution is a declaration of resolve to us by our legislature that they will address what is plaguing our state. We are no longer bewildered, we are now resolved.

Here is the content of that resolution;

“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.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

We have their word by virtue of a formal agreement that was duly considered, weighted and passed. Now we must remind them of this and hold them to it!

We live in a Republic, not a Dictatorship

Centralization of power never favors individual rights.

When state and local governments lose the ability to make decisions over their jurisdiction we lose our influence over the lawmaking that will most directly impact your life.

It cannot be denied that we are suffering the effects of overzealous national legislating.  The bailouts of irresponsible banks by the US government and the continuing effort to establish national healthcare, in spite of an unprecedented outcry from ordinary Americans, are recent example of how central government tends its own interests over ours.

The Real ID act is a widely understood example of the sort of policy abuse we need to stop.

REAL ID REBELLION

26 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding law denouncing and refusing to implement the REAL ID Act.


The fact that REAL ID was passed as an unfunded mandate is the least offensive of its many problems. It is the collection and sharing of biometric data, not only nationally but INTERNATIONALLY that it enables that make it untenable to a nation founded upon the precept of individual freedom.

Although Oklahoma has prohibited participation in the REAL ID in 2007 when we passed SB 464, the program of enrollment into a biometric system of identification, the collecting of our biometrics and sharing that information has continued unabated.

CNET News;

States say no (and yes) to Real ID before May deadline

March 4, 2008

 

A seemingly odd phenomenon is occurring among some U.S. states that have flatly rejected the Real ID Act.

Even though officials in these states have publicly assured privacy-conscious voters that they steadfastly oppose Real ID’s requirement of nationalized driver’s licenses and ID cards, these same politicians and bureaucrats are quietly asking the Bush administration for more time to comply with the law.

The latest example is Oklahoma. In our special report published last month, we listed five states that–at the time we wrote the articles–indicated that they would not comply with Real ID. Those were Maine, South Carolina, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma; residents of states that don’t comply will likely face hassles traveling on commercial flights or entering federal buildings starting May 11.

Oklahoma’s legislature had approved legislation saying that Real ID “is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Oklahoma” and, therefore, “the state of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed not to implement the provisions of the Real ID Act…”

That seems pretty clear; in fact, it would be difficult to be any clearer.

But now we’ve learned that Oklahoma’s DMV has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for an extension anyway. An official DHS map puts the state squarely in the will-comply-if-you-give-us-more-time category.


Capt. Chris West, an Oklahoma Department of Public Safety spokesman, told us this week:

There was a request for an extension on a deadline to a rule that would have (been) implemented in May of this year. We got an extension until the end of December 2009, so Oklahomans can still use the driver’s licenses that they have. And really that’s the extent to what I can answer.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9885311-38.html

SB 464, opposing the implementation of Real ID in Oklahoma was enacted May 23, 2007.

This item was published on May 30, 2007

Better Face Recognition Software

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/News/FaceRecog2.htmlAt Carnegie Mellon, Ralph Gross says that among other efforts, he and his colleagues have been “involved with local DMVs in order to scan images for driver’s licenses.

It’s a growing trend. States using such technology include Massachusetts, Illinois, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, North and Southern Carolina, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

 

Biometric identification systems are not national ID’s. They are international ID’s!

Under the REAL ID ACT, state drivers licenses’ must have a machine-readable strip that will contain personal information that could be accessed by foreign governments as well as private corporations.  The biometric data and the other personal data would become part of a database accessible not only by state agencies, but by the federal government and foreign governments.

Why would our government want to do this?

to Mark Lerner nationally recognized biometric expert, cuts to the chase;

With the issues facing the world; war, economic chaos, poverty, dwindling resources, population growth and so on our government and others want a system of control over people and resources.  I ask everyone to consider there is only one reason our government is using standards (international) that call for global interoperability, the reason being control of the people.
Biometrics is the key because biometrics allow for both the long distance and short distance identification of people.”

By the way, a simple digital photo is all that is needed to gain your facial biometrics (facial recognition technology) you can be entered in this system of networked databases without your knowledge or consent


The DMV, for example, uses your digital snapshot taken for a state driver’s license in Oklahoma this way. CCTV, the surveillance cameras you see popping up everywhere also do the trick. It’s just a matter of converting the image with some software into biometric coding.

 


Despite being highly inaccurate, facial recognition is the biometric of e-Passport and REAL ID. Since facial recognition is used with common digital photos, collected by states and nations, PERMANENT biometric enrollment occurs as databases, containing personal-biometric-photo information, are linked. Database linking can occur without the individual’s knowledge. REAL ID requires states to link their databases, sharing personal-biometric information and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) boasts of a global personal-biometric sharing system
http://www.oksafe.com/files/documents/1/REAL_ID_Your_Body_is_Your_ID_7-13-08.pdf

.

–In recent years U.S. manufacturers began utilizing RFIDs in a staggering array of products. Making use of the same technology that allows cars to sail through EZ Pass tolls, RFIDs are being stitched into clothing, sneakers, razors, books, boots, and just about everything else that a tiny tracking device can be attached on or in. The initial incentive is a highly practical one: “tagged” products can be readily tracked through the distribution gauntlet from factory to store shelf. Concealed like many extant antitheft devices, they will do nothing unless touched by a “reader signal,” which makes the RFID “reply” with its own unique signal – an electronic dialogue invisible to the person wearing it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1051-Independent-Examiner~y2008m12d3-Freedom-Under-Surveillance-Part-I

 

RFID

RFID industry insiders say that within a short time the RFID readers will be refined enough to read passive RFID tags (such as the ones in identification documents and individual products) by low orbiting satellites that are deployed within 200 miles of the earth.

DHS report faults use of RFID for human identification

Says threat to privacy outweighs benefits

[. . . ]While the authors of the report acknowledge that RFID is useful for such tasks as inventory management, the report said that the technology, overall, is undesirable for processes connected with people. The benefits of its support for rapid communication over distances and its uses in security are outweighed by its risks to privacy, the report stated.

“Most difficult and troubling is the situation in which RFID is ostensibly used for tracking objects (medicine containers, for example), but can be in fact used for monitoring human behavior These types of uses are still being explored and remain difficult to predict. For these reasons, we recommend that RFID be disfavored for identifying and tracking human beings”

COMPUTER WORLD 2006

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9000881/DHS_report_faults_use_of_RFID_for_human_identification

The Report further states;

In a visual ID-check environment, a person may be briefly identified but then forgotten, rendering them anonymous for practical purposes. In a radio ID-check environment, by contrast, a person’s entry into a particular area can easily be recorded and the information permanently stored and repeatedly shared. In this way, RFID may convert identification based security into an effective surveillance program of all people passing certain locations.
READ the REPORT

 

RFID and Biometric Identification is a Recipe for Human Control

Take your Biometric code
entered into a database that is networked with other databases along with a pinch of RFID technology and you now have yourself a human global ID and tracking system.

Just what could one do with one of those?

Imagine the possibilities….Please!  Consider the possibilities

Our government is!

If
we permit these steps (Biometric collection, retention and sharing, the connecting of databases and RFID enabled documents) to be taken- then we have just handed over to others the ability to control us physically, financially and spiritually

It is my sincere belief that if we allow the elements of a national ID to be implemented our children will live in an America that vastly different than the one we live in now. It will be an America that was in no way resembles the country our founders envisioned.

If we allow this system to be imposed on us the America we will become will make a mockery of the principles that this country was founded up upon. Home of the brave? No. We are on our way to becoming the land of the watched and home of the terrified.

Once those databases are linked they will not be undone. Our federal government, private corporations and international bodies will then have the ability to separate us from buying, selling, traveling, working, receiving health care and a host of other of life’s necessities. Whether by malice, mistake or simply due to the inevitable glitches that are present even in the best of data management systems, our ability to secure our basic needs can be taken from us.

Trust the Government?

–In early 1995 more than 500 Internal Revenue Service agents were caught illegally snooping into the tax records of thousands of Americans — often friends and celebrities. The IRS claimed that its new privacy protection measures would protect against a recurrence. But earlier this year, scores of IRS agents were again caught illegally investigating taxpayers’ personal records. Source-the CATO Institute

Who’s Really Looking Out for You?

Essentially, your federally mandated Real ID or PASS ID card will be what grants you the ability to go about your necessary, daily life functions. Our Natural Rights are granted to us by virtue of birth by our Creator- Our rights to life, liberty, property . . .those are the un-a-lien-able (intrinsic, non-transferred)rights of every one of us since the moment we entered this world!

Will you allow anyone to wield the power to separate you from the essential rights you came into this world possessing as a human being? It is not hard to grasp the danger that such a system presents to a free people.

If you think that Real ID, tagging, tracking or the push for a National ID is in response to the threat of terrorism and 9-11, you are mistaken.

It is a reoccurring theme tackled by administration after administration.  In fact, until the 9 11 attack, every time the issue of national ID systems has been raised, Congress or another authority said NO and usually tacked on more protective legislation to boot!

Ronald Reagan, famously responded “My God, that’s the mark of the beast.” when he was confronted with the idea of, not just a national ID, but the actual suggestion of tattooing a number on each American.

More from the CATO Institute below;

— The ID card is hardly a novel idea. The concept once surfaced in a Reagan cabinet meeting in 1981. Then-Attorney General William French Smith argued that a perfectly harmless ID card system would be necessary to reduce illegal immigration. A second cabinet member asked: why not tattoo a number on each American’s forearm? According to Martin Anderson, the White House domestic policy adviser at the time, Reagan blurted out “My god, that’s the mark of the beast.”, as Anderson wrote, “that was the end of the national identification card” during the Reagan years.  H.R. 231 is proof that bad ideas never die in Washington; they just wait for another day. H.R. 231 was a bill propose in 1997 “To improve the integrity of the Social Security card and to provide for criminal penalties for fraud and related activity involving work authorization documents for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6086

 

Mark Lerner of the Constitutional Alliance made this statement when he recently addressed the Michigan House of Representatives;

“Lawmakers at the state and federal level have been assured American’s personal information was not being shared with foreign governments.  Obviously information is being shared through aamva.net (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) There is also Robert Mocny’s, of DHS, comments about sharing information with Europe, Asia and corporations to create a global security envelope

http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html

“Mocny sketched a federal plan to extend biometric data sharing to Asian and European
governments and corporations, so as to create a Global Security Envelope of identity management.

 

Finally, an article in the Washington Post recently specifically addresses the collecting and potential sharing of American’s personal information with foreign governments.  It is noteworthy that DHS posted their intentions in the Federal Register.  It took a month for any media outlet to discover the positing in the Federal Register


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902811_2.html

Countries obligated to share data, U.S. official says

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=35574&ref=rellink

Mocny said governments should work together to build “a global infrastructure” of technology and systems to share information while ensuring that privacy protections and ethical practices are in place. He said “it makes no sense” to build “separate and disparate systems that don’t talk to each other.”

If you feel overwhelmed by the myriad of issues facing us that threaten to destroy the founding principles of the United States, let me suggest a course of action that stands a chance to protect us against most of the worst of it.

Let your representatives know that you want our state to pass these bills;

HB 2810 the Sovereignty Protection Act by Rep. Charles Key

HB 2943 Biometric Driver License Religious Exemption Act by Rep. Sally Kern

HB 2569
Prohibiting RFID in Oklahoma drivers licenses by Rep. Paul Wesselhoft

The Tenth Amendment Resolution, HJR 1028 was passed last session after Gov Brad Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

The Tenth Amendment Resolution was the first steps warning the federal government to respect our right to govern within the constitutionally guaranteed sphere of authority allotted to state governments.

HB 2810 the Sovereignty Protection Act has become known as “The Tenth with Teeth”

HB 2810 states; “In light of the continuing unconstitutional withholding of the benefits of the taxes, the State of Oklahoma hereby asserts its claim of sovereignty.”

Explanation of HB 2810

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.

Putting TEETH into the TENTH!


Read the Bill HB 2810

http://tinyurl.com/OklahomaTenth

We The People will have to step up to the plate now and be willing to do whatever it takes to get their attention. This is too big of an issue to just to leave to chance. Our elected officials need our input. They may need more information and encouragement from us. Let’s do whatever it takes to stop this system from being imposed upon us including making personal visits, handwritten letters and phone calls, emails. Letters to the Editor call the media and ask them to cover this issue. Let’s be thinking of more creative ways of getting the message across too.

Call your representative and find out where he or she stands on the Tenth Amendment, Real ID and the PASS ID ACT, RFID tracking, biometric identification and personal information sharing.

These issues are not drawn on party lines.  These are issues that if not properly countered will have untold adverse effect on the rights we all assume at birth. I am no Biblical scholar, but the implications of these national ID systems, in that respect, are unmistakable.

2/14/10

Kaye Beach

_________________________________________________________________


Mark Lerner on the Power Hour Jan 25 from 8-9am CST



MARK LERNER, along with infamous Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key, have gone on the offensive this year and have written legislation for all People to use at State level to greatly diminish (current and future) Federal authority over privacy issues. Numerous critical items (Healthcare, Cap & Trade, Legal and Illegal Immigration, etc.) should be on all (knowledgeable) Americans’ radar screen but nothing is more important than stopping the Federal governments tracking technology: Both the Real ID Act and The PASS Act will result in Americans being enrolled into a single global biometric identification system that links a person’s body to their ability to buy and sell.
“With the use of biometrics and other technologies including RFID and information sharing technologies the federal government will control the people and the states rather than the states and the citizens controlling the federal government. State laws must exist that prohibit the use of these technologies against citizens. It is long past due for the states to define within state law what they the states will or will not do.”

Model State Legislation:
* SUMMARY of LEGISLATION for 2010 (010510)
* Biometric Driver License Religious Exemption Act
* Oklahoma Sovereignty Driver License Protection Act (122709)
* Personal Data Sharing Transparency Act ( 122709)
* Stop Big Brother Act (122709)

http://gcnlive.com/programs/powerHour/

Related Article:
A Surveillance Society or a Free Society? By Mark Lerner, for the Constitutional Alliance

NEW DVD: STOP REAL ID by Constitutional Alliance
NOW available online “24/7″at ThePowerMall.com or by calling 1-877-817-9829 Mon-Fri, 8 to 5 Central Time. (coming to The Power Mall Soon)

Joyce Riley is an outspoken, upholder of American ideals and traditions with seemingly limitless charisma. She is fueled by her desire to keep Americans informed of the challenges this country is faced with everyday.

In the spirit of democracy Joyce welcomes callers to speak their minds and share their knowledge.

Call In Number: 1-800-259-9231

Listen LIVE online

http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/powerHour/

there is a link for the archives at this page in case you miss the live program.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/schedule.htm

OK Rep. Charles Key to speak at Kansas Sovereignty Jan 15th Topeka

Oklahoma’s own long time Tenth Amendment advocate and author of the Oklahoma Tenth Amendment Resolution, Rep. Key will be testifying before the KS Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the 10th Amendment on Jan. 15, 2010. He will  Follow up as the keynote speaker at a rally on the Capitol steps.

Wish I could be there-Go Kansas!

Read;

Kansas Sovereignty Call For Action Jan 15th Topeka

The Firearms Freedom Act

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.

August 5th, 2009

Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

Since its passage in Montana, a clone of the Firearms Freedom Act has been enacted in Tennessee, and has been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota and Florida. Legislators in many other states have announced that they will introduce FFA clones when their legislatures next convene.

The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object – it is a state’s rights exercise

Pennsylvania –(AmmoLand.com)– State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature. The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”:

“create the Pennsylvania firearms freedom act; to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in this state; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.

While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause...read more here.

As reported earlier Michigan in now following in the steps of Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act and Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act. And recently – AmmoLand.com

Model Version FFA;

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/model-version-of-ffa-legislation/

Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate
Montana Firearms Freedom Act


Oct 1, 2009

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/10/01/gun-groups-file-lawsuit-to-validate-montana-firearms-freedom-act/

Tennessee State Rep. Susan Lynn on state sovereignty

Tennessee Representative Susan Lynn

Location: 57th District

 My PhotoSusan Lynn is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force

These are her thoughts on state sovereignty;

unday, February 22, 2009

HJR 108 State Sovereignty

State sovereignty is a big deal to state legislators; hopefully, it is to you as well. It is what keeps the federal government from over stepping its constitutional bounds.

Today many state legislators, including some in Tennessee, have decided it is time to affirm state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.

The history of the formation of our federal government is long and complex but what the framers sought was a government that protected man’s natural rights; declared by the Declaration of Independence to be the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; better interpreted to mean that all men, by nature are equally free and independent with the right to work, acquire property and pursue their own individual happiness.

When the Constitution was drawn, the various states in existence already had Constitutions with several enumerated rights. Therefore, many of the framers believed that it was not necessary to include individual rights in a federal constitution. They feared that in doing so, the Constitution might incorrectly be construed as a document which limited the rights of the people and of the states.

Eventually the supporters of a bill of rights won out, and the Bill of Rights was drafted to guarantee equal rights for all Americans but compromise also brought the Tenth Amendment guaranteeing limits on federal power;

1. Freedoms of speech, press and religion

2. People’s right to keep and bear arms

3. Protection from quartering troops

4. To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures

5. Right to due process and the prohibition of double jeopardy

6. Trial by jury and other rights of the accused

7. Right to civil trial by jury

8. Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment

9. Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights

10. Powers reserved for the states and people

As you can see, the various rights are not necessarily rights that exist in the state of nature but rather rights designed to affirm and protect our natural rights; for example, freedom of the press protects liberty, and trial by jury protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The state sovereignty movement seeks to remind the federal government that the Tenth Amendment ensures that “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.”

After all, the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. However today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. Many powers and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; this limits our freedom and costs taxpayers untold billions of dollars – or should I say trillions?

I believe that it is time we step forth as other states are doing and affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We should also demand that the federal government halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution. Tennessee HJR 108 will do just that. With your support, hopefully, we can begin to reverse the federal power grab.

2002 Recommendations Joint Security Task Force Oklahoma

Oklahoma
http://www.okhouse.gov/Documents/FinalReportDocumentasof2-5-2002.pdfExcerpts;

Recommendations and Proceedings of the Joint Homeland Security Task Force

Volume I: Report
January 31, 2002

The report that follows details a number of recommendations for legislative
actions to prepare Oklahoma to help fight terrorism and be better prepared to respond should an attack take place. Many of these changes in law and
recommendations for public investment can and should be made immediately; others represent changes in policy or are large investments to upgrade security and technology that may take several years to implement.
It is the strong recommendation of this Task Force that the attention of the state to the cause of homeland security be constant, extended and sustained. This should not be a short term effort. Long after this Task Force adjourns, it is our view that the state will have an ongoing obligation to review its security and emergency response infrastructures to assess potential areas of vulnerability, and to take action to fill gaps in security through a constant process of review and enhancement of homeland security. For this reason, our first recommendation is to formally task an Oklahoma official with the responsibility of overseeing homeland security for this state.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Homeland Security Task Force recommends eleven significant legislative
actions in response to the directive presented by the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker of the House. Those eleven recommendations are briefly
introduced in this Executive Summary and elaborated upon in the next section of the report.
Additionally the report contains a variety of specific suggestions heard or discussed by the Task Force that may support the implementation of the major findings. Also provided are supporting documentation of issues discussed,information and individuals resourced, and a brief synopsis of the creation and proceedings of the Task Force.
RECOMMENDATION #1
Vest responsibility for coordinating Oklahoma’s homeland security in one cabinet-level official.

After much discussion the Task Force agreed that in order to adequately
coordinate homeland security efforts, a single individual with responsibility for directing the state’s efforts was needed. The Task Force also agreed that this individual should not only have the responsibility over assets to be used in implementing the stated goals, but should also have commensurate authority in achieving them. It is recognized that the process for selecting a Director of Homeland Security poses both administrative and political challenges. The available options for such a process run the gamut from a direct appointment of a cabinet-level position by the Governor with confirmation by the Senate, to a selection by an independent Board or Commission for a specific term with removal from office only for cause.
Legislation

It is a relatively simple task to delineate the responsibilities of an office of
Homeland Security. It is a much more difficult matter, however, to establish
authority for such an office. Given the fact that the Director of Homeland Security will be utilizing assets within state, federal, and local agencies, the Task Force believes it is imperative to require the cooperation and assistance of agencies over which the state has jurisdiction. We would recommend that language be crafted directing all agencies of the state and its subdivisions to render assistance and cooperation to the Office of Homeland Security. The Task Force further recommends that failure to render such assistance and cooperation may result in removal from office.
RECOMMENDATION #2
Amend the Criminal Code to include, among others, crimes of terrorism, financial support to terrorist groups, terrorist threats and false terrorist threats.

RECOMMENDATION #3
Enhance the State’s intelligence collection capabilities and devote
resources to the currently existing joint task force on terrorism that unites state and federal law enforcement officials in Oklahoma who collect information about terrorist networks operating in this region.

RECOMMENDATION #4

Fund the Digital Driver License Initiative and make the necessary legislative changes to require nationality information obtained in the
Oklahoma Driver License application process be made readily available to law enforcement.

The Task Force heard testimony from various witnesses in the law enforcement arena about the need to digitize driver license information in Oklahoma.
Witnesses indicated that this effort has been underway for some time but has never been fully funded. The members of the Task Force concluded that this is an important step in equipping the law enforcement community with the sophisticated tools necessary to pursue a robust counter-terrorism strategy.
Oklahoma, like several other states, collects information on applicant nationality and the jurisdiction of any previous driver license issued. This data is collected upon application for an Oklahoma driver license. The Task Force recommends that nationality information obtained during the driver license application process be provided in a form readily available to law enforcement. This step, in conjunction with the digitization initiative and improved monitoring of immigration procedures at the federal level, should help in the national effort to better monitor the legal status of foreign nationals and improve enforcement of visa restrictions-both of which have been identified in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks as seriously deficient.
RECOMMENDATION #5

Oklahoma should evaluate and consider legislation granting emergency health powers to the Governor and public health authorities in the event of a terrorist act or public health crisis to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the citizens of Oklahoma.

RECOMMENDATION #6
Institutions of higher education and entities providing vocational training
related to potentially dangerous activities should conduct risk management
surveys and take measures to enhance security.
RECOMMENDATION #7

Minor modifications should be made to the Open Records Act and the
Open Meetings Act to exempt official materials related to intelligence about terrorist activities, assessments of vulnerability, and counter-terror
measures that could educate terrorists about targets to strike.

In many Task Force hearings, witnesses presented testimony reflecting a
concern-particularly in the private sector and among some federal officials-that sharing sensitive information with state officials about terrorism or specific vulnerabilities to terrorist attack might result in those officials ultimately disclosing that information pursuant to current “open records” and “open meeting” statutes. The Task Force found that it was unclear whether state law truly puts that type of information at risk. However, in light of the ambiguity of the statutes, the Task Force recommends that minor modifications be made to clarify that information about potential terrorist attacks or information relating to vulnerability

RECOMMENDATION #8
Develop and fund a rational plan to upgrade and integrate communications
systems for governmental entities on the front line in responding to public
health emergencies, law enforcement incidents and terrorist attacks.

RECOMMENDATION #9
Take steps to dramatically increase security of the State’s critical
information systems and coordinate with the private sector to ensure
preparedness for the threat of cyber terrorism.
The effort to protect our state and nation will not be adequate unless we
recognize the degree to which critical aspects of our health, security, welfare and way of life currently rely on the security of our computers, internet connections, and other types of connectivity. It is imperative that the state recognizes the need to protect against this threat. Specifically, the Task Force recommends that the state’s cyber-terror detection capabilities be enhanced by increasing the number of personnel within the OSBI who are trained in this area and by requiring them to interact with federal officials in this field. The state should also invest in trained cyber-security personnel to assist state agencies in auditing their information systems to assess vulnerability to attack and to evaluate cost efficient ways to safeguard their systems. Particular emphasis should be placed on those agencies which, if its information systems were undermined, would have serious adverse public consequences. In order to achieve maximum effectiveness, it is crucial that any efforts undertaken in this area must be coordinated with the private sector, including internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and major corporations.

RECOMMENDATION #10
Increase security at the Oklahoma State Capitol Building.
RECOMMENDATION #11
Require periodic assessments of the safety of ranching and agricultural
enterprises, and of food processing. Develop plans for remediation in
conjunction with the private sector to combat potential attacks on
Oklahoma’s food production and processing systems and operations.
Fund the animal carcass digester project as recommended by the
Governor’s Advisory Panel and the Joint Legislative Task Force on Food
Safety.
In order to strengthen intelligence capabilities at the state level, the Task Force recommends that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Intelligence Enhancement Program be funded. This program would provide new and enhanced “all source” services in the area of terrorism intelligence, including field training on collecting, analyzing and disseminating intelligence, and would provide more than a dozen professionals in the area of criminal intelligence.
Included in the twelve new positions would be four special agents assigned to the Oklahoma Joint Terrorism Task Force-a team made up of both state and federal officials, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The members of the Joint Task Force on Homeland Security are:
Citizens:

• Mr. Ken Levit (Chair)
President of the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa

• Dr. Sujeet Shenoi
Professor of Computer Science, Tulsa University
• General Dennis J. Reimer (Ret.)
Director of the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
Senate Members:
• Glenn Coffee
• Billy Mickle
• Jim Reynolds
• Dick Wilkerson
House Members:
• John Nance
• Bill Paulk
• Dan Webb
• Dale Wells
Task Force Hearings
The Task Force met 10 times between November 13, 2001 and January 31,
2002 in a combination of public and executive sessions. The meetings took
place at the State Capitol and University of Oklahoma’s Schusterman Center in
Tulsa. Following is a listing of the wide variety of experts who gave testimony to
the Task Force:
First Meeting: November 13, 2001
Bob Ricks
Cabinet Secretary of Safety and Security, and Commissioner of Public
Safety
Dr. Robert Petrone
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Second Meeting: November 27, 2001
Dr. Stephen Sloan
University of Oklahoma, Political Science Department
Drew Edmondson
Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma
DeWade Langley
Director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
Richard Marquise
Special Agent in Charge, FBI
Third Meeting: December, 3, 2001
No Witnesses
Fourth Meeting: December 11, 2001
Leslie M. Beitsch
MD, JD, Commissioner, Oklahoma Department of Health
General Robert A. Goodbary
Director, Office of Military Relations, OSU

Fifth Meeting: December 14, 2001

Howard Barnett
Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Sixth Meeting: December 18, 2001
Albert Ashwood
Director, Department of Civil Emergency Management

Sujeet Shenoi
Ph.D., University of Tulsa

Drew Edmondson
Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma
Seventh Meeting: January 4, 2002

JoAnn Bell
Executive Director, Oklahoma ACLU

Mark Thomas
Executive Vice President, Oklahoma Press Association

Bob Ricks
Cabinet Secretary of Safety and Security, and Commissioner of Public
Safety
Eighth Meeting: January 11, 2002
Robert M. McNamara, Jr.
Managing Director, Manatt Jones

Tom Holland
Manager, Phillips Global Security

Major General Stephen Cortright
Adjutant General of Oklahoma

Representative James Covey
Chair of the Oklahoma Food Safety Task Force
Ninth Meeting: January 18, 2002

Curt Hopfinger
Vice President, Regulatory, Southwestern Bell Oklahoma

John Howle
Director, Central Office Operations, Southwestern Bell Oklahoma

Lance Thomason
Area Manager, SBC National Security Preparedness, Michigan

Kerry Wagnon
Program Director, Capital Safety Projects in Oklahoma City

Danny George
Executive Director, Oklahoma Municipal League

The Task Force spent a significant amount of time discussing the merits of
enhancing Oklahoma’s intelligence gathering resources. Numerous experts told the Task Force that enhanced intelligence information is a key component in preventing terrorist activities. This position was expressed not just by law enforcement officials, but by other witnesses as well, such as Professor Stephen Sloan from the University of Oklahoma and the former General Counsel of the CIA, Robert M. McNamara, Jr. Unfortunately, intelligence capacity at the state level has been somewhat neglected, for a variety of reasons, since the mid-1970s. Growing distrust of the intelligence gathering capabilities of law enforcement agencies, spurred on by the events of Watergate and revelations of inappropriate and illegal use of such intelligence by the Hoover-era FBI, made many justifiably suspicious of such operations.
The events of September 11, however, have made it necessary for intelligence gathering capacity to be enhanced once again. There was much discussion regarding this capacity and the role of legislative oversight, as well as the need to consider the dynamic tension between enhanced intelligence gathering activities and safeguards to civil liberties. The Task Force spent significant time listening to testimony from the Oklahoma Civil Liberties Union and the Oklahoma Press Association regarding concerns about open information and infringement of constitutional rights. The recommendations in this report attempt to strike the right balance between protecting our citizens and protecting the civil liberties that make us a great nation. Nonetheless, the challenge we face is unique, and fresh thinking is required to ensure we remain “safe and free”.

Open Records and Open Meetings
There was significant concern expressed by a number of witnesses testifying
to the Task Force that modifications were needed to the Open Records and
Open Meetings Acts to protect sensitive information and intelligence. Some of these concerns included:

• Private sector organizations are currently reluctant to share certain information with the state for the purposes of threat assessment and response plans because they fear the information will become public. Such proprietary information includes descriptions of power generation grids, computer systems, pipelines, and company security systems.

• Potentially sensitive public sector information about assets such as college laboratories, Grand River Dam Authority facilities, OneNet, and water supplies were also reported to be subject to disclosures associated with Open Records and Open Meetings laws.

The task force understands these concerns and believes there is validity to them. Recent information provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) indicates that other states are also struggling with such issues. NCSL reports that administrators are particularly concerned about sunshine laws that require public access to security assessment information or asset vulnerability data. Furthermore, water systems, dams, power systems, and computer systems are all vulnerable to cyber terrorism with knowledge of system

Existing Intelligence Resources

The Task Force recognizes that the State of Oklahoma already has many intelligence gathering resources. The chief concern of the group, however, is that those resources are properly coordinated and utilized to prevent terrorism within our boundaries. Experts explained to the Task Force that the intelligence gathering process is already used in dealing with gangs, drug cartels, and other forms of organized crime and can therefore be modified to fit terrorist cell activity.

Intelligence Recommendations
State intelligence gathering is a law enforcement function. Therefore, a key
premise in developing a homeland intelligence function is to criminalize terrorism and terrorism-related activities. Although such acts are often already illegal under federal law or perhaps under a related state provision, the Oklahoma Attorney
General clearly indicated that enhancement of the criminal law would better enable the law enforcement community to monitor persons and activities that
have a nexus to terrorism. In this vein, the Attorney General and other law
enforcement officials asked the Legislature to:

• Enact new statutory language in Oklahoma State Statute, Title 74,
Section 150.2 that would add terrorism to the list of crimes which the OSBI may collect information on. This recommendation would allow OSBI to appropriately apply enhanced intelligence gathering methods to the prevention of terrorism as well as the apprehension
of terrorists. The Attorney General recommends making this crime punishable by any term of years up to and including life imprisonment. (See 4.4-Criminal Law Amendments sections.)
• Further strengthen intelligence and investigative powers by adding terrorism to the list of crimes that fall in the category of

“racketeering.” (See 4.4-Criminal Law Amendments sections.)
• Include carrying a weapon as a licensed security guard in the gun
permit prohibitions for foreign nationals on work or student visas;

• Enhance OSBI capabilities by adding eighteen FTE (10 special agents, 4 senior intelligence analysts, 2 MIS programmers, 1 training officer, and 1 grant administrator). Additional details of the
OSBI plan are provided in the agency’s Intelligence Enhancement Program Business Plan (see appendix). Total cost estimated by the OSBI for their program was $1.2 million. The Task Force feels this enhanced capability is necessary, but would leave the exact funding amount to be determined by the Director of Homeland
Security.

• The Legislature should require intelligence training as a part of
CLEET Basic Academy education. This would ensure that all local
law enforcement personnel would have a basic understanding of
the purposes and techniques of intelligence gathering and would provide a foundation for further training. The exact curriculum should be developed by OSBI and validated by the Homeland Security Director.
• Provide resources for the OSBI to develop the capabilities to undertake cyber terrorism investigation in mainframe and/or networked computer systems. Although the OSBI currently does not have this capability, experts testifying before the Task Force indicated that this is a likely target for future terrorist activity. This capability would be in addition to 6 FTE currently allocated by the Legislature for a computer crimes unit.

• Expedite funding for digitalized driver license photographs. Such a system would make licenses more difficult to duplicate and help law enforcement identify altered licenses. Unlike traditional cards currently in use in Oklahoma, the photos on digitalized licenses are printed right into the card itself and cannot be altered without being destroyed. A similar system implemented in 1999 in Arkansas cost $10.4 million.

State Sovereignty Updates

 

State Sovereignty Resolutions suffer setback in AR & NH

CofCC.org News Team

Today 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolutions were killed by the New Hampshire House and an Arkansas House committee. The NH House voted 60% to 40% against the resolution, while the Arkansas House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 10-8 to kill it.

Supporters of the resolution booed the NH legislature from the gallery. Hundreds of people showed up to support the resolution. Many feel that New Hampshire has been significantly changed by immigration from the New York City area, and is no longer the same state that once gave Pat Buchanan a presidential primary victory. The New Hampshire version of the resolution was one of the most strongly worded of any, however it only had 4 sponsors in the NH House. It is possible that author Rep. Itse over-played his hand adding such strong language to the resolution.

Arkansas Article.

New Hampshire Article.

However, the struggle continues. Similar resolutions have passed the South Carolina House and Oklahoma House this year. The Montana House passed a bill invoking the 10th Amendment as justification for voiding Federal gun laws in Montana.

Rehash of action so far.

OK House Resolution passed, voted 83-13!
SC House Resolution passed with 37 sponsors! (final vote unknown).
SC Senate Subcommittee voted 4-1 to send it to full Judiciary Committee for vote yesterday.
AZ House Committee voted 6-3 to send it to the full House for vote.
MT 10th Amendment/State Sovereignty Gun Rights Bill, passed in MT House 64-36!

CofCC Director Col. Robert Slimp, who spoke at the South Carolina Senate subcommittee hearing, says he expects the SC Senate to pass their version of the resolution within ten days. Then the SC state legislature will have to decide which version to send to the Governor in a joint session. South Carolina’s Mark Sanford is expected to sign it.

Five new states have seen 10th Amendment State Sovereignty resolutions introduced into their legislative bodies in the past week or so. Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia.

Tennessee – HJR 108 has 20 sponsors!

Kansas – Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1609

Kentucky – House Concurrent Resolution 168, 9 sponsors.

The Staff of CofCC.org has analyzed the support of different resolutions in various legislative bodies. We feel it is extremely likely that resolutions or bills declaring state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment will be passed by both houses of legislature in AZ, MT, OK, and SC by the end of the current legislative session. Another state that has very strong support is Michigan.

AR and NH will have to wait until next year and try again

New Hampshire House Rejects Sovereignty Bill 216-150

http://www.fmkfirearms.com/Patriots_Den/blog/fmkblo g.php/?p=65

 

CONCORD, N.H. — The New Hampshire House killed a resolution affirming state sovereignty on Wednesday, dashing the hopes of conservatives who said the federal government should quit meddling in local affairs.
The House rejected Republican Daniel Itse’s resolution by a vote of 216-150. Itse’s supporters booed from the gallery after the vote, briefly disrupting the session.
The resolution said New Hampshire could ignore any federal laws or policies that violate the Constitution. It was nonbinding, so if passed, it would not have carried the force of law. Itse targeted many policies, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle banSimilar resolutions are pending in at least 15 states. Critics said they’re a misreading of the Constitution.

The supporters on the bill may have met with a disappointing result, but they sure put up a good fight. Video journalist Dave Ridley was on the scene outside the State House in Concord before the resolution came to a vote:

 

 

State Sovereignty Updates from the Tolbert Report

 

UPDATE – I just received this statement from the bill’s primary sponsor Rep. Debbie Hobbs…

 

I am sponsoring this resolution for a couple of reasons: A concerned citizen brought it to my attention that a number of states were filing resolutions asserting states’ rights, particularly Oklahoma. I was convinced that Arkansas needed to file a similar resolution.

 Secondly, I am a firm believer in the Constitution and in the freedom of each state to determine its own laws and rules of behavior. Our Founding Fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. It states very clearly that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Our resolution is a strong reminder to the federal government that we are partners in determining what is best for the citizens of Arkansas.

Congress has passed massive bailouts and expanded social programs that will cost the states i.e. taxpaying citizens enormously. Even the money that comes to Arkansas through SFSF funds has strings attached that tell us how the money is to be spent. We in Arkansas know where it will do the most good; the federal government does not.

UPDATE II According to Rep. Duncan Baird, this failed in committee by a vote of 8 to 10.  I did not know that many state representatives disagreed with the 10th Amendment.