Are We Seeing the Beginning of the End??

Dateline: April 9, 2009, Austin, Texas

Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Jump to the "Teaparties" of April 15 (from a FoxNews report):

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall -- one of three tea parties he was attending across the state -- that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

DATELINE: March 5, 2009, Pierre, South Dakota

South Dakota Resolution Passes

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring
therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts 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; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that 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 or repealed; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve 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.

DATELINE: April 27, 2009, Bismark, North Dakota

North Dakota Sovereignty Declaration Final As Passed

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF NORTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:

That the Sixty-first Legislative Assembly affirms this state's sovereignty under the
10th 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 and demands the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that 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 or repealed

DATELINE: May 4, 2009, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (from the Oklahoman):

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Other States with active 10th Amendment Resolutions in their respective legislatures (see this link):

• Louisiana--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (as of 5/6 has been reported out of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee favorably)
• Wisconsin--2009 Senate Resolution 6 (as of 4/9 has been referred to the Committee on Ethics, Reform, and Government Operations)
• Illinois--2009 Senate Resolution 0181 (as of 3/31 referred to Assignments Committee)
• West Virginia--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 49 (as of 3/27 referred to House Rules Committee)
• North Carolina--2009 House Resolution 849 (as of 3/30 referred to Committee On Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House)
• Ohio--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 11 (introduced)
• Oregon--2009 House Joint Memorial 17
• Alabama--2009 House Joint Resolution 403 (introduced 3/24)
• Mississippi--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 69 (passed committee on 5/6--scheduled for vote); 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 630 (introduced 3/10--referred to Rules Committee)
• Kentucky--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 169 (introduced 2/24--posted to Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs on 2/26)
• Alaska--2009 House Joint Resolution 27 (passed House 4/6, passed Senate 4/19, awaiting transmittal to Governor Palin)
• Indiana--2009 Senate Resolution 0042 (passed Senate 4/9, awaiting transmittal to House)
• Tennessee--2009 Senate Joint Resolution 0311 (passed Senate 5/4, awaiting transmittal to House)
• Minnestota--2009 HF 997 (sent to Committee on State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections 2/19)
• South Carolina--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 3509 (passed House 2/26, in the Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/3)
• Georgia--2009 Senate Resolution 632 (passed 4/1); 2009 House Resolution 280 (in House Committee on Judiciary)
• Kansas--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 2/12)
• Texas--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 50 (reported favorably out of Committee--awaiting scheduling of vote 4/27)
• Missouri--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 13 (passed House 3/23, referred to Committee on Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics 3/24...public hearings held 4/7)
• Iowa--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (intoduced 1/27)
• Michigan--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (introduced 1/22--Committee on Government Operations); 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (intoduced 3/3--Committee on Judiciary)
• Arizona--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 2024 (reported out of committee favorably 4/14)
• Washington--2009 House Joint Memorial 4009 (introduced 1/30--referred to Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs)

REMEMBER--THE FIRST STEP OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS THE ATTEMPT TO REDRESS THE ISSUES THE COLONIES HAD WITH THE CROWN (SEVERAL TIMES). THE DECLARATION WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE REFUSAL OF THE CROWN TO REDRESS THE ISSUES OF TYRANNY...