Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: OT: Washington State Introduces Claim to State Sovereignty

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Just read this:
    Legislatures in Washington State have introduced legislation claiming state sovereignty. This legislation sends a strong message that many believe the 10th Amendment still stands.

    The legislation was first read a few days ago, on January 30th. It was then referred to the Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs. While some will claim it has little chance of passing we cannot underplay the importance of the message it sends to the country. Washington State legislators have joined with New Hampshire legislators in putting our original form of a Federalist Republic in the forefront of thought at a critical time in our history.
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5946.html

    What do you guys think? What do you think will happen to gun laws?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    If I understand correctly, that means that the states can violate the Bill of Rights as long as the federal gov't stays out?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    If I understand correctly
    You don't. It means states are pushing back against the idea that the Federal Government has unlimited powers.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    ???cynicist wrote:
    If I understand correctly, that means that the states can violate the Bill of Rights as long as the federal gov't stays out?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    If I understand correctly, that means that the states can violate the Bill of Rights as long as the federal gov't stays out?
    The BOR and Constitution are still applicable. They give us our freedoms and define our rights. The point is that the Constitution also defines where the powers lay and this is to remind the Fed of their limitations. It doesn't mean that the state can violate the Constitution; it reminds the Federal government NOT to violate it.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    The Constitution and BOR do not give us freedoms and rights, rather they list a handful of preexisting, inalienable rights. A government cannot give rights, they can merely codify or list ones that already exist.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I'm glad to see that this concept seems to be starting to spread. The 17th amendment, changing the election of senators to a direct election instead of election by state legislators as originally conceived, essentially removed the voice of the states from the halls of the US congress and has now relegated them to little more than lobbyists and panderers, on equal footing with other special interest groups. I think the beginning of a real solution to the fed's encroachments is to repeal the 17th and restore the rightful place of the states in congress.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I'm glad to see that this concept seems to be starting to spread. The 17th amendment, changing the election of senators to a direct election instead of election by state legislators as originally conceived, essentially removed the voice of the states from the halls of the US congress and has now relegated them to little more than lobbyists and panderers, on equal footing with other special interest groups. I think the beginning of a real solution to the fed's encroachments is to repeal the 17th and restore the rightful place of the states in congress.
    In this day and age of "crony-ism" or whatever you want to call it? It is hardto tell what they are doing or approve of most the laws and actions our elected representatives do now, I don't think I want them to select my senator. Now that it looks like people are finally starting to get upset and take action we might be able to go that route.

    But until we get the local politicians back in line,I thinkit would make matters worse.

    Gary


  9. #9
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    +10 for the Tenth Amendment!!!!!!!!!!

    It's a shame we need special bills in state legislatures to "legalize" something that is already a right enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    It means states are pushing back against the idea that the Federal Government has unlimited powers.
    I see. I was way off.
    I thought I remembered something about it used to be that the States would claim that the BoR only applied to the federal gov't, and therefore they didn't have to follow it, and until that line was overturned, the 10th Amendment was the justification.


    Is there anyone pushing for a bill again that would require the legislature to note in every resolution what part of the Constitution authorizes it?



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Indeed, one of several:
    http://www.taxtruth4u.com/eight%20states.html (some of those links aren't to real bills).

    This bill, and those like it, are unbelievably timely and appropriate. Such a breath of fresh air. I wrote my state reps and senator about it and a few others:

    SJM 8002 - Requesting that Congress Audit the Federal Reserve System: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2009

    HJM 4010 - (Sound Money Memorial): http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=4010

    SB 5395 - Concerning the Excise taxation of bullion and rare earth metals: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...&bill=5395

    HJM 4009 - Claiming state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2009

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Is there anyone pushing for a bill again that would require the legislature to note in every resolution what part of the Constitution authorizes it?
    And what practical effect would that have? Look at current Commerce Clause jurisprudence for a perfect (perfectly sad) example of how things can be twisted to justify government power.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    The Constitution and BOR do not give us freedoms and rights, rather they list a handful of preexisting, inalienable rights. A government cannot give rights, they can merely codify or list ones that already exist.

    +1

    Exactly Right...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    And what practical effect would that have?
    Well, if Congress couldn't come up with a Constitutional basis for it's resolutions, then they could not pass them.
    I know it's been tried before, and I believe it was John Glenn that said something like "if this thing passes, we wouldn't be able to pass half the laws we pass." That's a pretty practical affect.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    cynicist,

    I think you're not living up to your name. If such a thing passed, I can guarantee you that every subsequent bill would contain a constitutional pretense. Far fewer would actually have a constitutional justification.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montesano, Washington, USA
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    I have never done this, but I contacted every one of the sponsors and thanked them for their support of the Constitution and then I contacted my representatives and urged them to support HJM 4009. I think this is something everyone should do, as this is so important. It only takes a few minutes to e-mail these people and it might do some good.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    According to an email a friend sent this morning, several other states are introducing such bills this year. Here's the link I was sent (I know some people will not like the source, however, links within the story provide the proof).

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...p;pageId=88218

    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member Window_Seat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacaville, California, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    I searched for this topic, and here is what I came up with because I didn't want to start a "dupe", so BTT to ask if there has been any news, updates, etc. on this 10th Amendment Sovereignty movement? The State of MT just signed theirs. What about WA?

    Erik.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    It died, IIRC.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    It died, IIRC.
    That and it only had seven sponsors.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •