Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 4009

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post


    Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
    Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw


    H-1028.1 _____________________________________________

    HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 4009

    _____________________________________________

    State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session

    By
    Representatives Shea, Klippert, Condotta, Kretz, Anderson, McCune,

    and Kristiansen

    Read first time 01/30/09. Referred to Committee on State Government &

    Tribal Affairs.

    1 TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND

    2 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF

    3 REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

    4 UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE

    5 SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE'S

    6 LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

    7 We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of

    8 the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully

    9 represent and petition as follows:

    10 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

    11 States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the

    12 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

    13 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

    14 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal

    15 power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the

    16 Constitution of the United States and no more; and

    17 WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers

    18 between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as

    19 one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and

    p. 1 HJM 4009

    1 WHEREAS, James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said,

    2 "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.

    3 Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and

    4 indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external

    5 objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The

    6 powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects

    7 which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,

    8 and properties of the people."; and

    9 WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not

    10 "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are

    11 "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is

    12 the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.";

    13 and

    14 WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people

    15 will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium

    16 between the general and the state governments." He believed that "this

    17 balance between the national and state governments forms a double

    18 security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their

    19 rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed,

    20 they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional

    21 limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between

    22 them."; and

    23 WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means

    24 that the federal government was created by the states specifically to

    25 be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states; and

    26 WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as

    27 agents of the federal government; and

    28 WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the

    29 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    30 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in
    New York v.

    31
    United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply

    32 commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

    33 WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and

    34 some now being considered by the present administration and from

    35 Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

    36 NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

    37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under

    HJM 4009 p. 2

    1 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all

    2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government

    3 by the Constitution of the United States; and

    4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal

    5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of

    6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective

    7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its

    8 constitutionally delegated powers.

    9 BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately

    10 transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United

    11 States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the

    12 House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker

    13 of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the

    14 United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of

    15 Washington.

    --- END ---

    p. 3 HJM 4009


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Nice, but where are the specifics. Those in favor of a powerful federal government have been twisting the plain meaning of the Constitution for years to do what they want. The Commerce Clause, for example, has been interpreted to mean that the Feds can regulate anything. The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted to mean that the Feds can pass any law they want. I would be more impressed with this document if they would include a list of specific grievances. For example:

    The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    My favorite is "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people".

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Love it! I've been watching these eagerly. It's a start at least.

    Note none of these have actually passed that I know of.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    This is nice but when we, as a State, declare our sovereignty then the Federal Government will just stop sending us our own tax dollars. Just like when States had higher speed limits, lower drinking ages, etc.

    This is a "feel good" measure. Doubt it will go anywhere, especially with major deficits on their plates in the Legislature.

    If they were to pass a resolution saying that they would be collecting ALL the Tax Dollars from tax payers, including Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare, and then forwarding that which is left over after paying for all the unfunded mandates that the Federal Government lays off on the States, THAT would surely get some attention.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    This is a "feel good" measure. Doubt it will go anywhere, especially with major deficits on their plates in the Legislature.
    Seriously? This is the closest this nation has ever been to dissolving the federal government! That speaks volumes to how frustrated the states are getting. Read New Hampshire’s, they aren’t pulling any punches. This is unprecedented in American history.

  6. #6
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I thought Colorado did this a few years ago because of Bush and his Patriot act? They basically said they will not help the federal government in any way and exercised their sovereignty. I remember reading it a while ago.

    Thanks Mainsail. It will be very interesting over the next few years. I wonder if these will go anywhere. Fact is our Federal Government does whatever they want and those who resist are labeled "crazy rednecks" or "seperatists".

    I'm the opposite. I think for the most part people can get along even if they don't agree. It's those who inact laws that regulate our behavior that are the real enemy.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    I'd like to see the states/governors re-claim their national guards and revive officially-sanctioned unorganized militias. That'd put some teeth behind it all, eh?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Seriously? This is the closest this nation has ever been to dissolving the federal government! That speaks volumes to how frustrated the states are getting. Read New Hampshire’s, they aren’t pulling any punches. This is unprecedented in American history.
    I would have thought that the period from 1861 to 1865 might have been closer.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Seriously? This is the closest this nation has ever been to dissolving the federal government! That speaks volumes to how frustrated the states are getting. Read New Hampshire’s, they aren’t pulling any punches. This is unprecedented in American history.
    I would have thought that the period from 1861 to 1865 might have been closer.
    In a way you’re right, as much as people like to believe the civil war was about slavery, it was more about state sovereignty. This, however, is a little different because there is no geographical line dividing the states, but a political one. Additionally, this situation is about the federal government exceeding the clearly defined limits on its power.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    ...Vive le revolucion!

    it's about time there was more than just us mere mortals that were entirely fed up with the plutocracy in this nation.

    Now repeat after me:
    "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

    This is going to get ugly soon, either the federal government is going to start listening to "We the People", or We the People are going to take it away from them. peacefully if possible, by force if necessary.

    damn, I woke up in a great mood this morning...
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

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

    Post imported post

    I wonder if it's possible to use the judicial instead of the legistlative branch to work on this, perhaps get an injunction against the federal legislators ordering them to not make unconsitutional laws.
    I take that back- I know it's impossible, but am curious to find out what the official response would be.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    I wonder if it's possible to use the judicial instead of the legistlative branch to work on this, perhaps get an injunction against the federal legislators ordering them to not make unconsitutional laws.
    I take that back- I know it's impossible, but am curious to find out what the official response would be.
    Actually the judiciary is a part of the problem. The original intent of the founders was that the judiciary be a check on the legislative and the executive (everyone knows this) but also that the legislative and the executive be checks on the judiciary as well as each other. The Supreme Court, in a blatant grab of power (I don't remember which court it was although I want to say Warren), ruled that they were the sole deciders of Constitutionality, and that the legislature was then required to do whatever it was they sid. Since then judges have, with little regard for the will of the people or the various legislatures, enacted laws rather than ruling on laws enacted by the Legislature. Example, when a judge in Kansas established a statewide system for funding schools which was in direct opposition to what the Legislature, as representatives of the people, had chosen to do. Another example, the suspension, by a federal judge, of the proposition in California to suspend benefits to illegal aliens, a proposition that passed by a 70% - 30% margin in the nineties.

    If you are going to reign in the federal government you also have to reign in the judges who are overturning the will of the people on a regular basis. The judiciary cannot be allowed to become or remain a de facto dictatorship.

Posting Permissions

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