Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

World Net Daily ^ | February 6, 2009 | Jerome R. Corsi

[jonascord]

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but that’s what communists do. A democrat is a communist in a mask. And, they BELIEVE!!!

[Palladin]

Precisely!

[no dems]

Rest assured that the great State of Texas will be showing up on that list in short order.

[MurrietaMadman]

I wondered the same thing and found this from 15 years ago.

BILL NUMBER: SJR 44 CHAPTERED 08/29/94
BILL TEXT

RESOLUTION CHAPTER 93
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 29, 1994
ADOPTED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 1994
ADOPTED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 1994
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 11, 1994
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 1994

INTRODUCED BY Senators Rogers, Ayala, Bergeson, Beverly,
Boatwright, Campbell, Craven, Dills, Hill, Hurtt, Johannessen, Kelley, Kopp, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Maddy, McCorquodale, Mello, Peace, Presley, Russell, Wright, and Wyman

(Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar, Alby, Allen, Andal,
Baca, Boland, Bowen, Bowler, Brulte, Cannella, Conroy, Cortese, Costa, Epple, Ferguson, Frazee, Goldsmith, Harvey, Hauser, Haynes, Hoge, Honeycutt, Horcher, Johnson, Jones, Katz, Knight, Knowles, McPherson, Morrow, Mountjoy, Murray, Pringle, Rainey, Richter, Rogan, Seastrand, Statham, Takasugi, Tucker, Weggeland, and Woodruff)

APRIL 14, 1994

Senate Joint Resolution No. 44 Relative to the 10th
Amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SJR 44, Rogers. 10th Amendment.
This measure would declare the state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and demand that the federal government cease and desist mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers.

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“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 10th Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably
treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the
federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of
the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 dministrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims 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 United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective mmediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its
constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.

___________________________

I was not in California in 1994 so many of those names mean little to me. If they help you deduce more wrong reasons please share.

Why is it that the last time this issue came up in CA, a noted liberal State, another globalist tool democrat was in the white house?

Whose working this angle anyway?

[300winmag]

How say you, Mr. Mag? What do you see from your side of the mitten?

I didn't see anything. If they adopted this resolution, it was probably in the same spirit that they proclaim April as "state mushroom month".

[ExGeeEye]

mmm....’shrooms....

wait...whut?

[Beamreach]

I seriously question how much of the Army the FedGove really “has”— and maintain that the National Guards of the several states are under even less federal control, depending on the nature of the orders received.

---

I wonder what the “joint cheif of staff” would say to obozo if he told the Cheif to go get control of such and such state? we need to cut the blood off to this tumor, thats the best way to kill or control the tumor....

[Shery]

I’d agree. It seems that ACORN is slowly gaining power by grabbing the midwest states. They pretty much have Wisconsin, MN, IL, OH, Pennsylvania, along with NY and MA. Missouri showed its colors this past couple elections. A lot of Obama people in the media, police departments, etc. That is BAD!

[shaft29]

“If they want to keep Washington out of state business, then they need to stop accepting Federal money.”

No. Just don’t send any money to Washington.

[murron]

That would be nice.

[murron]

My point exactly.

[MrB]

A VIABLE plan to save our Constitutional Republic

[Califreak]

Hubby feels the same way & he thinks I’m nuts for thinking otherwise.

I’ve never been the brightest person here and sometimes I play with the tinfoil a little more than I should.

I picture Millstone giving our sovereignty over to the UN.

Common sense tells me that our military is far different than it was in WWII, because way back in the day, all the immigrants actually wanted to be American and were thoroughly assimilated.

Now, too many of them retain that primary allegiance to their motherland and a lot of them are gangsters who are in it to take military skills away from the war zone and apply them to gang activities.

If these elements are combined with gun seizure if the SHTF(think martial law, lists and firing squads)it doesn’t seem impossible to me that there could be a split in the ranks of the military that could actually make some of our soldiers a danger to us. If we wind up even further under the thumb of the UN, we might even see UN troops.

Please keep in mind, I am not besmirching our military-they are truly the finest-I am just being realistic. People who have no loyalty to America, like UN troops and folks who aren’t thoroughly immersed in the idea of America, would probably have no problem whatsoever with indiscriminate killing of our population.

Also, I wouldn’t put it past our marxist leaders to actually enlist the aid of street gangs that they have let run rampant, in the form of an internal security force.

It’s not that far fetched. We know they have no conscience, heart or soul and they hate America.

Maybe I’m overreacting, but look at all the damage that has been done in just 2 months. What’s it going to be like in 2 years?

[Califreak]

Knowing how California leadership is, I can’t help but think they want to be even freer to advance their agenda of perversion and environmentalism, since fedzilla probably doesn’t even go far enough to suit them.