Arizona State Sovereignty Amendment Back from the Dead!

UPDATE: The Arizona Senate passed HCR2004 16-14 the second time around 0n April 30.

HCR:2004 unfortunately failed to pass in the Senate on the third reading of April 24, 2012, with a vote of 14 “Ayes”, 14 “Nays”, and two who did not vote (Steve Gallardo and Frank Antenori). Supporters thought the bill was dead.

However, Senator Yarbrough (who voted no) put forth a motion to reconsider, and the motion carried. To view the vote detail, and to see the breakdown of who voted for or against HCR: 2004, please Click Here.

As Joel Poindexter wrote in the previous Tenth Amendment Center story Arizona Moves to Regain Sovereignty, “The proposed amendment, HCR:2004, is intended to reassert Arizona’s sovereignty as a state, and regain control over much of the state’s lands and resources. According to Section C. of the proposal: “The State of Arizona declares its sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries….” The authors made exceptions for existing military posts, Indian reservations, and federal property, pursuant to the US constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.”

Details

Ohio Considering Tenth Amendment Resolution

There is a growing understanding that the federal government has become too big, to demanding and exceeds the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, and to that end, more and more states are reaffirming their sovereignty through resolutions based on the Tenth Amendment.

The main thrust of SCR 24 is “To reassert the principles of federalism found throughout the Constitution of the United States of America and embodied in the Tenth Amendment, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

Details

New England Nullification Movement Grows

Back in March, the town of Sedgwick, Maine courageously voted to nullify certain unconstituional federal regulations dealing with local food production. The ordinance was passed in response to S.510, the odious Food Safety and Modernization Act, written by agricorps like Monsanto to put their smaller competitors out of business, and passed by Congress under the cover…

Details

Oklahoma governor puts taxpayers’ money where her mouth is

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin just set an important precedent. By rejecting $54.6 million in federal money to begin implementation of ObamaCare, the governor has firmly set herself against the unconstitutional law and with the citizens of her state. From Fox News: To make it clear Oklahoma will develop its own plan, the state will not accept a $54.6 million…

Details

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that

Details

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed. From NetRightDaily: “State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead…

Details

Virginia Blogger Calls Tenthers “Intellectual Boobs”

Dan Casey of the Roanoke Times recently embarrassed himself with a juvenile, ad hominem attack on the Tenth Amendment movement titled “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy.”

While it’s unclear whether Casey actually expected his “arguments” to be taken seriously, it is clear that he cannot make his point through the use of logic or fact. Therefore, Casey’s piece is chock full of historical inaccuracies, mis-characterizations and outright falsehoods regarding the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

So many, actually, that I cannot list them all here. However, I did respond point by point in a piece of my own to be published soon.

Here is a sample:

Details

VA Intrastate Commerce Act up for key vote tomorrow

If we choose to exercise it, the Tenth Amendment explicitly gives us the power to enforce the Constitution’s letter and spirit through political action, regardless of the opinions and preferences of the ruling class.

Details

Firearms Freedom Act Introduced in Texas

Introduced in the Texas State House last week was House Bill 145 (HB145), the Firearms Freedom Act. The bill, introduced by Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, states that:

The Legislature of the State of Texas declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Texas, as described by Chapter 2003, Business & Commerce Code, as added by this Act, that remains within the borders of Texas:

(1) has not traveled in interstate commerce; and
(2) is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Since 2009, 8 states have passed similar legislation as law – Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona. And, here at the Tenth Amendment Center we expect to see at least a dozen other states consider Firearms Freedom Acts in 2011.

Details

Stopping the EPA and Cap and Trade in Virginia

Two bills, both attempting to reassert state sovereignty over environmental regulations, will be considered in Virginia’s 2011 legislative session. The first, House bill 1357 (HB1357) addresses the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions specifically, while the second, House Bill 1397 (HB1397) seeks to protect Virginia homeowners from potential cap and trade requirements.

Details