Tag Archives | South Dakota Sovereignty

Arizona, South Dakota: A Chance to Advance the Nullification Movement

On Election Day, Arizona and South Dakota will vote on initiatives to partially nullify Federal narcotics laws pertaining to the medicinal use of cannabis. These initiatives are important to the residents of both states for many reasons. They offer a re-assertion of state sovereignty and interposition by the state(s) on behalf of patients and their caregivers.

They affirm the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship independent of Federal meddling. They provide patients safe access to their medication. And perhaps most importantly, they affirm that Arizona and South Dakota are willing to join the group of states in this Union (as well as the Federal District) and the nations around the world who accept the standard that judges societies by how well they treat their weakest and most vulnerable members. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

South Dakotans to vote on legalizing medical marijuana

From the Associated Press:

South Dakotans will be asked to vote on legalizing marijuana for use in treating pain, nausea and other health problems.

The secretary of state’s office has approved a petition seeking a statewide vote on the proposal in November.

A similar measure narrowly failed in the 2006 election, when it received 48 percent of the vote. But Reistroffer says support for medical marijuana has grown among South Dakotans in the past few years.

Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana.

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page for state marijuana laws

Continue Reading 1

SD Governor Rounds Signs Firearms Freedom Act into Law

mike-roundsThe South Dakota Legislature recently passed SB 89 which declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.”

Now, a little more than a week later, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed the bill into law.

The bill is the latest of many crafted in states across the country in the last year which re-assert the Tenth Amendment rights of the states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.

The Tenth Amendment declares

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 while Article 1 Section 8 (also known as the enumerated powers) of the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” obviously the regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state of South Dakota is not among the powers of the federal government.

As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun re-asserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap and trade global warming taxes, and more.

cross-posted from DakotaVoice.com

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 4

South Dakota Legislature Passes Firearms Freedom Act

south-dakotaA bill that declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota” passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives yesterday.

SB89 was approved by a 49-19 vote. The bill had already passed the state Senate on Feb. 18 with a 29-4 vote.

The bill states it would “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.” The spirit of the bill hearkens to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which says

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.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the firearms and ammunition covered by this bill would not be involved in interstate commerce; it specifies guns and ammo that are manufactured and kept within the state of South Dakota.

A number of states across the country have been working on “Firearms Freedom Acts” which seek to rein in our out-of-control federal government. South Dakota is joining this effort to restore federalism and strengthen our American freedoms.

Cross-Posted from DakotaVoice.com

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

Continue Reading 5

Colorado, South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act Introduced

Introduced in the State Senates of both Colorado and South Dakota last week is a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed, the bill would make state law that “any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state and that remains within the borders of the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts already passed in Montana and Tennessee, and currently introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author of the original bill that was introduced in Montana, “It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and maybe elsewhere”

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 89 (SB89) was introduced by State Senator Rhoden, and has 22 Senate co-sponsors and 44 House co-sponsors.

Colorado’s Senate Bill 092 (SB10-092) was introduced by State Senator Schultheis and has 9 Senate co-sponsors and 7 House co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

UPDATE, 01-26-10

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

In similar proposals, some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.  Other legislators have already introduced what’s known as the “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act” which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C.  Click here to read more about this proposal.

Even without such specific penalties listed, I see this as an important step in the right direction.

Continue Reading 39

Medical Marijuana in South Dakota?

Not known for being a liberal state by any stretch, we may soon see how people on the left and the right in South Dakota respond to a proposal to decentralize away from D.C. – and legalize medical marijuana in the state.

An organization promoting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes in South Dakota plans to turn in more than 29,000 signatures this week to bring the issue to a public vote.

Emmett Reistroffer of Sioux Falls, director of communications for the South Dakota Coalition for Compassion, said the organization will turn in the petitions Wednesday to the secretary of state’s office in Pierre.

It’s my opinion that those who support the Constitution should get behind this, because even if you want the plant to be illegal, keeping the status quo is requiring everyone else in the country to pay for enforcement in your state.

Sounds similar to many proposals coming out of D.C. these days, doesn’t it?

Continue Reading 4