Navigation

Tag Archives | Washington Sovereignty

Cap and Trade Nullification

By on January 22, 2010 in Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 2

cap-and-tradeJoining in with states all over the country, considering or passing legislation to resist federal overreach, are Washington and Oklahoma. Both states have bills introduced which would effectively nullify any future cap and trade legislation emanating from D.C.

In Washington, HB2708 – “Concerning adopting the Washington state energy freedom act of 2010 and requiring express legislative authorization for a greenhouse gas or motor vehicle fuel economy program.”

HB3219 – State Constitutional Amendment to reject Federal Interference in the energy policy of Oklahoma

Some additional text from Washington HB2708:

Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.

Cap and Trade is often claimed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. At best, this is a highly dubious claim.

The power to regulate interstate commerce was delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. As understood at the time of the founding, the regulation of commerce was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This interstate regulation of “commerce” did not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, malum in se crime, or land use. Nor did it include activities that merely “substantially affected” commerce.

CLICK HERE for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Cap and Trade Nullification Tracking page

Continue Reading

Health Care Nullification: Washington SB6535

By on January 18, 2010 in Health Care, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

Washington-flagSponsored by State Senators Holmquist, Carrell, Roach, Stevens, Swecker, Hewitt, and Schoesler, the Washington State Health Care Freedom Act (SB6535)  states that “A law or rule pertaining to health care shall not directly or indirectly compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”

With this proposed legislation, Washington joins fifteen other states, including South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Florida also considering legislation or state Constitutional Amendments to effectively nullify, or resist any future national health care plan.

The language of SB6535 is some of the strongest of any state in proposing to reject any future national health care plan. It reads:

Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this section is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.(emphasis added)

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.

What’s directly implied in such nullification laws is “interposition” (as referred to by James Madison in the Virginia Resolution of 1798) 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.

New Hampshire recently introduced a bill to make law that not only makes federal restrictions of health care choices illegal in the state, but also expressly prohibits interference in these choices by federal agents and requires state agencies to interpose as a protection.
Click here to learn more.

CLICK HERE to see the Tenth Amendment Center’s Health Care Nullification Tracking Page

Continue Reading

Washington SJM8018: Affirming State Sovereignty

By on January 15, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

Washington-flagIntroduced yesterday in Washington State is Senate Joint Memorial 8018 (SJM8018). If passed, the resolution would make the position of the legislature as follows:

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

(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

While non-binding, introduction of such resolutions in dozens of states around the country have brought the principles of the 10th Amendment to the public discussion. Passage, which can often be easier for a non-binding statement, has also made fertile ground for follow-up legislation, “with teeth.”

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Val Stevens, currently has 10 co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10th amendment resolution tracking page

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s model 10th Amendment Resolution, which you can send to your representatives when urging them to introduce one in your state.

Continue Reading

Washington State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

By on January 13, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Nullification 12

map-of-washington-stateWashington State Representative Matthew Shea along with 21 co-sponsors, have introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 2709 (HB2709).

If passed, the bill would provide that:

a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

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 taking the position 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.

HB2709 specifically addresses this principle:

Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.

Washington’s bill brings the number to 15 states that have seen a Firearms Freedom Act introduced in the past year – most recently, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Virginia and Missouri.

Already, Tennessee and Montana have passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act into law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MTSSA) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF) have jointly filed a federal lawsuit to validate the principles of the law.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see nearly two dozen states consider similar legislation in the coming legislative session.

CLICK HERE to track all current Firearms Freedom Act legislation

Continue Reading

Making National Health Care Null and Void in Washington State

By on January 12, 2010 in Health Care, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement 13

Washington-flagSponsored by State Reps Hinkle, Shea, Warnick and Johnson, the Washington State Health Care Freedom Act (HB2669) states that “A law or rule pertaining to health care shall not directly or indirectly compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”

With this proposed legislation, Washington joins South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Florida and a number of other states also considering legislation or state Constitutional Amendments to effectively nullify, or resist any future national health care plan.

The language of HB2669 is some of the strongest of any state in proposing to reject any future national health care plan. It reads:

Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this section is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.(emphasis added)

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.

What’s directly implied in such nullification laws is “interposition” (as referred to by James Madison in the Virginia Resolution of 1798) 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.

New Hampshire recently introduced a bill to make law that not only makes federal restrictions of health care choices illegal in the state, but also expressly prohibits interference in these choices by federal agents and requires state agencies to interpose as a protection.
Click here to learn more.

UPDATE:  Failed vote 58-36 on suspending vote to bring legislation to a 2nd reading.

CLICK HERE to see the Tenth Amendment Center’s Health Care Nullification Tracking Page

Continue Reading