PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Wyoming governor signs pre-emptive revolt against health care


Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:08 AM
Wyoming Governor Signs Sovereignty Resolution

by Michael Boldin

This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”

Freudenthal, a long-time Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming. He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country.

In a memorandum sent to the Wyoming legislature in late January, Freudenthal made clear his position that the federal government has gone beyond the limits of the constitution:

“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”

Once brought to a vote this year, the legislature showed little opposition to sending a notice to D.C. that the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority. The Senate passed it by a vote of 26-4 and the House by a vote of 56-4.

NOTICE AND DEMAND

These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however.

For example, if you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must.

House Joint Resolution 2 includes language to this effect:

That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. The state of Wyoming will not enforce such mandates. [emphasis added]

Wyoming joins 10 other states that have passed similar resolutions since last year; Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee passed theirs in 2009, and Utah, Alabama, and South Carolina have joined Wyoming in passing resolutions this year.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

These resolutions are part of a growing grassroots movement in state legislatures across the country as a protest to the intrusion of the federal government into state government affairs, and is an essential first step towards efforts to push back, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws and regulations.

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that take the next step – and work to nullify specific federal laws seen as unconstitutional by the state. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. Two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today. The legislatures in both Virginia and Arizona have passed legislation effectively nullifying a national health care plan within their borders. Three states have already signed a “Firearms Freedom Act” into law, and Governor Freudenthal is expected to sign HB95 to make Wyoming the fourth.

Resolutions, guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/10/wyoming-governor-signs-sovereignty-resolution/

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:12 AM
I tie this to healthcare, because as many here know, I've talked about the states revolting should federal healthcare pass. This is the format in which states revolt. If healthcare passes this week, and is signed into Federal law, this type of resolution is already working its way through many states and will get put to the front burner. The fight over this will move to the state level. Wherever that goes is anyone's guess.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:16 AM
I tie this to healthcare, because as many here know, I've talked about the states revolting should federal healthcare pass. This is the format in which states revolt. If healthcare passes this week, and is signed into Federal law, this type of resolution is already working its way through many states and will get put to the front burner. The fight over this will move to the state level. Wherever that goes is anyone's guess.

If the Fed Gov should pass health care, the States' resolutiuons would carry a lot of weight in forcing the SCOTUS to rule Constitutionaly on the matter as opposed to turning the blind eye the Dems want them too.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:17 AM
Also, for what it's worth, Wyoming has also passed something called "The Firearms Freedom Act" which states "A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

Montana, Utah, and Tennessee have also passed this measure.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:21 AM
If the Fed Gov should pass health care, the States' resolutiuons would carry a lot of weight in forcing the SCOTUS to rule Constitutionaly on the matter as opposed to turning the blind eye the Dems want them too.


The fight won't end with the vote this week. Well, unless the Democrats lose, in which case it will turn into a political third rail for them. Which is why I believe they'll be able to muster up the votes to pass it. I think this fight will move to the state level, where state legislature candidates will run on state sovereignty initiatives.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:21 AM
It would only be a matter of time I am sure for someone to sue the IRS over the penalty for not having health insurance. If the Dems continue down this road it will take the SCOTUS to restore the Constitution. Otherwise, if they do not, we might as well wipe our ass with it and say hello to the new Amerika. Literally.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 12:23 AM
Also, for what it's worth, Wyoming has also passed something called "The Firearms Freedom Act" which states "A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

Montana, Utah, and Tennessee have also passed this measure.

How are these Acts different claims than the one the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Lopez (1995)?

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:24 AM
The fight won't end with the vote this week. Well, unless the Democrats lose, in which case it will turn into a political third rail for them. Which is why I believe they'll be able to muster up the votes to pass it. I think this fight will move to the state level, where candidates will run on state sovereignty initiatives.

The State's may very well be the ones to take up the fight by not enforcing the law. But in the end game it will take the SCOTUS to tell Congress that they passed an unconstitutional law. For that fact, this is Obama and Co. trying to play on the ignorance of the people. I mean, the doucheknuckle even tried to compare the Fed mandate to a State mandate for having liability insurance if you are granted the privilege to drive.

It just shows what arrogance this guy has and how stupid he thinks the country is.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:27 AM
Also to add, should health care pass this week or anytime soon under the currently proposed bill, you are going to see one of the biggest political upheavals in decades. The Dems will be utterly routed across the board save the lunatic fringe like Pelosi. The old slogan of "I'm not Bush" will be replaced with "I listen to the voters".

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:32 AM
How are these Acts different claims than the one the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Lopez (1995)?

I don't know that it is. It may just be a state level affirmation of it, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the way legislation should be made. Legislatures should be using case law to to build their case for legislation, not dreaming up schemes through back room deals and think tanks.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 12:41 AM
I don't know that it is. It may just be a state level affirmation of it, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the way legislation should be made. Legislatures should be using case law to to build their case for legislation, not dreaming up schemes through back room deals and think tanks.

I'm excited to see what other groundbreaking legislation will be brought up. Perhaps some tea partier firefighter will run on affirming Brown v. Board (END SEGREGATION NOW!) or maybe someone else will run on affirming "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or another will dedicate their campaign to preserving the state's name of "Texas" or that we do in fact have a freedom of speech, daggummit.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:47 AM
I'm excited to see what other groundbreaking legislation will be brought up. Perhaps some tea partier firefighter will run on affirming Brown v. Board (END SEGREGATION NOW!) or maybe someone else will run on affirming "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or another will dedicate their campaign to preserving the state's name of "Texas" or that we do in fact have a freedom of speech, daggummit.

True progress doesn't ever have friends in the stagnation of the status quo. Enjoy your "healthcare victory" along with the insurance companies who are getting their IRS enforced bailout this week. Yay progressivism!

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:49 AM
True progress doesn't ever have friends in the stagnation of the status quo. Enjoy your "healthcare victory" along with the insurance companies who are getting their IRS enforced bailout this week. Yay progressivism!

And that is exactly all this is, a bailout for insurance companies.


As much as I am against a public option, it is the only legal way for the Fed Gov to enforce health care as Right. And then it has to be done via taxes, not mandates of purchase.


What's that?? I think I hear Barry with his "you have to buy auto insurance" argument off in the distance.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 12:53 AM
True progress doesn't ever have friends in the stagnation of the status quo. Enjoy your "healthcare victory" along with the insurance companies who are getting their IRS enforced bailout this week. Yay progressivism!

States are passing affirmations of the Tenth Amendment and a 1995 Supreme Court ruling. (Oh boy! Freedom at last!)

You call that true progress, but that is literally affirming the status quo.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 12:55 AM
States are passing affirmations of the Tenth Amendment and a 1995 Supreme Court ruling. (Oh boy! Freedom at last!)

You call that true progress, but that is literally affirming the status quo.

Sometimes people need to be reminded. As in the case with health care. The Dems who are pushing this need to be reminded of what the Constitution actually says they can and cannot do.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 12:57 AM
States are passing affirmations of the Tenth Amendment and a 1995 Supreme Court ruling. (Oh boy! Freedom at last!)

You call that true progress, but that is literally affirming the status quo.

As far as I'm concerned, the status quo is the federal government over-reaching its authority in order to deliver the goods to corporate interests. It's nice to see states growing backbones and laying the brickwork to put an end to it. I only wish this was the status quo.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 12:57 AM
Sometimes people need to be reminded. As in the case with health care. The Dems who are pushing this need to be reminded of what the Constitution actually says they can and cannot do.

Well, like you said, the Supreme Court can hear cases, if they chose to, about this. And for those who question the constitutionality of this health care bill, there is no better time than now to pass it.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 01:01 AM
Well, like you said, the Supreme Court can hear cases, if they chose to, about this. And for those who question the constitutionality of this health care bill, there is no better time than now to pass it.

Jenson, it isn't about passing or not passing it. It is about what they are trying to pass and how they are trying to pass it. It is illegal to mandate that people purchase health insurance under the guise of it being a Right. If it is truly a Right, and the Fed Gov wants to force everyone to have insurance then they have to provide the insurance and tax the people for it. The Constitution gives them the power to tax. Not to mandate that you have to go out and buy something.

And if the States don't get involved you run the risk of the SCOTUS turining a blind eye as they have in the past. Though in the past when they have it was when most of Congress and the People were in favor of the bill. This is not the case with health care.

Taco John
03-15-2010, 01:06 AM
Well, like you said, the Supreme Court can hear cases, if they chose to, about this. And for those who question the constitutionality of this health care bill, there is no better time than now to pass it.

There is no good time to pass laws that force people to buy corporate products or face the wrath of the IRS. Isn't it funny how Democrats are so skillful at putting the ugliest faces on the prettiest of concepts.

Forcing people to buy insurance at the point of a gun. It's a sad commentary that America has gotten to this point, but I'm confident that the roots of this nation are strong enough to survive this period of tyrannical blight and come out a stronger nation in the end.

petegz28
03-15-2010, 01:11 AM
There is no good time to pass laws that force people to buy corporate products or face the wrath of the IRS. Isn't it funny how Democrats are so skillful at putting the ugliest faces on the prettiest of concepts.

Forcing people to buy insurance at the point of a gun. It's a sad commentary that America has gotten to this point, but I'm confident that the roots of this nation are strong enough to survive this period of tyrannical blight and come out a stronger nation in the end.

Jenson has yet to experience any dealings with the IRS. He doesn't understand the implications that go along with such.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 02:27 AM
I'm obviously referring to the Court's conservative makeup when I say that there is no better time than now for those who question the constitutionality of the Health Care bill.

Norman Einstein
03-15-2010, 08:18 AM
I'm obviously referring to the Court's conservative makeup when I say that there is no better time than now for those who question the constitutionality of the Health Care bill.

What about all of the other stuff the Obot is doing? How do Czars fit into the constitutional question?

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 08:23 AM
Here's a list of current nullification the state's can fight the Feds on:


Nullification Volcano (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/boldin10.1.html)


* 10th Amendment Resolutions
• 10th Amendment Bills
• Firearms Freedom Act
• Medical Marijuana Laws
• REAL ID
• Health Care
• Bring the Guard Home
• Constitutional Tender
• Cap and Trade
• Federal Tax Funds Act
• Sheriffs First Legislation
• Federal Gun Laws
• Regulation of Intrastate Commerce


Potential Future Efforts:

• Patriot Act
• No Child Left Behind
• State-Initiated Constitutional Amendments



Woo - Hoo! Take the country back!

Calcountry
03-15-2010, 03:29 PM
If the Fed Gov should pass health care, the States' resolutiuons would carry a lot of weight in forcing the SCOTUS to rule Constitutionaly on the matter as opposed to turning the blind eye the Dems want them too.FDR had to be slapped down by theSCOTUS as well.

banyon
03-15-2010, 05:57 PM
FDR had to be slapped down by theSCOTUS as well.

You might want to check, but I think he wound up winning that battle.

alanm
03-15-2010, 07:25 PM
I tie this to healthcare, because as many here know, I've talked about the states revolting should federal healthcare pass. This is the format in which states revolt. If healthcare passes this week, and is signed into Federal law, this type of resolution is already working its way through many states and will get put to the front burner. The fight over this will move to the state level. Wherever that goes is anyone's guess.Unintended consequences of the Obama administration. Who'd a thunk it? :spock:

Saul Good
03-15-2010, 07:37 PM
States are passing affirmations of the Tenth Amendment and a 1995 Supreme Court ruling. (Oh boy! Freedom at last!)

You call that true progress, but that is literally affirming the status quo.

Weren't you on the other end of this type of argument recently regarding racial equality? I seem to recall you and donger going back and forth just a week or so ago.

orange
03-15-2010, 08:50 PM
FDR had to be slapped down by theSCOTUS as well.

You might want to check, but I think he wound up winning that battle.

GOOGLE "The switch in time that saved nine."

BucEyedPea
03-15-2010, 09:14 PM
FDR was still slapped down a number of times. On those times, the economy would start to recover.

banyon
03-15-2010, 09:41 PM
FDR was still slapped down a number of times. On those times, the economy would start to recover.

It's GOT TO FIT THE NARRATIVE.

HonestChieffan
03-15-2010, 10:42 PM
You might want to check, but I think he wound up winning that battle.

What one?

pikesome
03-16-2010, 05:43 AM
GOOGLE "The switch in time that saved nine."

It's GOT TO FIT THE NARRATIVE.

The "switch" came in the case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[1] Roberts joined Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Harlan Fiske Stone in upholding a Washington State minimum wage law. The decision was handed down less than two months after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his court-reform bill. Conventional history has painted Roberts's vote as a strategic, politically-motivated shift to defeat Roosevelt's proposed legislation, but the historical record lends weight to assertions that Roberts's decision happened much earlier.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

Every side likes to make it "FIT THE NARRATIVE."

BucEyedPea
03-16-2010, 07:12 AM
Every side likes to make it "FIT THE NARRATIVE."

Exactly! But that's why they're also accusing others of that.

orange
03-16-2010, 08:36 AM
Every side likes to make it "FIT THE NARRATIVE."

Er, who cares about the motivation? It's the EFFECT we're talking about.

The "switch", together with the retirement of Justice Willis Van Devanter at the end of the 1937 spring term, is often viewed as having contributed to the demise of Roosevelt's bill by undermining the necessity of its passage. The failure of the court-reform bill preserved the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices, as it had been since 1869, and so remains to this day.

You might want to check, but I think he wound up winning that battle.

DID they have to pack the Supreme Court or not?

DID Roosevelt get the rest of the New Deal or not?

Calcountry
03-16-2010, 04:13 PM
Er, who cares about the motivation? It's the EFFECT we're talking about.


The "switch", together with the retirement of Justice Willis Van Devanter at the end of the 1937 spring term, is often viewed as having contributed to the demise of Roosevelt's bill by undermining the necessity of its passage. The failure of the court-reform bill preserved the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices, as it had been since 1869, and so remains to this day.




DID they have to pack the Supreme Court or not?

DID Roosevelt get the rest of the New Deal or not?Schechter v. United States

orange
03-16-2010, 04:27 PM
Schechter v. United States

1935.

Two years BEFORE the Switch.

:doh!:


Thank you for playing - please try again.

Amnorix
03-16-2010, 04:37 PM
FDR had to be slapped down by theSCOTUS as well.

The country slapped him down for threatening to mess with the SCOTUS. The reality is that the SCOTUS soon thereafter caved.

Amnorix
03-16-2010, 04:38 PM
FDR was still slapped down a number of times. On those times, the economy would start to recover.


:rolleyes: