Arizona Joins WA, NH, MO in Claiming Sovereignty

[Kotin]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81631


REFERENCE TITLE: Sovereignty; Tenth Amendment. | HCR 2024

Introduced by

Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

Whereas, the Tenth 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 Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; 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 administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona 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 Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

 

[FrankRep]

This is getting exciting!

 

[kathy88]

4 and counting. I wish the PA house had a set.

 

[american.swan]

These things won't matter until the public is behind the state and not on the federal side. Secondly, the state would need some form of agency to enforce the federal government agents either out of the said state or hire them to NOT do their FEDERAL job.

 

[american.swan]

4 and counting. I wish the PA house had a set.

Had a set. None of the four states so far have a set. None of them are doing anything but writing harmless ignorable documents like the constitution. If any of said states actually had a set, they would pass a law saying any agent enforcing unconstitutional laws in the said state would be arrested by state police agents and hanged for treason after a trial by jury by said state and then would set up a telephone hot line for Arizona citizens to report said illegal activity.

 

[kathy88]

Had a set. None of the four states so far have a set. None of them are doing anything but writing harmless ignorable documents like the constitution. If any of said states actually had a set, they would pass a law saying any agent enforcing unconstitutional laws in the said state would be arrested by state police agents and hanged for treason after a trial by jury by said state and then would set up a telephone hot line for Arizona citizens to report said illegal activity.

Good point. It still gets me hoepful, though.

 

[speciallyblend]

These things won't matter until the public is behind the state and not on the federal side. Secondly, the state would need some form of agency to enforce the federal government agents either out of the said state or hire them to NOT do their FEDERAL job.

a local sheriff has the ability to expel any federal official from his county

 

[acptulsa]

Hey! Get Oklahoma on this list! I thought we were first, in fact...

 

[kathy88]

a local sheriff has the ability to expel any federal official from his county

so true

 

[Kalifornia]

this is all empty rhetoric until the states reclaim their guards from federal control.

 

[Stary Hickory]

This could be the catalyst to getting back to a free society. All it takes is the right president in office in 2012 and the states could regain their lost rights.

Imagine if Ron Paul was in office, he would be ENCOURAGING this type of behavior. If we can get one president to abolish the FED and return power to the states we will defacto get our republic back.

And the era of mob rule will be a closed chapter in Americas' history.

 

[Sandra]

What's the chance of Louisiana doing this with Jindal as governor?

 

[fedup100]

a local sheriff has the ability to expel any federal official from his county

This is only true if he has been elected by the people. Any Sheriff that has been appointed has no power over the feds, that is why they are trying to change elections for Sheriffs.

 

[torchbearer]

What's the chance of Louisiana doing this with Jindal as governor?

Depends on how you market it and get it to the press.
If its is simply the state re-affirming the constitutional powers it already has... then its not new legislation with a new power. It is re-affirming their oaths of office.
For him to deny such a bill would prove he is unfit for office.
I think we should push this in louisiana.

Is this the actual bill in the OP?
I believe we have a libertarian friend state rep in baton rouge.
Vinson would know.

 

[torchbearer]

This is only true if he has been elected by the people. Any Sheriff that has been appointed has no power over the feds, that is why they are trying to change elections for Sheriffs.

our sheriff is elected, and i'm glad i know this... billy's family, and my family... know each other.
if the fed get stupid... i'll let billy know he has options and people to back him.

 

[hillertexas]

This is only true if he has been elected by the people. Any Sheriff that has been appointed has no power over the feds, that is why they are trying to change elections for Sheriffs.

http://www.sheriffs.org/userfiles/file/Preserving_the_Office_of_Sheriff_Through_Election.pdf
I don't know how old this is

There are no Sheriffs only in Alaska and Connecticut. In Rhode Island, the governor
appoints the Sheriff. In two Colorado counties and in Dade County, Florida, Sheriffs are appointed
by the county executive. In New York, the Sheriff of New York City is appointed by the Mayor of
New York City; and in New York State's Westchester and Nassau Counties, these County Sheriffs are
appointed by the Governor.

 

[hillertexas]

our sheriff is elected, and i'm glad i know this... billy's family, and my family... know each other.
if the fed get stupid... i'll let billy know he has options and people to back him.

Please do...the sheriff has so much power.
http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/

The County Sheriff:The Ultimate Check & Balance
When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.

The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.

So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!

Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would
still have been enforced.

Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.

Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they
decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)

Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.

It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[wizardwatson]

Now all we need is six billion people to declare their sovereignty from any institution above them.

 

[torchbearer]

Now all we need is six billion people to declare their sovereignty from any institution above them.

It would be a lot easier to get a couple state governments to really declare it...
then we can have competing governments.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

that's great! It's nowhere in the AZ media, sadly.