U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > West Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 07-22-2009, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Jefferson County
380 posts, read 684,199 times
Reputation: 100

Advertisements

I think this was held up in the 2009 WV session. If so I would hope to see it approved in the future. A push back by the states against rampant federalism may work to preserve these United States. At this point in time I think seven states have passed similar resolutions, seven have passed one state house, about 20 more have introduced it and are pending, The resolution failed in three states. It's worth reading and considering.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 49
(By Delegates J. Miller, Andes, Armstead, Azinger, Blair, Carmichael, Cowles, Lane, Overington, Porter and Walters)

Claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.
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, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and
Whereas, James Madison, "The father of the Constitution," said, "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people"; and
Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government"; 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 provides, "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 Legislature of West Virginia:
That the State of West Virginia 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; and, be it
Further Resolved, That this serve 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; and, be it
Further Resolved, That all compulsory federal legislation which 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; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates forward a certified copy 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 of Delegates and the President of the Senate of each state Legislature of the United States, United States Senators Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV, Representatives Nick J. Rahall, Alan B. Mollohan and Shelley M. Capito.

Closely tied to that resolution is this bill which has passed into law in both Montana & Tennessee. I would like to see a similar law passed here in WV. I think it would not only protect our individual rights from ever growing federal restrictions but also could promote business within The State without handing out tax money. The following is the law as enacted in Montana.


AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for
[sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889.
The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can
be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
- END -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2009, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 4,807,302 times
Reputation: 809
I didn't read this whole post but, if this is the one where WV legislators declared state sovernty (spell?) during the last legislative session - yes, they did.

See Montani Semper Liberi‏
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:40 PM
 
301 posts, read 533,811 times
Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101 View Post
I didn't read this whole post but, if this is the one where WV legislators declared state sovernty (spell?) during the last legislative session - yes, they did.
Yeah, tough word . . I begin with the building block word "reign". I before E, except when you reign over the rules

Re-posting your link :
State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing*|*Tenth Amendment Center

2009 July
"Currently 36 other states have introduced similar measures in their various state bodies, but thus far only 7 states have actually passed both legislative bodies and only 2 now (Alaska and Tennessee) have been signed by the state executive."

2009 July
"Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state 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.”

"Alaska’s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0."

http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/update-on-state-soveriegnty-declarations/
Palin: Alaska Sovereign and Independent State Under 10th Amendment » Right Juris
Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state

Status :
West Virginia House Concurrent Resolution 49
Bill Status - Complete Resolution History
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 06:52 PM
 
4,715 posts, read 8,822,746 times
Reputation: 979
If I remember correctly, we fought a war in 1861 over States Rights...the loser took over 100 years to re-establish itself....and part of that work (granting equality to the negro) has been a general failure.

Could it be, if the country was in a very serious situation, that the states could unite and correct the policies and agendas of a misguided Federal Government?

Could this be done with established state legislatures 'under the gun to perform and save prior standards of constitutional conduct, principles and written guarantees?

Thus they would bypass the electorate...keeping them from the power to be involved and re-claim through revolt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Puerto Penasco, Mexico
967 posts, read 1,996,561 times
Reputation: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kennedy View Post
...and part of that work (granting equality to the negro) has been a general failure..
We have a negro President, that's a general failure? Today, it's not about equal opportunity, it's about equal outcomes. It's about what can you give me, not what can I earn.

It's nice that we're paying lip service to the Constitution. Don't fool yourselves into believing anything will change because of this. Totalitarianism is here to stay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2009, 07:43 PM
 
23 posts, read 43,157 times
Reputation: 16
Couple things I would like to ask or comment on. First, care to clarify this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kennedy View Post
Thus they would bypass the electorate...keeping them from the power to be involved and re-claim through revolt.
I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say, but I'm note sure how to interpret that.

Second, as for this:
Quote:
It's nice that we're paying lip service to the Constitution. Don't fool yourselves into believing anything will change because of this. Totalitarianism is here to stay.
You sound like this is something new. People always, *always* try to game a system to their advantage. Economics, politics, whatever. There is a story about one of the founders of the country (can't remember which one off the top of my head) when he was a congressman. One of his constituents was angry because he voted to spend $ to some charitable end, and strictly speaking congress should not be spending that $ in that manner. He agreed, and promised not to do it in the future. The story ends with him reflecting on the nature of other congressmen willing to spend a lot of other people's $ frivolously. Even at the foundation of our country there were people ignoring or bending the rules, so don't pretend it's just started now.

And how close to the constitution you consider us depends on what philosophical camp you are in too. I'm not going to pretend I remember all the nuances related to it, but it goes something like this:

There are literalists who believe we need to follow the constitution to the letter, there are people who believe we need to interpret it as best as we can to derive the intended meaning the founders had, and there are people who believe the meaning of the document changes as the body of people it governs changes (sounds silly, but it's not without merit).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2009, 11:40 PM
 
4,715 posts, read 8,822,746 times
Reputation: 979
Bypassing the electorate?

simply this: The second principle of Mafia leadership is, 'We keep the power.'

The electorate is kept under control by propaganda, panic events and real calamity.
They are denied unity by coercion and having any potential leadership discredited or destroyed.
They will not react until the danger is in their face, as long as the other guy is the victim, they will not react.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2009, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Jefferson County
380 posts, read 684,199 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by kungfulkoder View Post
And how close to the constitution you consider us depends on what philosophical camp you are in too. I'm not going to pretend I remember all the nuances related to it, but it goes something like this:

There are literalists who believe we need to follow the constitution to the letter, there are people who believe we need to interpret it as best as we can to derive the intended meaning the founders had, and there are people who believe the meaning of the document changes as the body of people it governs changes (sounds silly, but it's not without merit).
Unfortunately this is the lie which is spread to undermine the Constitution. The Constitution was carefully written in plain, simple language. The content & intentions were openly debated during the convention, written about outside the convention and discussed, debated & approved in the States in the years following. These writings and transcripts are available, making the intentions of the framers on both the federalist & anti-federalist sides easy to research & understand. Don't believe that it is too weighty & complex to be understood.
On the other hand, the SCOTUS often does have a weighty & complex task when ruling on less clear & nuanced issues when trying to make rulings of close specificity, regarding topics which are not clearly addressed in The Constitution.

The recent Heller case is a good example of application of an issue which was clearly addressed in plain language within the Constitution and extra-constitutional writings.

The Kelo case should have also been a simple application, but corporate interests won out through the ruling of justices who are determined to bend The Constitution to the benefit of some.

The Constitution and the Federal Government were not designed to address all aspects of life or all possible disputes. They were intended to have a very narrowly defined scope with everything else being left to the states & individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2009, 11:33 AM
 
301 posts, read 533,811 times
Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by clintsullivan View Post
The Constitution and the Federal Government were not designed to address all aspects of life or all possible disputes. They were intended to have a very narrowly defined scope with everything else being left to the states & individuals.
Citizens should support this resolution . . and a Governor who will sign it.

In the other thread [montani semper liberi], I used for simplicity, the 55mph speed limit as an example of the Federal Government enforcing its interests and will on the States, as they threatened to withold purse strings to those States in non-compliance. This type of heavy-handed meddling is mentioned in the resolution.

Here is an example of The Federal Government using State Police to squash freedom of speech.
» U.S. Government Calls In Police to Intimidate Public and Infringe on First Amendment The Liberty Tree Lantern

We are not the problem here.

It's one thing if State Police are initiated by a Governor, but Congress and Senate are Federal Government employees. Who are they to think they can initiate the use of State Police? Are the State Police Federal employees? These lines are not blurred, yet the Federal Government perpetually encroaches upon State sovereignty, rights and responsibilities, for its own interests.

This is not conspiracy theory : The Department of Homeland Security, in its recently declassified document, labeled people who talk about the Constitution or State rights (sovereignty) as potential domestic terrorists. Recent comments from The Department of Defense labels protestors as low-level terrorrists. Wake up! The Federal Government is labeling any American in opposition to its interests, a terrorist. Let those ramifications sink in -- The Federal Government has already declared war on the citizens of this country, they just haven't fired a shot yet. Not only did this label encompass people who are outspoken, but also, all people who have served in the military -- the veterans. So let me get this straight, they labeled the best trained people in this country who have sworn to uphold the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, potential domestic terrorists?

I agree with those who have aptly renamed this : The Department of Homeland Stupidity.

The interests of the Federal Government are entirely relevant to State Sovereignty, and one of many excellent examples is in Presidential Directive 51 (George W. Bush), in which the executive branch grants itself absolute power. A meeting with FEMA and Governors then, becomes important to audit, and very relevant, as they could cede (yield) control of all law enforcement at all levels to the Federal Government, and change the State National Guard (State) to the National Guard of the United States (Federal).

A simple question : Would you want to cede State sovereignty to the Federal Government? This would allow NATO forces to be used against the citizen at the discretion of the Federal Government, so at gunpoint, they could accomplish any interests of the Federal Government (even if it's non-American interests, i.e., The Federal Reserve, WHO, WTO, et. al.). This is only one reason for such a resolution, because those lines of State sovereignty, rights and responsibilities, are not blurred. The Federal Government in its self-granted power, to use NATO forces (foreign armed forces), USAF (including National Guard), and control of State and Local law enforcement against the citizen, would be refused.

Last edited by red.ochre; 07-24-2009 at 12:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > West Virginia

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:01 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top