A commenter to yesterday's post on Ohio's State sovereignty resolution expressed some confusion about what is going on.
There are two proposals for a State sovereignty resolution afoot at the moment. The one I linked on the Internet as part of a petition campaign is essentially the same as Oklahoma's, a simple assertion that the States are sovereign under the Tenth Amendment; and serving a "Notice and Demand" to the Federal Government that its unconstitutional excesses need to come to a stop. The other proposal is one I am taking to a committee this week. At the moment, it happens to have the same text, but I shall be recommending some changes.
Any resolution for State sovereignty is better than none, but I think Oklahoma's is toothless. We can send the District of Coercion as many Notices and Demands as there are Federal Reserve Notes; but the best we can expect from the Feds is a polite thank you note from the clerks of the House and Senate and a low-level special assistant in the White House, before they are thrown in the trash. A resolution like New Hampshire's would be more effective, but as the post below indicates, is politically risky; particularly in Ohio, which has a Democratic majority in the House that is presumably happy with its counterparts in Washington. I doubt that such resolutions will have any effect on Washington until at least 35-40 state legislatures, representing three-quarters of the electorate have submitted them.
So the question that I hope to resolve this week is: how can we write an effective resolution that we can sell to the Ohio House? Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I shall report the outcome of my meeting as soon as it has been presented to a willing sponsor in the Ohio House or Senate.