Here are Mr. Jackson's comments:
"Urges Congress to refrain from imposing mandates on states and to allow State of Oregon to freely exercise sovereignty granted to it under Tenth Amendment of Constitution of United States." [Emphasis added] 'Urges'? Should be 'Demands.' After all, we don't merely 'urge' people to obey the law, we demand it (or at least we should). Requested is the word used in the bill. [And requested is itself weak -HT] Why this was changed to the weak and inaccurate urges is strange.
"'...imposing mandates...' Congress has no authority to impose anything that is not within the scope of the powers delegated to it by the US Constitution. Again, this is no place to 'urge,' 'suggest,' 'imply,' 'implore,' or any such language, but to demand that Congress and the President -- and the States for that matter -- obey the supreme law of the land. Such mandates are unconstitutional usurpations of authority and violations of the trust placed in our federal servants by We the People.
"'...allow State of Oregon to freely exercise...'? This should read, 'State of Oregon will freely exercise..'! Sovereigns aren't 'allowed' to exercise their powers. Such a proposal completely misunderstands the nature of sovereignty and is oxymoronic. A sovereign possesses powers by virtue of being sovereign, not because a higher power granted them. A sovereign is the highest power within its
jurisdiction. Exercising its powers is the proper function of a sovereign and anything less is dereliction of duty.
"Which leads us finally to '...granted to it...' How about '...protected...' The 10th Amendment is not a grant of power to anyone, but a statement clarifying the proper jurisdictions of the federal and State governments. It also makes clear that We the People ultimately hold sovereign power in the United States of America, delegating a portion of that power to the various governments for protection of our
unalienable rights. The 10th Amendment is there, as are all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, to prevent the federal government from overstepping its limits and violating the sovereignty of the several States and the rights of their citizens, not to grant powers to the States (which inherently possess those powers delegated to them by the People of the respective States). [Emphasis in the last three paragraphs added.]
"I believe the issue of sovereignty and the delegation of governmental powers by the sovereign People is unquestionably the most fundamental one that all citizens should be familiar with. It goes to the very nature of the rights of the People to delegate powers of government and to determine the proper jurisdictions of those governments. Ultimately the only legitimate function of any government is to protect the rights of the people who formed it, which is why those people must demand, not 'urge,' that their government respect the limits they set. To fail to do this opens the door to tyranny."
I suppose a weak resolution is better than none at all, but I would suggest that the residents of the sovereign State of Oregon demand that their legislators put some backbone into this resolution!"
Virtual buckeye to Teri Hamel.
1 comment:
No, a weak resolution is WORSE than none at all, since it sets a failed precedent. STATE SOVEREIGNTY is the only means to enforce the Constitution, as Madison stated in 1800, otherwise the fed can trump up any power it can claim is "constitutional" with a straight face.
We need referendums in every state, to force the state legislature to examine the truth.
Post a Comment