Thursday, April 30, 2009

Oklahoma's Governor vetoes State Sovereignty Resolution

The granddaddy of them all, Oklahoma's HJR1003, passed both houses of the Oklahoma legislature, only to run into a Governor who dismissed it with this veto message:

Without question, the state of Oklahoma and its leaders support the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees to the states and their citizens, and there is no need to spend valuable legislative time on a resolution expressing support for any particular amendment or constitutional right. Furthermore, HJR 1003 alleges, without offering any evidence or explanation, that past and current U.S. leaders may have violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the states and the country. HJR 1003 also implies that the state should reject federal tax dollars paid to Washington, DC, by Oklahoma citizens, an act that would prevent our tax dollars from being used in Oklahoma to address critical needs in transportation, education, health care, law enforcement, veterans programs and many other vital services beneficial to our state. In short, HJR 1003 could be detrimental to Oklahoma and does not serve the state or its citizens in any positive manner.

Needless to say, we disagree. The history of the United States since 1861 has been an almost unbroken Federal attack on the rights of the States and the people, to the point where some Constitutional scholars have been concerned that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have become a nullity. Past and current U.S. leaders have violated the Constitution -- read any book by Judge Andrew Napolitano or Thomas DiLorenzo, and you will get a thick catalogue of violations, from Abraham Lincoln's shutting down the Maryland legislature, to the April 7th Homeland Security advisory virtually declaring dissenters against Federal overreaching to be "right wing extremists" who should be treated as terrorist sympathizers.

The Governor makes a valid point about turning down Federal stimulus money -- but has he (or anyone else) looked into the cost of maintaining Federal programs to the State treasury? Is it possible that, at least for some programs, the States would be better off designing their own solutions to problems and telling the Feds, "No, thank you"? I am not suggesting that there are many instances where this would work, but no one, to my knowledge, is even exploring the possibility!

No, Governor, HJR1003 would have served the citizens of Oklahoma in a very positive manner by telling the Feds that we have been taxed enough for purposes that have nothing to do with perfecting the union, national defense (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually endangering the national defense by promoting terrorism against the U.S. in reaction to our presence there), general welfare, and certainly not the preservation of the blessings of liberty on ourselves or our posterity!

Rep. Charles Key, however, is not taking no for an answer. He has reintroduced HJR1003 as HCR1028, which focuses on removing the Homeland Security "fusion center" there, and would be a nullification of the Federal law authorizing it. HCR1028 is a concurrent resolution that does not require gubernatorial approval.

Game not over. Stay tuned.

Virtual buckeye to AxXiom for Liberty

No comments: