The letter from Tennessee

The Tenth Amendment Center has published the letter from State Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee calling for a "joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government."

This is the letter that The Tennesseean and Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish think is a waste of time.

This is the letter that may provide the last best hope of holding the Union together on its original principles.

Nashville newspaper considers state sovereignty resolutions "a waste of time"

The Tenneseean, a newspaper published in Nashville, doesn't think much of state sovereignty resolutions. Yesterday, it published both an editorial and a guest editorial critical of them.

In the editorial, entitled "'State sovereignty' movement distorts Constitution," The Tennesseean argues that the state sovereignty movement is only a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the current administration in Washington. The paper is embarrassed that Tennessee has become a "leader" in this movement, because, pursuant their HJR 108 (which was enacted), the sponsors have invited legislators in other states to "create a 'working group' to 'enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers.'''

The editors charge that these accusations have descended to the level of partisan attacks on President Obama. Instead, they see state sovereignty proponents as failing to acknowledge that "economic steps taken may have, in fact prevented a depression or acknowledging that these controls are not permanent." First of all, there is plenty of evidence, such as this report from the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Analysis, that the economic steps taken are likely to worsen a depression. Secondly, may we remind the editors that the federal income tax and the USA PATRIOT Act were sold to us as "temporary" provisions? Power taken by the federal government is not easily given up. Rather, the Federal Government finds justifications for making "temporary" measures permanent.

Of course, they say it is "unsettling" when the resolutions attempt "to paint the federal government as antagonistic to the average American when, in truth, it was the American electorate that put those federal officials in charge. If Tennessee voters are unhappy with Washington's attempts to come up with, for example, health-care reform, they can talk to, or vote out, the senators and representatives whom they elected to make these decisions. The key is to have a constructive, common-sense discussion, in which state and federal officials come together to hammer out what is best for their constituencies."

Apparently, it doesn't matter that President Obama has behaved in the opposite manner from what he promised in his campaign, particularly with respect to banking, defense, and foreign policy. And yes, we still need to talk to our Congressmen and U.S. Senators. But too often, Washington becomes a brick wall when we talk to it.

State sovereignty resolutions, while of limited value, do open up a "constructive, common-sense discussion." When Administrations of both parties, over a period of twenty years, fail to listen to the needs of the American people, we need to consider an alternative approach. State sovereignty is one such alternative. And if that fails, secession is yet another.

The guest editorial, "Movement a waste of time," is by Chip Forrester, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party (consider the source):

How in the world can she [State Rep. Susan Lynn] justify such a lame-brained piece of legislation when the state's unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent and some hard-hit counties' jobless rates hover near 20 percent? Working Tennesseans fear they may be the next ones in the unemployment line. Accordingly, many of us are cutting back on our spending, which is having a drastically adverse impact on the state's revenue.

One would hope that Rep. Lynn and like-minded lawmakers would have matured beyond this divisive, meaningless grandstanding. But it's obvious that's not the case, as too many far-right politicians and pundits are spewing alienating rhetoric daily.

Maybe because federal taxation, mandates, and NAFTA have choked our corporations and entrepreneurs so much that they can't create jobs? And who is "spewing alienating rhetoric?" We have shown that state sovereignty has benefits and potential benefits for the Left, for example, in California. The 14 Democrats in the Michigan Senate didn't have a problem with it. The French Left and many non-Marxist socialists don't have a problem with it, either.

Mr. Forrester then asserts that "most scholars and legal experts have debunked the 10th Amendment/state sovereignty movement as nothing more than a fringe group of right-wing zealots who want to disband the Internal Revenue Service and severely curtail the powers of the federal government." Such as? Of course, his assertion cannot be disproven – after all, he would not consider Walter Williams or Thomas DiLorenzo to be scholars, nor Andrew Napolitano or Robert Bork to be legal experts.

I'm all in favor of putting aside partisan politics in times of crisis – but state sovereignty is non-partisan. So, Mr. Forrester, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Tennessee Representative calls for "working group" of the states

From the Tenth Amendment Center:

Susan Lynn, the author of Tennessee's state sovereignty resolution, has written a call to her fellow state legislators across the nation to form a "working group" to "call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government," and to "seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates."

The Tennessee legislature adopted this call as HJR 108. Here is the text of the call in full:

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
- Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
- Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
- Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
- Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure
for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.

At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the
national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.

The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.

Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.

We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

In light of the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, it is very late in the day to be considering such a proposal, especially since many state legislatures are out of session for the year; but any path that will enable the United States to survive as a Constitutional republic is worth pursuing; and we should contact our state representatives and senators to show our support.

Is everything commerce?

The Tenth Amendment Center doesn't think so. Their newsletter, published over the weekend, produces strong legal arguments that the framers of the Constitution meant commerce to have a very narrow meaning -- essentially, trade. However, the Supreme Court and some "living Constitution" legal scholars have expanded the concept to the point that (they argue) the Feds can control anything by calling it commerce.

A test will be coming, however. Tennessee gun shop owners received this letter from Carson W. Carroll, deputy director for enforcement activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. asserting that Federal law supersedes Tennessee's HB 1796, 106th Legislature; which states that exempts from Federal law personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that is both manufactured and sold within Tennessee (making it intrastate commerce). Mr. Carroll, naturally, takes exception to that.

Mr. Carroll needs to be reminded that Federal firearms law is itself subject to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution. I hope a gutsy Tennessee county sheriff will enforce the State law against any Federal agents that try regulations contrary to the Tennessee act.

Virtual buckeye to Gabe McGranahan.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 6/13

Tennessee became the fourth state to enact a State Sovereignty resolution. The State Senate passed HJR 108 June 13 by a vote of 31-0. The House passed in May 26 by a vote of 85-2.

Neighboring Kentucky is gearing up for next year. A third State sovereignty resolution, like both of the others modeled on Oklahoma (BR 54), was prefiled for the 2010 session in the House June 2 by Rep. Stan Lee (R).

The Arizona House passed HCR 2024 June 10, and sent it on to the State Senate.

Many States, unlike Ohio, have limits on the length of their legislative sessions, so I would expect activity to slow down considerably, at least until September.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 5/6

Louisiana's Sen. A. G. Crowe introduced SC 2 Apr. 27. It was favorably reported out of committee today and is awaiting a floor vote.

The Tennessee Senate approved SJR 311 May 4 by a vote of 31-0. It had been introduced Apr. 16.

Both resolutions are similar to Oklahoma's.

Also see post below about Oklahoma.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update 2/20

Tennessee: On Wednesday, State Rep. Susan Lynn (R-Mt. Juliet) introduced HJR 108, modeled on Oklahoma's.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Rep. Samuel Rohrer (R-Berks County) has announced plans to introduce a similar resolution to the Pennsylvania House.

New Hampshire: Despite that "inexpedient to legislate" tag, New Hampshire's HCR0006 is not dead yet. Several blogs (including the New Hampshire Campaign4Liberty) have announced a rally at the State House in Concord March 4, 8-9 am in support of the resolution.

One Ohio legislative staffer has indicated that there is movement here in Columbus to introduce an Oklahoma-style resolution here. The staffer indicated that the New Hampshire resolution was read, but was "too flowery." (More like it, the resolution was too scary -- it contains a secession trigger).