N.H. Representative explains State Sovereignty movement

In this video from Fox and Friends, New Hampshire State Rep. Dan Itse, who introduced the now-famous HCR6 with the secession trigger, explains why the States are developing these resolutions. It's a good introduction for people who are new to the subject. Note that, while I write that HCR6 has a secession trigger, the movement is not about secession, but about returning the Federal government to its limits under the Constitution.

State Sovereignty Update - 2/27

A commenter to MRStep points to a resolution (HR61) introduced yesterday in the Virginia House of Delegates by Christopher K. Peace (R), which is shorter and milder than Oklahoma's.

The Tenth Amendment Center reports that the South Carolina House passed its State Sovereignty resolution yesterday, which contains the same secession trigger as New Hampshire’s. The measure now faces a vote in the State Senate.

The same source has also reported that a second resolution (HCR 172) has been introduced in the Kentucky House of Representatives by Rep. David Floyd (R). It is mostly similar to HCR 168 introduced by Rep. Stacy on Feb. 25, but adds an interesting line about Federal mandates violating the Bill of Rights in the Kentucky Constitution.

I have learned from the Mental Militia Forums (link from a link…) that the Montana resolution, which provides for the nullification of Federal gun statutes, passed its House Feb. 11 by a 60-40 vote.

MRStep has learned that the Utah Legislature adopted a sovereignty resolution similar to Oklahoma’s in 1995.

Idaho protests Federal gun legislation

Not a State sovereignty resolution, but worth noting. The State Affairs Committee of the Idaho House of Representatives has placed on the floor HJM3, a memorial to Congress in opposition to the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Sale Act of 2009 (HR45), which they rightly view as a gross violation of the Second Amendment.

State Sovereignty Update - 2/26

MRStep, another blog that is tracking State Sovereignty, has added Colorado, Louisiana, and Massachusetts to the list of States adding declarations of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. I have included Colorado because of the 1994 resolution, but not the other two because they are provisions within their State Constitutions. The 15-year-old California and Colorado resolutions are similar in wording to Oklahoma's. In my view, the Resolutions have value only to the extent that they address the current problems in State-Federal relations. MRStep also includes in their count eight States (including Ohio) in their "planning" category and Florida on their "watch list." I prefer not to count the chickens until they hatch have been given a proper introduction.

I mention this to help explain why The Ohio Republic recognizes only 19 States with Tenth Amendment declarations of sovereignty, while MRStep claims 30.

I do appreciate the MRStep research, which has been most helpful to me (but is not my only source), but want to note our differences in methodology.

Might does not make right

Scott McPherson in lewrockwell.com has some issues with the Nashua Telegraph's opposition to New Hampshire's State Sovereignty Resolution (HCR6):

"One fact that seems particularly inconvenient to the editors of New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph is that the government of the United States is a limited government. Their specific complaint is against 'HCR6,' a resolution introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives re-affirming the principles laid out in the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, namely, that the federal government exists to exercise delegated powers only, and that all other powers are retained by the states and the people...

"The people, in their sovereign capacity, established the governments of the states, and in turn, the people of the several states ratified the Constitution, creating the federal government. The states are equal agents in this compact, with relation to each other and the entity they created. HCR6 is an attempt to remind folks of this historic fact.

"'Resolutions such as this,' write the Telegraph's editors, 'exploit the democracy of the Legislature to pursue an ideological agenda with no practical impact on public policy.' Resolutions stating broad principles or making grand declarations are far from unheard of, and are always used to 'pursue an ideological agenda.' That's the whole point. But whether it has any chance of making a 'practical impact on public policy' cannot be known unless and until the resolution is properly discussed and debated. What the Telegraph really means is that they just don't like HCR6, so ipso facto it is a waste of time. What arrogance.

"Worse, the editors betray an incredible ignorance, not just of history, but of the rules of basic decency. They write, 'The notion that the Republic is a creation of the states and can be dissolved by the states may have been viable – until 1865...the Civil War settled the debate at the cost of more than 600,000 American lives.' What the Telegraph is ultimately saying is that because the North won the war, the history of our government was automatically re-written and the deaths of 600,000 people – not to mention the jailing of state legislators, congressmen and newspaper editors(!) – are therefore justified. Like the main character in Orwell's 1984, just burn that
inconvenient little scrap of paper and a new truth is unveiled. The problem is, the little scrap of paper they wish us to burn is the Constitution.

"Joseph Stalin oversaw the murder of millions in the name of protecting the Soviet Union. If body count is a measure of righteousness, he was an ideal leader. To quote Will Smith from the recent film Hancock, 'Are you boys sure you want to ride that train?'

"The Telegraph claims that 'The Supreme Court of the United States gets to decide if the federal government has exceeded the authority granted by the Constitution, not the state of New Hampshire or any other state.' As the Southern statesman and Senator – and Vice-President – John C. Calhoun consistently argued in the first half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court is an agent of the federal government; if the federal government gets to determine its own limits, then any idea of a limited government must logically be abandoned. No doubt this would suit the editors of the Nashua Telegraph right down to the ground. Or would it? New Hampshire governor
John Lynch is the only governor in the Union who has said that he will not implement federal "Real ID" provisions under any circumstances. Maybe the editors would re-consider their position if federal troops marched up the Merrimack River Valley to tell him otherwise.

"Endless accolades to "Honest Abe" cannot change the nature of our institutions. The Constitution, ratified by the people of the states, created the federal government. The people of the several states, operating in their sovereign capacity, are the final judges of the extent of federal power. The blood of 600,000 dead Americans only proves the lengths some political leaders will go to in their lust for power. Like it or not, HCR6 re-affirms the principles our entire system of government is founded on. "

I've said similar things before, but perhaps not as well.

State Sovereignty Update 2/25

The Liberty Tribune (near Kansas City, Missouri) notes in its Capitol Comments blog that the Real ID and Personal Privacy Committee of the Missouri House of Representatives has reported out their State Sovereignty Resolution HR212 with a recommendation of "Do pass".

The resolution, while generally based on Oklahoma's, also includes a call for the Congress to reject a Federal "Freedom of Choice Act" prohibiting restrictions on abortion.

Two additional States have introduced resolutions, both modeled on Oklahoma's:
Kansas: SCR1609, by Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R)
Kentucky: HCR168, by John Will Stacy (D).

A case expected to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the sovereignty of Hawai’i. Independence activists there have argued that Hawai'i's annexation to the United States in 1898 was illegal, and that the kingdom should be restored. Two recent Governors of Hawaii, one from each party, appear to support the case.

The movement has begun to attract the notice of the mainstream media, as last Friday's article in the Washington Times indicates.

Nursery Rhyme, updated

Humpty Dumpty

In twenty hundred and zero-eight
When America suffered from Real Estate
The Banksters lay siege to Wall Street Town
and the Congress men lay prostate to the ground
There one-minded Greenspan stood on the mall
An economist of deadliest philosophy of all
From the federal tower his canon he proclaimed
The greedy economy was its name
The greedy economy was an air-ball
The greedy economy had a great fall
All the president's advisors and all of his men
Couldn't put the economy back together again.

Adapted from the original (Wikipedia):

In Sixteen Hundred and Forty-Eight
When England suffered the pains of state
The Roundheads lay siege to Colchester town
Where the king's men still fought for the crown
There One-Eyed Thompson stood on the wall
A gunner of deadliest aim of all
From St. Mary's Tower his cannon he fired
Humpty-Dumpty was its name
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Virtual buckeye to Gary Flomenhoft at Vermont Commons.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update 2/23

Three additional States have filed sovereignty resolutions:
Indiana SCR0037, modeled on Oklahoma, by Sen. Greg Walker (R).
Iowa SCR1, modeled on Oklahoma, by Sen. Paul McKinley (R).
South Carolina S424, uniquely their own, by Lee Bright (R).

A box score will show the current status of the resolutions above the list of States in which they have been introduced.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update 2/21

Washington: HJM4009 was assigned to the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. The committee chairman informed the sponsor, Rep. Matt Shea, that the bill will not receive a hearing, effectively killing the bill.

Arkansas: Rep. Debra Hobbs, R-Rogers, filed HCR1011 in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The resolution is modeled on Oklahoma’s, but includes this additional paragraph:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the position of the State of Arkansas that all compulsory federal legislation that 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.”

Minnesota: HF997, also modeled on Oklahoma, was introduced in the House State and Local Government Operations, Reform, Technology, and Elections Committee.

According to BC Politics, Maine has proposed a resolution, but its legislative process will delay it by several months. A petition drive is being started in Florida.

In Massachusetts, citizens can request that a bill be entered on their behalf. Ron Bokleman is trying to get a version of the New Hampshire bill submitted, but has encountered resistance from the House Council, which stated that “They believe that the Resolution is asking for Federal relief and indicated that we have no control over other states or states’ rights. They felt that this was a matter for a Congressional office to handle.” Mr. Bokleman and the Massachusetts House are still corresponding, so the effort is not dead.

By our count, the number of States with resolutions in house is 13.

Virtual buckeye to BC Politics, which has greatly added to our knowledge of the progress of State sovereignty resolutions (for that matter, take the whole box!)

Managing the Revolution

Reaction from some of my commenters and a number of bloggers to the State sovereignty resolutions suggests to me that many observers still have a Lincolnesque fixation on the idea that secession, or even asserting State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment is somehow tantamount to civil war.

In my post February 1 ("The center cannot hold"), I explained why I believe that the current economic situation will foreshadow the collapse of the United States of America. This is, of course, a radical thought that goes against everything we were raised to believe. It is also a disturbing thought, and for that reason alone, it is understandable that many Americans are living in denial.

One of the reasons The Ohio Republic favors secessionism is to help us all prepare for the collapse we see coming. In a way, "secession" is a misnomer. If the United States collapses, no State, in declaring its independence is really "seceding", in the sense of making a conscious action to break away. Instead, independence becomes a rational response to maintaining freedom under law for our own people when the larger nation ceases to exist. In other words, preparing for independence is a sensible way to manage a revolution. The alternative is chaos (think Somalia, but don't think it couldn't happen here).

While I question the long-term effectiveness of the State sovereignty resolutions, I strongly support them as one last effort to preserve the Union, by returning it to the Constitutional principles that kept us free for over 200 years. What we are doing today is not siding with Jeff Davis against The Union -- that was a different time with different issues. What we are doing has more in common with the first secession -- that of thirteen colonies against an Empire that rejected the traditional rights of Englishmen where its colonies were concerned, and did so with a haughty arrogance that tested the courage of every patriot. A challenge very similar to the one we face today.

If the State sovereignty resolutions succeed in their object, we will again feel truly blessed to be part of the United States of America; but if they fail, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our descendants to preserve our peace and our liberty the best way we can.

In the way of denial lies death, destruction, and despair. In the way that we are advocating lies freedom, and even more importantly, hope. For myself, I would rather have liberty than death.