Ohio for Ohioans Amendment: Good idea, but needs work

Yesterday, I introduced the proposed "Ohio for Ohioans" Amendment to the Ohio Constitution to provide a means to effectively enforce nullification of federal statutes in violation of the U.S. Constitution and state statutes in violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

This proposal presents several constitutional and legal problems.  Foremost among them is its rather gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The proposed amendment allows the Governor and Attorney General to "collectively" form a Constitutional Review Committee to "compel" the Supreme Court to rule on legislation deemed unconstitutional within 30 days (of what?). It also allows the Governor and Attorney General to "compel" the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against public officials who violate their oaths of office. These provisions suggest that their author is not well educated in constitutional law; because one of its most fundamental principles is that the Executive (Governor and statewide elected officials), the General Assembly, and the courts cannot "compel" each other to do anything. The General Assembly initiates impeachment proceedings on its own volition. The Ohio Supreme Court rules on cases that originate in Ohio's trial courts.


Another example of sloppy legal language lies in the statement that

All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens.

No. The existing legal procedure is established to maintain an orderly process. This paragraph should omit "in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions."  To apply this clause as stated would make mincemeat of the Ohio judicial system. The amendment should enable all Ohio citizens to challenge constitutionality by filing suit in the county Court of Common Pleas or in a special state trial court established for this purpose. Even so, who will be the trial lawyer to defend the federal government? I cannot imagine any federal attorney deigning to follow a state procedure in what the feds are sure to consider a gross violation of the Supremacy Clause.


I would favor a well-written amendment to assert Ohio's sovereignty, and this one comes closer; but it needs the hand of an attorney who is skilled in constitutional law.

State sovereignty amendment introduced

Steve Kraus is a candidate for Congress in Ohio's 9th District (a district that is, tentatively, a string bean following the Lake Erie shore between Toledo and the eastern edge of Lorain County (between Lorain and Cleveland). In his "Hope for Ohio" website, he endorses the "Ohioans for Ohio" amendment to the Ohio Constitution, the text of which is at the end of this post.

The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is intended to assert Ohio's state sovereignty and right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws; and to hold Ohio's elected officials accountable for enforcing Ohio's sovereignty. It is sure to be controversial, because for many Ohioans (and probably, the U.S. Supreme Court), it will appear to be a challenge to the Supremacy Clause in the U. S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, which reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The legal basis for the Ohioans for Ohio amendment lies in the phrase "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof." A reasonably literal interpretation of that phrase strongly suggests that any laws that are patently unconstitutional (not being made "in Pursuance thereof") are null, void, and no law. This then brings up the central issue of nullification. Do the states have the right, as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison* asserted in 1797, to provide a check on the Supreme Court by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws within state boundaries? The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is careful to state that it does not apply to "any law, rule regulation, or mandate... not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America."

This proposal is much more concise than the amendment proposed in 2009 by the People's Constitutional Coalition, and actually comes close to the improvements I suggested to that amendment; but it still needs work. Tomorrow, I shall explain why.

Here is the text:

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Ohio,

(A) Declaration of State Sovereignty
The State of Ohio hereby claims its sovereignty, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and shall exercise self-determination and self-rule over its government, commerce, education, environment, and energy resources within its domain and within the interests of Ohio citizens and according to law, unconstrained of all foreign authorities, and not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America. Any law, rule, regulation, or mandate which is not compliant to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America shall be deemed unconstitutional, null and void and without legal force or effect within Ohio.

(B) Enforcement of Constitutions
The Governor or Attorney General are hereby vested with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio to submit a decision within thirty (30) days regarding the constitutionality of any Ohio law, rule, regulation, or mandate or any federal law, rule, regulation, or mandate, whenever it appears that said law rule, regulation, or mandate may not conform or be in compliance to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America, respectively. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively have the authority to form a Constitutional Review Committee and to vest this committee with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio for said decisions. All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens. The Supreme Court of Ohio shall provide a process for such challenges which demonstrate viable Constitutional merit.

(C) Violation of Oath or Oaths
It shall be unlawful for any elected public officeholder to violate their oath or oaths in accordance with Section 7 of Article XV of the Ohio constitution. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively or individually, are hereby vested with the power to compel the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against such alleged offenders, in accordance with Section 23 of Article II of the Ohio constitution.

* Keep in mind that James Madison is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution" and one of its most fervent supporters in the ratification debates. He surely would have considered the intent of the Framers when writing it.

State Sovereignty News from Arizona and Ohio

Two items of interest:

The Washington Times reports that the Arizona House is launching an investigation to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms violated state law by running Operation Fast and Furious. As you may recall that operation consisted of smuggling firearms out of the United States for the purpose of tracing drug dealers. However, the firearms were lost. Some of them were found in the investigation into the killing of border guard Brian Terry at a crossing in Arizona. This is a courageous example of a state exercising its sovereign right to prevent the federal government from harming its people. The investigative committee is scheduled to produce a report by March 30.

Here in Ohio, two State Senators, Larry Obhof (R-Medina) and Keith Faber (R-Celina) have introduced a State Sovereignty Resolution (SCR 24), similar to HCR 11 and SCR 13 in the previous session. These were introduced in early 2010 as part of a widespread movement to let Washington know that the states are sovereign, and to demand that the Constitutional limitations on federal power be observed. HCR 11 died in committee, largely because Democratic Speaker Armond Budish did not want to allow any resolution to challenge the federal government. Its Senate companion, SCR 13, passed the Senate, but also died in House Committee. As longtime readers of this blog know, I strongly supported such resolutions two years ago. I agree with the spirit of the resolution, and have no objections to it passing to add Ohio to the states standing up for itself; but I suggest that the legislature's time would be better spent passing an Honest Money bill and resisting specific federal encroachments on our state's rights.

The 2011 Legislative Program

Last year, we set five goals for the 128^th General Assembly:

1.  Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax (HB 400).
2.  Redirect federal tax funds to the Ohio Department of Taxation (on the drawing board, details).
3. Enact an Honest Money initiative (on the drawing board).
4. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program (HJR 3, SJR 7, HB 489, SB 244).
5. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio (HB 315).

The partisan division of the General Assembly between a Democratic House and a Republican Senate resulted in the smallest legislative output in many years. In addition, legislative research on the second goal has failed so far to produce a practical solution to the problem.

We are no longer advocating the state sovereignty resolutions. They were valuable two years ago as educational tools to help the legislators and the people understand the concept of state sovereignty; but they were symbolic in character. Largely spurred by the Tea Parties and the federal health care initiative, we have moved on to asserting that sovereignty through nullification bills.

Here are the goals we recommend for the 129^th General Assembly:

     

1. Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax.
2. Enact an Honest Money act to facilitate the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes, thus encouraging their use in everyday transactions.
3. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program, which would accomplish the objective of the Ohio Project’s petition campaign.
4. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio.
5. Rebuild the organized state militia, to protect Ohioans from illegal immigration, terrorism, and egregious military actions against the people of Ohio by the federal government.

Items 1 and 3 will strengthen our state’s economy. The other items are necessary to protect the rights of our people, and are critical elements to making good a declaration of independence, if all else fails.

Additional information on pending liberty-related legislation is available in the Ohio Liberty Council site.

It's time to end the party -- we have work to do

Most of my friends in the Tea Party and liberty movements were ebullient as the Republicans regained control of the U.S. and Ohio Houses, the Ohio U.S. Senate seat, and Governorship. I remained quiet yesterday out of compassion, thinking that they should be allowed one day to bask in their assumed victory.

Assumed being the key word. All evidence to date points to the GOP as trying to swallow up the liberty movement so the party can destroy it. I hope and pray that I am wrong. If liberty-loving Ohioans are very watchful of their state and federal representatives, and put intense pressure upon them to reduce the size and cost of government, well and good. But if we don't, we will find ourselves two years from now being as unhappy with the Republicans as we were two years ago, and as we just were this year with the Democrats.

On a related note, I was extremely disappointed with the number of votes captured by Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates. While I did not expect any to win, I thought they would poll closer to 10%, setting them up for some victories in 2012. That clearly did not happen. They need some media (with many times more readership than The Ohio Republic) that will publicize their campaigns, and explain to the public why their views should prevail. They clearly won't get it from the existing newspapers and broadcasters -- and until such media do appear, nothing will improve for them. Sorry, it's just hard reality.

Meanwhile, we have to spring a few traps, like this one, described by Buttonwood at The Economist:

The Fed's Wednesday announcement on QE [quantitative easing -- the purchase of U.S. government debt, which is equivalent to printing money] is probably more market significant. There seems little doubt that some QE will be announced but there is room for uncertainty about how much. You can take your pick from today's data—weak numbers on personal incomes and a strong purchasing managers' index—and argue for a little QE or a lot.

I have argued before that QE might not work, given that bond yields are already low and banks are flush with cash. So it seems likely that the markets will be disappointed, however big the QE programme.

But there is also a nice irony at work. The tea party is opposed to massive government spending and bailouts. But QE is a way for the central bank to finance that government spending and to pump money into the banking sector. So on the day that the tea partiers may be celebrating, an unelected central bank will be carrying out a programme, probably totalling several hundred billion dollars, that will cut against everything the partiers stand for.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 2/12

The Kansas Senate has passed its state sovereignty resolution SCR 1609. As reported by the Kansas City Star:

Supporters note that while the resolution can’t force Washington to do anything, it sends a message for Kansans upset with overreaching mandates like health care reform legislation, gun control, abortion rights and immigration policy.

“It ... speaks loudly for the freedom of the citizens of the state of Kansas,” said Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, a Shawnee Republican and the main sponsor of the resolution.

Seven of the 40 members of the Senate voted against the resolution. One of them, Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City, Kan. Democrat, called it “sort of sad” and noted that the Senate had pledged allegiance to the U.S. flag just minutes before the vote.

“I’ve been unhappy with the federal government,” he said. “But not to the point of secession or sedition.”

Obviously, we have some educating to do. What is really sad is that Sen. Haley views a state sovereignty resolution as either secession or sedition. The Kansas state sovereignty resolution is an affirmation of the Tenth Amendment, which seeks to restore the balance between the states and the federal government that has been chipped away over the years.

Perhaps the Senator needs to be reminded of what seditious conspiracy really is:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (15 USC 2384).

Virtual buckeye to Secession and Nullification News and Information

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 1/29

Things have been rather quiet on the state sovereignty front the last few months, but there has been a little activity since I last reported:

I reported last July that Nebraska had prefiled a state sovereignty resolution at the end of last year's session. It has now been introduced as LR 292. The resolution is much shorter than most, and its language is unusually mild.

South Carolina's S 424 was adopted by the Senate January 19, and was recommended by House committee to the full House January 21. The resolution has been amended to emphasize that the state will nullify any provision of federal law requiring participation in a federal health care plan.

On a related note, I have also updated the table of Ohio state sovereignty and nullification resolutions to include the introduction by Rep. John Adams of the income tax phaseout.

Alabama enacts state sovereignty resolution

Alabama yesterday became the eighth state to fully enact a state sovereignty resolution, reports WAFF-TV 48 in Huntsville. Here was some citizen reaction:

"You're supposed to be quiet in the gallery but everybody was cheering," said Angela Laughlin, a member of a patriot group near Huntsville.

Laughlin doesn't believe Alabama will ever attempt to leave the United States, but she believes the foundation is there in case such a move was ever warranted and leaders in Washington should take note.

"You don't kick a tenant out without serving them notice first," said Laughlin. "So we are serving them notice."

It's about time.

Ohio Freedom Alliance releases four additional videos on state sovereignty

I announced and posted the first video December 26, which is an introduction to the concept of state sovereignty. The Ohio Freedom Alliance has now released the remaining videos in the series. The links below also appear on the right sidebar for future use.

Part 1: Ohio State Sovereignty - An Introduction
Part 2: Federalism
Part 3: The Constitution and the Courts
Part 4A: Nullification
Part 4B: Secession

Ohio Freedom Alliance video on state sovereignty

Jason Rink interviews Harold Thomas on YouTube about state sovereignty. This is the first of five videos to be released.

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.

SCR 13 apparently dead in House committee

A source close to the House Democratic leadership has advised us that there are no current plans to hold additional hearings for the Ohio state sovereignty resolutions (HCR11 and SCR13). The source gives two reasons:

First, President Barack Obama issued an official memo affirming the state-federal partnership in May of this year. In his statement, the President recognized the role individual states play in our bureaucratic system. He believes it is important to maintain a balance of power between the states and the federal government. His comments reinforce the role of state laws in the federal system, while discouraging future agency preemptions of state laws without a sound legal basis to do so. This ruling by the Obama administration can be reviewed in its entirety here.

Note, however, that the memo was issued as a press release, which would not have the authority of an Executive Order.

The second reason is that House Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood) believes that during this time of economic hardship, we should be focusing our efforts on job creation, economic development, healthcare and education. He does not support putting forth symbolic resolutions to the Federal Government on any subject. Speaker Budish believes that, since House Concurrent Resolutions do not become law he does not support the concept of resolutions.

The second reason would be more persuasive if we were, in fact, seeing some substantial work from the House of Representatives on job creation, economic development, healthcare, and education. In reviewing the Status Report of Legislation as of Oct. 30, I found 20 bills that were reported out of committee or passed by the House in September and October. Of those, I could identify six that dealt with these subjects.*

Some of the bills considered in the last two months include creation of Prince Hall Freemason license plates, a regulation for contract carriers transporting railroad employees, a state tax exemption for retirees of NOAA and the Public Health Service (both Federal agencies), designating I-680 the Korean War Veterans' Memorial Highway, revised education and experience requirements for county sheriff candidates, a bill defining instant bingo ticket dispensers for charitable use. and one authorizing a Dec. 10 special election for municipal tax levies.

A few did deal with such important subjects such as penalties for harming judges, reforms to divorce and domestic violence law, and general regulatory reform; but please don't tell us that the House is focusing on job creation, economic development, healthcare, and education.

Obviously, standing up for the freedom of Ohioans clearly is not a priority -- an omission for which House Democrats should be held accountable next year.

* To conserve space, I shall not enumerate them, but their bill numbers are HB87, HB122, HB185, HB206, HB215, and HB318.

Ohio and Kansas legislators want to nullify federal health care

From Ohio Free State:

Ohio State Senators Tim Grendell and Shannon Jones have introduced SJR 7, a State Constitutional Amendment “to prohibit a law or rule from compelling a person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” If adopted by a majority of the electors voting on this proposal at a special election held February 2, 2010, Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio shall take effect immediately.

SJR 7 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Ohioans. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

SJR 7 states, in part:
(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

Sen. Grendell introduced Ohio's state sovereignty resolution SJR 13, which is currently languishing in the House State Government Committee. While I am not enthusiastic about adding more statutory material to the Ohio Constitution, it is clear that federal health care reform is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; but it appears from some news reports I have seen that leading Congressmen and Senators are Constitutionally illiterate. In this case, incorporating SJR7 into the Ohio Constitution will make it clear to all that the people of Ohio will support their General Assembly in nullification of federally-mandated health care.

Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle reports that Kansas legislators are considering an amendment to their state constitution to nullify federal health care insurance.

In a pre-emptive strike on national health care, conservative state lawmakers and representatives of the "tea party" movement on Tuesday proposed changing the state Constitution to exempt Kansas from federal health insurance mandates.

"This is about ... preserving (patients') right to make their own individual decisions on health care and protecting the doctor-patient relationship, so that the physician and the patient together can make the best decisions," Rep. Peggy Mast, R- Emporia, said at the Wichita kickoff for the proposition, to be known as the "Health Care Freedom Amendment."

Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, said national health care reform legislation will be "harmful to Kansans, robbing them of their liberty to make their own health care decisions without government interference." Sen. Pilcher-Clark also introduced the Kansas state sovereignty resolution.

Kansas Democrats are launching a petition drive in opposition to the proposal.

Adoption of a Constitutional amendment will require a vote of two-thirds of the legislators in each house, and a majority vote of the electors.

Of course, it's not too late to nip health care reform in the bud by urging our U.S. congressmen and senators to oppose it.

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.

Upholding to the Constitution requires legislators to resist temptation

Yesterday and today, I am posting the remarks made by the co-sponsors of Michigan's SCR4, passed by its Senate Sept. 17 (Constitution Day!). While both co-sponsors are Republican, the resolution was agreed to by all 14 Democrats present:

These remarks are by Sen. Patterson:

Today is a most auspicious day. It is Constitution Day. On this date in 1787—222 years ago; perhaps some might even remember—famous words, “We the People,” were adopted by our Founding Fathers as a part of our Federal Constitution. The Constitution is a document rich in history and unique to the fact that this country has established the blueprint for self-governance.

As we know, but sometimes now and again we need to be reminded, a few years later in 1791, ten amendments to that Constitution were adopted. Thus, the Bill of Rights were enshrined in order to accentuate the intent of the Founding Fathers who had a protracted and vigorous debate over what type of country they wanted to hand on to future generations.

One of those Bill of Rights amendments was the Tenth Amendment, which we will all recall states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states and we the people. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4 and Senate Resolution No. 17 serve to remind us, those serving we the people, that a positive grant of select authority—select, specific limited authority—was being extended by we the people to those whom they chose and entrusted to serve.

The resolutions that we have today are really very simple votes to cast. Every one of us knows, before we undertook the responsibilities and obligations of our office, we in accordance with our Michigan Constitution* swore an oath under Article 11, Section 1, to uphold the Constitution and to embrace the intent of those limited specific authorities granted by we the people. It is not an all-encompassing grant, but rather a specific limited authority extended by we the people.


The votes on these two items are relatively simple. We have already sworn that we will faithfully discharge and uphold, but we must understand that we are always being tempted; thus, the fulfillment of the obligations. The honor that we swore, in spite of the temptations extended by both the Democrats and the Republicans to exceed the limited delegation, is always before us. Please be cautious [to] not to violate your oath by exceeding the limited delegation in the discharge of your sworn duties. [Emphasis added]

I know that you will all do the right thing. We owe it to the people.

* The same requirement appears in the Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 7: "Every person chosen or appointed to any office under this state, before entering upon the discharge of its duties, shall take an oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, and also an oath of office."

Why the Michigan Senate passed the state sovereignty resolution

Today and tomorrow, I will post the remarks made by the co-sponsors of Michigan's SCR4, passed by its Senate Sept. 17. While both co-sponsors are Republican, the resolution was agreed to by all 14 Democrats present:

This is by Sen. Cropsey:

This resolution, if taken to heart, probably would affect us as a state legislature maybe more so than any place else in the United States, when every state legislature says, “You know what? The federal government has enumerated powers that are spelled out in the United States Constitution.”

There was a lot of controversy when the Constitution was adopted. The controversy was why do you need a Bill of Rights? If the federal government is only supposed to do what is enumerated in the current Constitution, then you don’t need a Bill of Rights because they can’t do anything beyond that. They can’t worry about freedom of speech and freedom of the press because they aren’t even supposed to get into that area. The people’s rights are safe in the sense that the federal government will not encroach upon it. That was the Federalist viewpoint.

The anti-Federalist viewpoint was, “We understand what you are saying as Federalists, but we still don’t trust the government to do what it is really supposed to do; that it will stay within its enumerated powers.” They said, “We want to make sure that we have these rights enshrined in our Constitution.”

The Tenth Amendment was added basically to say to the people of the country, “Just because we have put these first nine amendments onto the Constitution doesn’t mean that that is giving any power to the federal government.” It’s like the Constitution is putting on a belt, and this also puts on the suspenders to make sure that we are binding the federal government to its delegated powers. The Tenth Amendment is saying just because you have enumerated certain things the federal government can’t do doesn’t mean that they can start doing other things.

The Tenth Amendment was critical in reaffirming what the Federalists said, and it was critical in order to get things passed as far as our Bill of Rights. It is very unfortunate when you take a look at our federal government today that it has been going into areas that are way beyond the scope of the Constitution of the United States. I wish that every federal judge, every United States Senator, every United States Representative, and the President would take a good look at the Tenth amendment, the history of our Constitution, and get back to a constitutional form of government. They have gone so far beyond where they are supposed to be and what the founders envisioned. A lot of what the federal government is doing should have been left up to the people and the states. [Emphasis added]

I want to thank the sponsor of this resolution and the following resolution for bringing this to our attention to once again remind us that we need to get back to federal principles and fundamental principles that made this country great.

Tomorrow, I shall post Sen. Patterson' s statement.

OHIO SENATE PASSES SCR13

The Ohio Senate on Tuesday passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 on state sovereignty, by a straight party-line vote of 19-12 (see Senate Journal beginning at the bottom of p. 2068), with two absences. The resolution now goes to the Ohio House, where it will face an uphill battle in the face of Speaker Budish's determination not to allow consideration of any resolution that challenges federal authority.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 9/22

On Sept. 17, the Senate in neighbor and football rival Michigan passed its state sovereignty resolution (SCR4) 33-0 with 4 members excused. Word on the street has it that Ohio's Senate won't be far behind ...

State Sovereignty Resolution Update

The State Sovereignty Resolution table has been updated to reflect adjournments in several state legislatures. Resolutions that did not complete the process at adjournment are marked as defeated.