XCR Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,850 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
81R5789 MMS-F

By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50



CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/...&Bill=HCR50
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

Col Maddog :2rifle:
 
G

·
Montana just introduce almost the exact same thing in our house as well. It appears as tho this is being boiler plated in several states. I think new Hampshires is the same as well.


This is a good thing tho. Montana introduced it as a "joint resolution" which as I understand it does not have the force of law and only expresses intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Georgia has also made it's stand with HR 280.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
You guys do realize that many, many bills are proposed every year that go absolutely nowhere. It's actually quite common.

These bills you quote are only evidence that a nominal number of State Legislators want to declare sovereignty.

In fact, it would not surprise me one bit if there were bills similar (or identical) to these being proposed throughout history. This is nothing new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
I am actually having a meeting with my state Delegate who I know personally to discuss this very issue and introduce a bill in Virginia.

**** - The purpose of these is to be sent to the President as a warning to tread lightly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
I understand the purpose. However, these "warning" legislations rarely (if ever) garner serious consideration. Ergo, the message they send is either miniscule or the antithesis of the intended warning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,067 Posts
I understand the purpose. However, these "warning" legislations rarely (if ever) garner serious consideration. Ergo, the message they send is either miniscule or the antithesis of the intended warning.
You are partly correct. I guarantee that if all or most of the states sent these to the prez, it would send a loud and clear message. This is only the first step.

Of course you support the prez, the lord Barrack Hussein Soetoro the most high Obama, or what ever this guy's name is. This is clear to just about everyone.

However, this is fine. This is your right and I hope you express it as loud as you can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
What message?

My support for the President is irrelevant. If the same legislature was proposed by Democrats during the Bush Administration, I would have the same opinion of it.

Like I've said before, it's the manner in which people on this forum express themselves that I find frustrating. I really enjoy open, intelligent discourse. However, it must be both open AND intelligent. There are plenty of people on this forum with whom I do not agree, but who's voices I respect. Conversely, there are those who have shown a deep-seated irrationality, intolerance, and maliciousness. It is with those people that I take offense.

Yes, I support Obama. I support him for many reasons, including his intelligence, capability, and compassion. These are qualities that I think are important in our leaders. That does not mean that I agree with every choice he makes. I certainly have different opinions on several issues. Yet despite these differences, I still support him (and, yes, believe in him).
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top