I wrote the following as a responce on a Facebook status, I thought it might interest a wider audience:
The United States was attacked on September 11th, 2001 by Al-Qaeda, a small terrorist cell comprising of no more than a few hundred members. Why did they do this, was it because they "hate our freedoms" like some claim? Why didn't they hate our freedoms before the end of the cold war then, why did Osama bin Laden consider the US an ally in his war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s? Why did the US provide the Arab fighters of the Soviets with money, weapons, and military training if they hated us so much?
The fact is Al-Qaeda didn't attack us because we were free, they attacked us because of what we where already doing to them. You just have to read the transcripts from bin Laden's own speeches on the 9/11 attacks. He gave three reasons for the attacks, 1) the economic sanctions the US imposed on Iraq in the 1990s which killed thousands of civilians, 2) the presence of 5,000 U.S. military troops in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land, left there after the 1991 Gulf War, and 3) the continuing support of Israel by the US. We have to come to terms that the attacks were not from some genocidal group determined to murder all Westerners, but a reactionary group determined to restore the sovereignty of their region if not by the most ethical means.
Terrorism is just like any other murder: you look for the motives. Looking at the real causes of the terrorist attacks is not somehow "sympathizing with the terrorists", as much as looking at the real cause of an infection in your body is somehow “sympathizing with your infection”. You just can't simply declare that all infections are evil and want to destroy humanity, so we must wage an endless war, no matter the cost, against infections. That would be silly, you would look at the cause of the infection and then try to correct that individual problem. Al-Qaeda is an infection and that's how they must be dealt with, take away their fuel and support for them will die away to nothing. That is how the 9/11 terrorists should have been dealt with, not with a costly war in Afghanistan The Afghanistan war is a war against the Taliban, the governing organization of Afghanistan who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and not a war against the real criminals, Al-Qaeda.
Simply put, the War in Iraq was a senseless invasion of a sovereign state that had not attacked us. There was never any proof that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, nor was their ever any proof they were developing weapons of mass destruction. It was an ill considered, poorly planned and just plain unnecessary military action that resulted in the senseless death of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis none of whom were fighting the US until after the invasion. Once again, it had nothing to do with obtaining justice against Al-Qaeda for their attacks against the US.
Pakistan and Libya also never attacked us, we have no business being in either one of those nations, and we don't need to be in Yemen either where we have special forces right now. We certainly have no need to be in Syria either where some are banging the drums of war for. We don't need to be helping the Libyan rebels like we have been, who have actually admitted they have connections to Al-Qaeda! Those calling for aiding the Libyan rebels are actually calling for aiding the friends of Al-Qaeda. So, in a way, both Republicans, like John McCain, and Democrats, like President Obama, are aiding Al-Qaeda, which is the complete opposite of obtaining justice for the crimes committed against the US people on 9/11!
And not a single one of these wars were declared constitutionally. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”
The Constitution gives no branch of the government the authority to police other sovereign nations, and that's exactly what these wars are about. Our founding fathers did not support this idea, George Washington said in his farewell address, "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Meaning trade peacefully with everyone but when it comes to the affairs of other nations, stay out of them. Thomas Jefferson said America should have, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." As to keep America out of foreign affairs all together.
Some say, "It will be embarrassing to America if we just pick up and leave. It'll hurt the image of America." And I say to that how many more men and women must die, how many more billions must be spent to save face? I've got to say that is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. We give foreign aid to all these countries, taken from mine and your tax dollars, while simultaneously dropping bombs on them, paid with- you guessed it- yours and mine tax dollars. We are conducting a mass effort of nation building, while also blowing up their nation. It makes no sense economically, especially in a time when our country is so deeply in debt. And once again, none of it has to do with obtaining justice for 9/11.
None of these wars have any type of an achievable goal. Winning a “War on Terror” is as likely as winning a “War on Hate”. Both encourage more terror and hate the harder they are fought. The more you bomb them, the more they hate you so the harder you must bomb them. Therefore the only logical means to win a war on hate, like a war on terror, would to be to end all hate and terror (and war for that matter) by killing every person on the planet. That's just plain silly, but that's the only logical conclusion I can see as being a victory for the War on Terror. Those who promote such terms as "the War on Terror" don't think through what words they choose to use.
I am calling for a return to a constitutional foreign policy, a conservative foreign policy in line with that of great America-Firsters of old like Senator Robert Taft. I am harkening conservatives back home, away from the liberal-interventionism that has so plagued the Republican party as of late. I am advocating Americans to win these wars by restoring America to it's founders vision and returning our troops home not only from the above mentioned wars but from Germany, Korea, France, England, and everywhere else around the world they're dying and wasting money providing defense to countries who should be paying their own way. We don't need and can't have an America empire if we're going to be conservatives and follow the Constitution! For the only way to 'win' these wars is to restore America to it's founders vision. To create once again the bastion of freedom it was intended to be and become the nation of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship" that Thomas Jefferson had so hoped we'd remain, and leave the welfare-and-warfare-isms' of the liberal-interventionists behind us.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Mitch Daniels is a what?
My dear governor, Mitch Daniels, the architect of the Bush budget deficits, is a.... libertarian? What?! So says David Bernstein of the Cato Institute, listing him alongside Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in an article on his blog. I've heard the same thing come from the folks at Reason Magazine.
As a resident of Indiana, I've observed what damage Mitch Daniels has done to my state with his sometimes corporatist policies and sometimes socialist policies. He can by no means be considered a libertarian... in any way, at all and I have no idea why the Cato-Reason crowd seem to think he's any better than a Romney, Huckabee, or Pawlenty. This continuing mentioning of Daniels as if he was some sort of Ron Paul by those within the Kochtopus just continues how shallow their libertarianism is, not that that was ever in question, Rothbard was pointing out their lack of principles decades ago.
I attended a debate in 2008, between Mitch Daniels, Libertarian Andy Horning, and their Democratic opponent Jill Long Thomson. I honestly could not tell the difference in the actual policies of Daniels and the democrat, the only difference was in posturing. Andy was the only candidate presenting a platform of real libertarian change. He was elegant, well-spoken, and most importantly of all unashamed of his principles.
I think if the libertarian standard bearer for president is coming from Indiana, it should be proud libertarian Andy Horning, not crony-capitalist Mitch Daniels. So the next time I hear someone mention Mitch Daniels as anything but a welfare-warfare statist, I'm going to tell them to ask Andy who he thinks the real libertarian is.
As a resident of Indiana, I've observed what damage Mitch Daniels has done to my state with his sometimes corporatist policies and sometimes socialist policies. He can by no means be considered a libertarian... in any way, at all and I have no idea why the Cato-Reason crowd seem to think he's any better than a Romney, Huckabee, or Pawlenty. This continuing mentioning of Daniels as if he was some sort of Ron Paul by those within the Kochtopus just continues how shallow their libertarianism is, not that that was ever in question, Rothbard was pointing out their lack of principles decades ago.
I attended a debate in 2008, between Mitch Daniels, Libertarian Andy Horning, and their Democratic opponent Jill Long Thomson. I honestly could not tell the difference in the actual policies of Daniels and the democrat, the only difference was in posturing. Andy was the only candidate presenting a platform of real libertarian change. He was elegant, well-spoken, and most importantly of all unashamed of his principles.
I think if the libertarian standard bearer for president is coming from Indiana, it should be proud libertarian Andy Horning, not crony-capitalist Mitch Daniels. So the next time I hear someone mention Mitch Daniels as anything but a welfare-warfare statist, I'm going to tell them to ask Andy who he thinks the real libertarian is.
New Articles at Associated Content
Hello everyone! I've decided to once again start blogging here again. I should have new content up all the time so make sure to continue coming back so you don't miss anything! I've already wrote a few things at Associated Content that you might want to check out, see my:
The Death of Bin Laden and American Liberty
"As I flip through the channels on my television and read comments online, I continue to become progressively more outraged about the understanding people tend to have about the death of Osama bin Laden. I find it to be utterly disgusting to see so many people cheering that a man was killed by the government without a trial, without having a chance to personally defend himself, or have evidence be presented in his defense. Is not a right to a trial, no matter how gruesome the crime, an integral part of what America was founded upon? And yet they cheer while this and every other right is stolen away from all of us..." Read more here.
"Atlas Shrugged" and "Madea's Big Happy Family", They Both Have Surprises
"I went to the movie theater for the first time in quite a while. This is not something I do too often because of 1) the outrageous prices of tickets and refreshments and 2) most of the time the movies I want to see aren't playing in a theater anywhere near here anyway. But while attending today, I was surprised that tickets were only $5, and found out this discounted rate was because I went on a weekday afternoon. If tickets continue to be at that semi-reasonable price, I might return to the movies on another weekday afternoon sooner than I would otherwise.
The two films I saw today were "Atlas Shrugged", the first film adaptation of Ayn Rand's best-selling Objectivist novel, and "Madea's Big Happy Family" today, the most recent in the line of box-office hit "Madea" movies from director Tyler Perry. Both these films managed to be surprising to me in their own, if very different ways." Continuing reading here. Thanks!
The Death of Bin Laden and American Liberty
"As I flip through the channels on my television and read comments online, I continue to become progressively more outraged about the understanding people tend to have about the death of Osama bin Laden. I find it to be utterly disgusting to see so many people cheering that a man was killed by the government without a trial, without having a chance to personally defend himself, or have evidence be presented in his defense. Is not a right to a trial, no matter how gruesome the crime, an integral part of what America was founded upon? And yet they cheer while this and every other right is stolen away from all of us..." Read more here.
"Atlas Shrugged" and "Madea's Big Happy Family", They Both Have Surprises
"I went to the movie theater for the first time in quite a while. This is not something I do too often because of 1) the outrageous prices of tickets and refreshments and 2) most of the time the movies I want to see aren't playing in a theater anywhere near here anyway. But while attending today, I was surprised that tickets were only $5, and found out this discounted rate was because I went on a weekday afternoon. If tickets continue to be at that semi-reasonable price, I might return to the movies on another weekday afternoon sooner than I would otherwise.
The two films I saw today were "Atlas Shrugged", the first film adaptation of Ayn Rand's best-selling Objectivist novel, and "Madea's Big Happy Family" today, the most recent in the line of box-office hit "Madea" movies from director Tyler Perry. Both these films managed to be surprising to me in their own, if very different ways." Continuing reading here. Thanks!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Ballot Access Subcommittee Resolution
Whereas the various state governments of the united States of America have enacted laws requiring signatures collected and fees payed for candidates for public office to be placed on electoral ballots.
Be it resolved by the Boston Tea Party national committee, that a subcommittee should be organized, in accordance with the party bylaws Article 9, Section A. This subcommittee shall have at least three but not more than nine members and be designated the "National Ballot Access Coordination Committee", who's responsibilities shall be:
1. Providing state affiliates of the party with important information about ballot access laws in their state, and advice upon the best manner to obtain that access.
2. Coordinating the attainment of ballot access nation-wide, as well as providing assistance in petition drives and fund raising efforts done by the state affiliates of the party.
The first chair of this subcommittee shall be Raymond Lady of Indiana, all subsequent committee members shall be appointed by the national committee. The members of the committee will be responsible for selecting future committee chairs.
Be it resolved by the Boston Tea Party national committee, that a subcommittee should be organized, in accordance with the party bylaws Article 9, Section A. This subcommittee shall have at least three but not more than nine members and be designated the "National Ballot Access Coordination Committee", who's responsibilities shall be:
1. Providing state affiliates of the party with important information about ballot access laws in their state, and advice upon the best manner to obtain that access.
2. Coordinating the attainment of ballot access nation-wide, as well as providing assistance in petition drives and fund raising efforts done by the state affiliates of the party.
The first chair of this subcommittee shall be Raymond Lady of Indiana, all subsequent committee members shall be appointed by the national committee. The members of the committee will be responsible for selecting future committee chairs.
Friday, June 11, 2010
My Letter to Boston Tea Party Members
We were not prepared for 2010. We are not going to have any candidates under the Boston Tea Party banner on the ballot this year. This does not mean we cannot endorse candidates who agree with our platform but in terms of ballot access, we were finished before we even started for 2010.
This should not happen in 2012.
2012 is far too important of an election year for our party to be left off the ballot. This is why I recommend to our party's new national committee that they endorse and allow the creation of a “National Ballot Access Coordination Committee” to assist our state organizations in their efforts to get on the ballot.
This committee would help state parties by 1) providing them with important information and advice about ballot access laws in their state, 2) by assisting them in fund raising efforts and petition drives to actually obtain ballot access status. These are just my ideas. I'm open to changing some or adding others, I'd just like to get the ball rolling on this dicussion so that it never stops until we see BTP candidates on the ticket in a reasonable number of states!
*Best Shots for 2012 Ballot Access*
From the very helpful information at Richard Winger's Ballot Access News, I have found the following ten states to be our most reasonable opportunities to get on the ballot in 2012.
1)Florida- We had ballot access here in 2008, all that is required to get on the ballot is a fairly easy organizational requirement.
2)Colorado- Also on the ballot here in 2008, 1,000 signatures are required
3)Tennessee- Another state we had in 2008, the number of signatures for party ballot access is in court currently but it is 25 signatures for a single candidate
4)Louisiana- 1,000 signatures for a party, $500 fee for a candidate
5)Hawaii- 992 signatures for a party, 25 for a candidate
6)Delaware- 612 signatures for party ballot access
7)Mississippi- has an organizational requirement
8)Vermont- Organizational requirement
9)Ohio- Organizational requirement
10) Utah- 2,000 signatures for a party
This is just the very beginning of what sort of information and planning I'd like to see from a National Ballot Access Coordination Committee. The assistance they can provide will be most important in getting on the ballot in 2012.
I'd like any constructive input about this idea for a committee from any party members, especially Nat-Comm members. You can email me at eternaverse (at) yahoo (dot) com or comment below. ~Thank you, Raymond
This should not happen in 2012.
2012 is far too important of an election year for our party to be left off the ballot. This is why I recommend to our party's new national committee that they endorse and allow the creation of a “National Ballot Access Coordination Committee” to assist our state organizations in their efforts to get on the ballot.
This committee would help state parties by 1) providing them with important information and advice about ballot access laws in their state, 2) by assisting them in fund raising efforts and petition drives to actually obtain ballot access status. These are just my ideas. I'm open to changing some or adding others, I'd just like to get the ball rolling on this dicussion so that it never stops until we see BTP candidates on the ticket in a reasonable number of states!
*Best Shots for 2012 Ballot Access*
From the very helpful information at Richard Winger's Ballot Access News, I have found the following ten states to be our most reasonable opportunities to get on the ballot in 2012.
1)Florida- We had ballot access here in 2008, all that is required to get on the ballot is a fairly easy organizational requirement.
2)Colorado- Also on the ballot here in 2008, 1,000 signatures are required
3)Tennessee- Another state we had in 2008, the number of signatures for party ballot access is in court currently but it is 25 signatures for a single candidate
4)Louisiana- 1,000 signatures for a party, $500 fee for a candidate
5)Hawaii- 992 signatures for a party, 25 for a candidate
6)Delaware- 612 signatures for party ballot access
7)Mississippi- has an organizational requirement
8)Vermont- Organizational requirement
9)Ohio- Organizational requirement
10) Utah- 2,000 signatures for a party
This is just the very beginning of what sort of information and planning I'd like to see from a National Ballot Access Coordination Committee. The assistance they can provide will be most important in getting on the ballot in 2012.
I'd like any constructive input about this idea for a committee from any party members, especially Nat-Comm members. You can email me at eternaverse (at) yahoo (dot) com or comment below. ~Thank you, Raymond
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Strategy for the Boston Tea Party
My newest Boston Tea Party Column, published at http://bostontea.us/node/654...
The coming elections in 2010 and 2012 will be very important for the Boston Tea Party if we are to become an effective and lasting organization. If we do not grow and show that we can become a potent force for smaller government in the next few years, it is unlikely that we ever will. This is because we will have the stigma of being not only a small organization but also an old one. If we do not make a good showing in the Presidential and the other races of 2012 our importance level, I believe, is likely to seek to that of the modern Prohibition Party. But if we do well, and it will not be by chance but only hard work, I believe the Boston Tea Party will grow into a leading liberty-based organization.
2010 is the next election for federal offices and for many state and local offices as well. If we make a good showing in 2010 it will make it easier for us in 2012 in terms of ballot access, party size and fundraising. It will also help to make our party’s activists more experienced. For 2010, Candidates for federal office and executive state offices (such as governor, state treasurer, ect.) should run purely educational and party building campaigns. Their campaign’s main goals should be 1) to spread radical, small-government libertarian ideas, 2) attract new activists and donors to the party and 3) if possible, receive enough votes to keep party ballot access for the next election.
Campaign we should focus on winning are local city/ county councils and, to a lesser extent, state legislature campaigns. City/ county wide elections are not only excellent for building local party organizations but also are provide a good opportunity, if a campaign is ran well, for getting party members elected. State legislatures are normally the highest office third parties elect candidates to; some of these elections might be good for the BTP, though I think 2012 will hold more opportunity for actually electing a state legislator. Campaigns for smaller boards (such as city water boards, park commissions, ect.) hold little educational value, because their districts are so small, should be solely focused on electing their candidate.
The next presidential election is in 2012. Our 2008 presidential campaign was a fairly good one, considering all that was set against us at the time and our late nomination process, but I hope our next one will do much better. If 2010 is a good year for us and we continue to grow through 2011, our next presidential candidate will already have a considerable donor base and ballot access in several states. Hopefully, he or she will be able to get ballot access in the majority of states and will receive many votes.
In order for any of this to be successful we have to start working right now. Funds for ballot access must be collected, new members must be recruited and so must candidates. I sincerely think that the Boston Tea Party can become a major force for liberty but it’s something we have to work towards. The first thing you have to do is become active in your state party and if your state doesn’t have one start one. If you help doing this just email me at eternaverse@yahoo.com and I can give you some advice or, at least, point you in the right direction. If you don’t want to be an activist, I know all of you have busy lives, donate funds to your state party to help support ballot access or to one of our candidates. And for those of you already active, thanks for what you’re doing and keep up the good work; you have built this party from nothing and it truly belongs to you.
-Raymond Lady
I’ve also recently made a list of states that have ballot access laws that might make it reasonably possible for the BTP to get on the ballot in 2010. You can see it here.
The coming elections in 2010 and 2012 will be very important for the Boston Tea Party if we are to become an effective and lasting organization. If we do not grow and show that we can become a potent force for smaller government in the next few years, it is unlikely that we ever will. This is because we will have the stigma of being not only a small organization but also an old one. If we do not make a good showing in the Presidential and the other races of 2012 our importance level, I believe, is likely to seek to that of the modern Prohibition Party. But if we do well, and it will not be by chance but only hard work, I believe the Boston Tea Party will grow into a leading liberty-based organization.
2010 is the next election for federal offices and for many state and local offices as well. If we make a good showing in 2010 it will make it easier for us in 2012 in terms of ballot access, party size and fundraising. It will also help to make our party’s activists more experienced. For 2010, Candidates for federal office and executive state offices (such as governor, state treasurer, ect.) should run purely educational and party building campaigns. Their campaign’s main goals should be 1) to spread radical, small-government libertarian ideas, 2) attract new activists and donors to the party and 3) if possible, receive enough votes to keep party ballot access for the next election.
Campaign we should focus on winning are local city/ county councils and, to a lesser extent, state legislature campaigns. City/ county wide elections are not only excellent for building local party organizations but also are provide a good opportunity, if a campaign is ran well, for getting party members elected. State legislatures are normally the highest office third parties elect candidates to; some of these elections might be good for the BTP, though I think 2012 will hold more opportunity for actually electing a state legislator. Campaigns for smaller boards (such as city water boards, park commissions, ect.) hold little educational value, because their districts are so small, should be solely focused on electing their candidate.
The next presidential election is in 2012. Our 2008 presidential campaign was a fairly good one, considering all that was set against us at the time and our late nomination process, but I hope our next one will do much better. If 2010 is a good year for us and we continue to grow through 2011, our next presidential candidate will already have a considerable donor base and ballot access in several states. Hopefully, he or she will be able to get ballot access in the majority of states and will receive many votes.
In order for any of this to be successful we have to start working right now. Funds for ballot access must be collected, new members must be recruited and so must candidates. I sincerely think that the Boston Tea Party can become a major force for liberty but it’s something we have to work towards. The first thing you have to do is become active in your state party and if your state doesn’t have one start one. If you help doing this just email me at eternaverse@yahoo.com and I can give you some advice or, at least, point you in the right direction. If you don’t want to be an activist, I know all of you have busy lives, donate funds to your state party to help support ballot access or to one of our candidates. And for those of you already active, thanks for what you’re doing and keep up the good work; you have built this party from nothing and it truly belongs to you.
-Raymond Lady
I’ve also recently made a list of states that have ballot access laws that might make it reasonably possible for the BTP to get on the ballot in 2010. You can see it here.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
State Sovereignty Resolution
As many of you have heard there is a number of state sovereignty resolutions going through state state legislatures. The resolution in my state, SR 42, just passed through committee with 8 senators in favor and none opposed.The Senator who introduced the bill, Senator Walker, reports the hearing was "...the most fun I've had in the two and a half years I've had this job."
The vote was from four democrats and four republicans, meaning this is a truly nonpartisan bill. It now has 19 co-authors now, including three Committee Chairs - Senators Paul, Steele and Kruse- and Senate President pro-tem Long.
A vote could come as soon as Monday. If you live in Indiana call and/or write your State Senator and express your support for the resolution and encourage them to do so as well. If your Senator was been involved in the committee hearing or is a co-sponsor, please be sure to thank them. You can find your representative and send them an email here. If you don’t live in Indiana find if you have a state sovereignty bill already in process and support it, if you don’t then call your representative and ask them to introduce one.
The Indiana resolution resolution reads, "Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “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”;
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;
Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science;
Whereas, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”;
Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government”;
Whereas, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them”;
Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and infringe upon Indiana's reserve powers and the people's reserved powers;
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 being considered by the present administration and from Congress do infringe on the States' reserve powers and the people's reserved powers, and may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims 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.
SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
SECTION 3: That all compulsory federal regulation that directs Indiana and her sister states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or directs states to pass conforming legislation under threat of losing federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
SECTION 4: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana."
**Thanks to Jerry Titus for posting information about recent devlopments on the state sovereignty on the RLC-IN email talk list.**
The vote was from four democrats and four republicans, meaning this is a truly nonpartisan bill. It now has 19 co-authors now, including three Committee Chairs - Senators Paul, Steele and Kruse- and Senate President pro-tem Long.
A vote could come as soon as Monday. If you live in Indiana call and/or write your State Senator and express your support for the resolution and encourage them to do so as well. If your Senator was been involved in the committee hearing or is a co-sponsor, please be sure to thank them. You can find your representative and send them an email here. If you don’t live in Indiana find if you have a state sovereignty bill already in process and support it, if you don’t then call your representative and ask them to introduce one.
The Indiana resolution resolution reads, "Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “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”;
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;
Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science;
Whereas, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”;
Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government”;
Whereas, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them”;
Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and infringe upon Indiana's reserve powers and the people's reserved powers;
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 being considered by the present administration and from Congress do infringe on the States' reserve powers and the people's reserved powers, and may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims 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.
SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
SECTION 3: That all compulsory federal regulation that directs Indiana and her sister states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or directs states to pass conforming legislation under threat of losing federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
SECTION 4: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana."
**Thanks to Jerry Titus for posting information about recent devlopments on the state sovereignty on the RLC-IN email talk list.**
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
