Could State Sovereignty Mean Curtains for Bushco?

[Sihouette]

The fetal stages of the rebellion begin...

NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.

So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND...

.."This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we've ever had in Congress," he said.

"A sixth-grader should realize you can't borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration's answer for a stimulus package," he added.

The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "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."..

.. Rollback federal authority

The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.

The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.

Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.

In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).

Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218

Wonder if it will have any bearing on this little item:

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) — Voters in two southern Vermont towns passed articles Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for violating the Constitution.
More symbolic than substantive, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere — if they're not impeached first.

In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012 for and 1,795 against. In Marlboro, it was 43 to 25, with three abstentions.

"I hope the one thing that people take from this is 'Hey, it can be done,"' said Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive that led to the Brattleboro
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-05-vermont_N.htm?csp=34

Oh sure, it's all "symbolic" now...but you know how babies love to grow bigger. I'm telling you, this French Revolution thing better get studied by all members of Congress...and fast..or soon they won't have to worry their pretty heads about anything..

 

[BigRob]

The fetal stages of the rebellion begin...


Wonder if it will have any bearing on this little item:



Oh sure, it's all "symbolic" now...but you know how babies love to grow bigger. I'm telling you, this French Revolution thing better get studied by all members of Congress...and fast..or soon they won't have to worry their pretty heads about anything..

How ridiculous, federal law supercedes state law. And what ground does a court in Vermont take jurisdiction over a case like this? Hint: None.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If it was found that .....

If it was in fact found that most likely, that Dick and Bush authorized Torture, against US and Internatinal Law....would you support them going on trial?
this question is not for the lefties on here...

 

[BigRob]

Re: If it was found that .....

If it was in fact found that most likely, that Dick and Bush authorized Torture, against US and Internatinal Law....would you support them going on trial?
this question is not for the lefties on here...

Where would this trial occur, and who would have jurisdiction?

Aside from that, if he has an OLC decision and Congressional authorization (which he will argue he had) you would be hard pressed to make a case for much of anything.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: If it was found that .....

Where would this trial occur, and who would have jurisdiction?

Aside from that, if he has an OLC decision and Congressional authorization (which he will argue he had) you would be hard pressed to make a case for much of anything.

1. lets say it was against US Law and Constitution

2. lets say it was found to be a war crime, under Geneva Convention.

chose for both as if seperate.

Also congress can not approve you to commit a war crime, or break the law. I was only taking orders does not work...works less when you are the president and vp.

 

[BigRob]

Re: If it was found that .....

1. lets say it was against US Law and Constitution

If (and this is a huge IF) this was the case, then it would be a domestic matter, settled in Federal Court. However, I do not think Bush violated any part of the Constitution..

2. lets say it was found to be a war crime, under Geneva Convention.

Again a huge if, but if this is the case, I would still hold the trial domestically in Federal Court. In theory, a treaty is on the same level of the Constitution was ratified (there can be exceptions, and they are important in this regard) and therefore would simply be the same violation as in case 1.

However, it should be important to note that the United States never agreed to the part of the Geneva Conventions that would apply to these people, therefore is not bound by it. I do not think there is a case that Bush violated any international law either.

Also congress can not approve you to commit a war crime, or break the law. I was only taking orders does not work...works less when you are the president and vp.

Congress makes the law, they can approve you to do whatever they want.

 

[Depeche Toad]

Dream on.

There will be no prosecution of Bush or anyone else because it would involve outing information gathering and interrogation techniques Barack Obama still wants, because they still work. If you don't believe me, go read about what the ACLU thinks of Obama keeping Bush's secrets.

This stuff is strictly for the tinfoil hat circuit.

 

[BigRob]

Dream on.

There will be no prosecution of Bush or anyone else because it would involve outing information gathering and interrogation techniques Barack Obama still wants, because they still work. If you don't believe me, go read about what the ACLU thinks of Obama keeping Bush's secrets.

This stuff is strictly for the tinfoil hat circuit.

Did you notice in the Executive Order to close GITMO, and the one to end "torture" there was plenty of wiggle-room left, and a lot was left open to some interpretations.

 

[Dr.Who]

The clear trend for states to reclaim sovereignty is a clear signal that they recognize that it has been lost.

Yes this is a trend. And about time. We have lost too many checks and balances and we need to reclaim them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How ridiculous, federal law supercedes state law.

Only where Constitutionally authorized. In all other cases, State law prevails over Federal. In fact, Federal law is null and void. See Amendment 10.

Of course, that's one of the most-violated parts of the U.S. Constitution. But violations (or liberal wishful thinking) don't change what the Constitution says.

Yes this is a trend.

Not that I've seen. More like superficial window dressing. We'll see if it continues and increases.

And about time.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[BigRob]

Only where Constitutionally authorized. In all other cases, State law prevails over Federal. In fact, Federal law is null and void. See Amendment 10.

Under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the constitution, it states, "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."

Given this, it is entirely reasonable (and accepted) to then argue that Federal Law taking precedence over State Law has Constitutional basis and clear authority.

Amendment 10 states. "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."

Nowhere in this does it state or imply that Article VI Paragraph II is made void. Given this, the power granted the Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause is to make laws that will supercede State Laws. The 10th Amendment would not end this.

This is at least one counter-argument. (I personally think it carries some validity)

Of course, that's one of the most-violated parts of the U.S. Constitution. But violations (or liberal wishful thinking) don't change what the Constitution says.

You are correct, wishful thinking does not change what Article VI Paragraph II says on the matter.