I've waited my 30 days to start a thread, just as the boss told me.

Something I've not seen much on the news is how states are drafting and passing States Rights Resolutions. So far 37 states are at one stage or another in the process. I have included a map here: State Sovereignty Resolutions|Tenth Amendment Center

The states are telling the Feds to back off and to stop reaching into areas where they don't belong. Some think this is simple posturing on the part of the states while others see this as a movement forming that might actually put the Feds in their place. And some try to spin this as talk of succession, but the wording within the resolutions do not mention the word.

This topic drives arguments that we are a centralized or nationalized government and states are the agent of the Federal Government. Arguments also abound that it was the states that determined the shape, scope and duties of their agent, the Federal Government. In most state resolutions the word "Agent" is used to describe the Fed.

Since the states began to do this over this past year, it has started to branch out into more specific areas such as gun control and health care. For instance, Montana actually passed a law that removes them from Federal control as it relates to guns manufactured and sold within the state. Tennessee is following close behind with more states to follow. Arizona passed a thing that will be on the ballot next year that if passed will allow citizens of the great state the ability to opt out of any government run health program. They are planning ahead.

This whole movement is based primarily in the Constitution's 10th Amendment:

"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."

The States have served Obama, Reed and Pelosi with bonafide copies of their resolutions. Will the Federal Government listen to the States? Will they continue to hold back funds from the States if they do not comply with what they want? Should the Feds be held to the letter of the Constitution and be made to retreat back to what the clearly defined enumerated powers are as signed and documented by the States when the Constitution and the following Amendments were initially put into law?

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

I'm sure the Feds will claim they are doing everything in accordance with the Constitution since the house and the senate are both staffed by representatives of the people.

I'm sure they will too. It is interesting how state representatives get to Washington and forget why they are there. Often times they vote to reduce the rights of the state that sent them.

With all of the Federal Programs going on, many times it falls on the state to provide funding. Could it be the states are positioning to to opt out of selected programs in order to balance their own budgets? After all, the states are beholding to its people.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Because once they are elected, its not long till they learn how to do business, they are willing to sell their mothers and ship her COD for goodies, that’s why.

An earmark here an earmark there, gerrymander your district and viola, your in office as long as you don’t bonk some Argentinean and get caught, if you’re a rep.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Our representatives do not "represent us". They represent their parties interests in Washington.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

So all of us should stop voting for the same jerks over and over again just because they have an R or a D next to their name.

It is ironic, these days, how often state legislatures are going up against the reps from their own state. Kinda figured they'd wanna be on the same side.

In favor of a new class that will do the same?

The problem is systemic. Once elected there is no means of ensuring their behavior. It doesn't help that bills are written and passed in the dark of night before constituents can read, make a judgment, and inform their rep of their wishes. Can voters collectively order their reps to vote one way or another on a bill? Do lawmakers consider the needs of their constituents, write a bill accordingly, perhaps in consultation with state and county legislatures, and fight for it?

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

Agreed. There is truth to the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" refrain. But part of the "systemic" problem, is the set of rules that prevent anyone outside the D/R faction from having any impact. It's more than just popular momentum. All manor of funding rules and electoneering regulations have been erected in the last century to ensure no third parties ever have a real shot. Regardless of whether a new party would be any different in the end, this allows the existing parties to maintain power in perpetuity, even as they become less and less responsive to the people they represent.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are shrinking as of late. Independents are growing. I think we need another party to help keep things more honest. Libertarians are making some headway. In my study of my rights, state rights and getting back to our basics as found in the Constitution, I keep running into Libertarians along the way. I'm not a member of that party, but I'm learning from them.

I'm wondering if the States Rights movement is an effort to get back to the basics. When things are screwed up and you don't have an answer, it is usually best to go back to the basics to see where things went wrong.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

You should understand that the members of the House Representatives DO NOT REPRESENT THE STATE--they are elected by and represent the people. When the Constitution was drafted and subsequently ratified, this was the subject of a great deal of discussion. At the Convention William Patterson of New Jersey proposed a legislature wherein each state would be equally represented. This was rejected by the larger states (and especially by Virginia) who insisted that the legislature be apportioned by population. The "Great Compromise" which was instituted to resolve this dispute allowed a Senate to be apportioned equally by state, and initially those Senators were chosen by the state legislatures--so it can reasonably be argued (aand it is supported by historical fact) that THE SENATE REPRESENTS THE STATES. But the House of Representatives, apportioned by population and elected by the people, represents ONLY THE PEOPLE, not the state.

Further, the framers of the Constitution fully understood that by instituting a new government, which would derive its authority from the people, they would necessarily take some powers away from the states, such as the powers to collect tariffs, maintain a military and naval establishment, and regulate interstate commerce. Since they were also realists, they did not submit the proposed Constitution for ratification by the states, but instead insisted that it be ratified, within each state, BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OR A CONVENTION OF THE PEOPLE, thereby neatly sidestepping the existing state legislatures. So the actual fact of the matter is that NO STATE EVER JOINED THE UNION, THE PEOPLE JOINED THE UNION. This was done in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the federal government in the face of anticipated state challenges, and to assure the supremacy of federal law over those of the several states.

The states are NOT "the agents of the federal government." In fact, they are not even a part of the federal government, which is in fact a compact among the people existing separately and independently from the states. This leads us to the uniquely American concept of "dual citizenship," under which a person is simultaneously a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State wherein he resides. This Tenth Amendment movement is interesting, but it has no real foundation in history, in law, or in the Constitutional form of government the American people adopted in 1787 and 1788.

There is a way that the states can assert their rights in the face of perceived federal interference and intransigence. The Constitution itself provides that a convention must be held when called for by two-thirds of the states (see Article Five), and that Amendments to the Constitution may there be proposed. I suggest that you go for it--if you have the nerve.

Thank you HF... very clear explanation of some stuff I was fuzzy on at best.

I thought I was clear about much of this stuff. Now, I feel fuzzy. I see how THE SENATE REPRESENTS THE STATES, but the House of Representatives, who are elected by the people of their state, you say represents ONLY THE PEOPLE, not the state. Sure, their votes affect the country, but they still represent their respective state. If all in the House did not, why bother having states put them to vote, why not a general election instead?

No State ever joined the Union? Then why bother having the name The United States of America. Did the South succeed from the Union or not? Did the rest of the States join the Union but the first 13 colonies did not? I'm not following this.

And if the States are not part of the Union, how could they have the power to form the Continental Congress and trump Congress? The States must have an active stake in the game in order to have such power. They sure must belong to something in order to make that happen. I don't see how States could not be part of a thing that they have complete power to completely change if they wanted to.

Me do this? I'd need more than just nerve to even try. I wouldn't know where to begin. I am a mere student of the Constitution, not a scholar or statesman.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Yet another nutbar group that thinks states still exist.

Look, I am a citizen of the USA, not frakking Maryland. I think MD is largely a bad joke, an extra, expensive and utterly unnecessary layer of bureaucracy imposed between me and the REAL government in Washington DC. The states are administrative conveniences, have been since 1865 and should recognise the reality of the situation, which would probably save us enough to pay for Iraq and Health Care combined.

My idea, stated here several times, is that we should grant them full and complete sovereignity, invade, loot their cities and enslave their populations. How much for a Dallas Cheerleader?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Apparently you're not a SERIOUS "student of the Constitution." I would suggest that you start your refresher courses with a review of The Federalist Papers, with special attention to Madison's discussion of the FORM of the government in Federalist #10. Earlier in this thread I recommended Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913). Read it. I will not burden you with further recommendations until you have at least progressed far enough to understand what I wrote above.

But I'll not hold my breath. I find that very few "experts" from these forums bother to read very much.