WA State claiming state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment as of Thursday 2-5-09

[DJ Nikon]

original url
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009


internal url
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Joint%20Memorials/4009-State%20sovereignty.pdf



joyful joyful!! :)

[Furious Styles]

original url
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009


internal url
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Joint%20Memorials/4009-State%20sovereignty.pdf



joyful joyful!! :)

...a buncha verbose legalese that I don't have time to decipher... can you break it down homie?

[DJ Nikon]

Nikon
we are one of 7 states now that are like this

LIT says:
but the state has to do it as a whole?

Nikon says:
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.
so our state reps said we wanna be independant just in case
its now enacted

LIT says:
so we cant be forced to go to war?

Nikon says:
just as an example
yup
if the state says FuCK OFF....then no one has to
unless you personally want to
and that goes with all laws rules regulations
its our amendment rights

this is a HUGE STEP
a very very very good thing
does has holes so I'm a bit warry...but means legalization is possible as well as all sorts of other topics and issues






I could be a bit wrong, but generally this is what I believe it means :)
so gay rights, marijuana, guns, state tax....everything technically could be effected on a state level instead of one universal control by the federal government over every state

[Furious Styles]

I could be a bit wrong, but generally this is what I believe it means :)
so gay rights, marijuana, guns, state tax....everything technically could be effected on a state level instead of one universal control by the federal government over every state

That could lead to some interesting changes. Have to keep my eyes on this one!

[budaho]

interesting. it would be more interesting if they named specific federal acts that violate the 10th ammendment and stated that the state shall no longer comply with them.

[DJ Nikon]

do keep in mind how bills and laws are made and passed
how many are brought up and die before ever getting a public vote

this is a 50/50 street...so its not a cure-all to end-all either

its still a legal process of democracy (to an extent)
so if it makes it up and to vote, then its whatever the popular vote maybe

[Cethe]

this is a 50/50 street...so its not a cure-all to end-all either


so what's this mean in regards to federal hiway monies...earmarked for a new 520 & viaduct?


i mean i like the idea of the feds staying outta my homelife more & the state able to back me up on that.

but...i like/want nice hiways...i-5 is a mess in most of it...and how many roads washed out this winter?

idunno man....some good...some bad...

[B_tech]

interesting. it would be more interesting if they named specific federal acts that violate the 10th ammendment and stated that the state shall no longer comply with them.
Yea, there's not much in that legislation. It's vague (likely for a reason), but I'd like to know what precipitated this. It's basically an affirmation of the federalist system that IS the United States.

I think it's a call to arms, so to speak... to ask the Pres to right the wrongs that Bush has done.

[B_tech]

so what's this mean in regards to federal hiway monies...earmarked for a new 520 & viaduct?

Nothing. The 'House Joint Memorial' simply states that "Washington is a soverign state", which ALL STATES are... our state legislature is asking/telling the prez that we do not wish to see the continuation of the Federal Government 'treat states as agents of the Federal Government'... ie, make them below the Fed. The FISA/Wiretapping legislation, the Patriot Act... all are demonstrations of this.

It does NOT affect how the state receives monies from the Fed.

[DJ Nikon]

I agree with cethe, I've thought about it but dunno either way
I wonder if that'll mess with state dollars OR if really its just to right what Bush has wronged



http://www.thenewstribune.com/topstories/story/617729.html
and this applies to any topic
there will be those opposed to it, so if it were all the way open to debate and popular vote, that could hinder too


mainly I wonder if its:

MORE (choice) TO RIGHTS vs $$$$$

[DJ Nikon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[balance one]

interesting. it would be more interesting if they named specific federal acts that violate the 10th amendment and stated that the state shall no longer comply with them.

Yes I would like to see which ones specifically as well, but the list is probably a mile long. All going back to the depression when America was sold to the world's central banking regime.

so what's this mean in regards to federal hiway monies...earmarked for a new 520 & viaduct?


i mean i like the idea of the feds staying outta my homelife more & the state able to back me up on that.

but...i like/want nice hiways...i-5 is a mess in most of it...and how many roads washed out this winter?

idunno man....some good...some bad...

I think that private sector should step in and take over this industry, roads are in a terrible state all over the country. Our state/local governments barely keeping up with their intended purposes let alone all these extra pies we have our fingers in.

Yea, there's not much in that legislation. It's vague (likely for a reason), but I'd like to know what precipitated this. It's basically an affirmation of the federalist system that IS the United States.

I think it's a call to arms, so to speak... to ask the Pres to right the wrongs that Bush has done.

I hate to say it but Bush was just the tip of the ice burg... there are far bigger fish to fry. I'm pretty sure this isn't a call to arms otherwise... we would have been called to arms... ?

Nothing. The 'House Joint Memorial' simply states that "Washington is a soverign state", which ALL STATES are... our state legislature is asking/telling the prez that we do not wish to see the continuation of the Federal Government 'treat states as agents of the Federal Government'... ie, make them below the Fed. The FISA/Wiretapping legislation, the Patriot Act... all are demonstrations of this.

It does NOT affect how the state receives monies from the Fed.

Actually it probably will affect the way our state receives money from the Fed. A little something called the war on drugs provides a bunch of cash at the state level if the state complies with all the unconstitutional practices instituted by the DEA, FBI and the CIA.

[budaho]

Yes I would like to see which ones specifically as well, but the list is probably a mile long. All going back to the depression when America was sold to the world's central banking regime.




thats the thing tho, if there not specifically in the legislation then the legislation doesn't mean anything. its basically just a message sent with the official sanction of the legislature saying that they disagree with the federal government's unconstitutional amassing of power. a power grab that started long before bush was even a little flame (i started to say twinkle but it just didn't fit) in daddy bush's eyes.

this bill won't do a thing to the state's receipt of federal money either.

now if future legislation does declare that the state government is not to comply with specific federal policies, then that will certainly have an effect on federal funding. in many cases federal funding for things like roads, schools, or law enforcment are directly tied to compliance with certain, often comletely unrelated federal policies. the case that imediately comes to mind is the threat of witholding education funding from states that failed to enact drunk driving limitations. if anything with teeth is ever passed by state legislatures it will certainly impact funding, but this bill is just cowtowing to the sizeable chunk of former repubs and dems that supported ron paul during the election.

[balance one]

I guess we just wait and see...

[k1e0x]

...a buncha verbose legalese that I don't have time to decipher... can you break it down homie?

Ok, had time to sit down and read it.

Basically the state is declaring that the Federal Government can not dictate to them in regards to powers *not* delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Soo.... for instance.. The Federal Government could not force the State of Washington to provide a health care program, or force them to implement REAL ID. (The feds can make a fed program.. but not a state program.. least as I understand the statement.)

Remember this is WASHINGTON STATE. Don't expect any great freedom revolutions here, this place is becoming a borderline police state.

It's somewhat ironic the State seems to believe in the 10th Amendment, but not other parts of the constitution (such as the 2nd). You know of coarse what I think.. I think the Constitution is a dead letter without any legal basis anymore..

The "Declaration of Sovereignty" is somewhat interesting however.. because "sovereign" means King.. and when the colonies broke away from Great Brittan, the PEOPLE declared sovereignty. Each *man* was declared sovereign. This move was totally radical, shocking, and unheard of. This concept was so confusing for the people back in Great Brittan that William Pitt had to be sent to the House of Commons to explain what the Declaration of Independence meant.

These are the words he used..
"The poorest man may in his cottage,
bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.
It may be frail, its roof may shake;
the wind may blow through it;
the storm may enter; the rain may enter;
but the King of England may not enter;
all his force dares not cross the threshold
of the ruined tenement."

The poorest man may bid defiance to the crown.. Do you see many poor men bid defiance to the Washington State Police today? ;) Not likely.. Perhaps they should likewise declare sovereignty from the state.

[balance one]

Perhaps they should likewise declare sovereignty from the state.

Very good point!

[B_tech]

Actually it probably will affect the way our state receives money from the Fed. A little something called the war on drugs provides a bunch of cash at the state level if the state complies with all the unconstitutional practices instituted by the DEA, FBI and the CIA.
That's not what this statement is referring to.

[Nukegrrrl]

That's not what this statement is referring to.
And now that the War On Drugs/Drug Czar position is being held by Seattle's police chief Kerliwowske, balance one's point is moot for more than one reason.

[DJ Nikon]

moot = wewt?

j/k