North Dakota House of Representatives passes resolution affirming sovereignty

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The North Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution affirming North Dakota's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

They resolved and affirmed state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government.

They demand that the federal government stop assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment provides powers not delegated by the Constitution. It defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution and no more.

The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states, rather than the states being agents of the federal government.

Many powers assumed by the federal government and federally mandated are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment.

The president has discontinued our sovereignty and effectively repealed the Declaration of Independence by agreeing at the G-20 meeting to create an international board with authority to intervene in U.S. corporations.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states.

A number of previous proposals and some now pending from the current administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution.

To preserve our freedom, it would be wise if all the state legislatures followed North Dakota's lead and affirmed state sovereignty guaranteed under the 10th Amendment.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/04...04172009/459728

[AlHayatZween 2]

Remember a couple of months ago, that Russian guy (or Ukranian?) proposed that the US was just going to crumble into like 4 or 5 smaller nations (the southeast, the northeast, california, etc...)?

we were laughing at him then...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think anyone quite realized how totally unhinged the wingnuts would get at an Obama presidency.

[fozzie 41]

Times change and the needs of the nation change with it. A peice of paper written 200 years ago cannot be releveant forever. Common Law moves with society as it changes, so why not the constitution. You don't see me clinging to the Magna Carta!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Times change and the needs of the nation change with it. A peice of paper written 200 years ago cannot be releveant forever. Common Law moves with society as it changes, so why not the constitution. You don't see me clinging to the Magna Carta!!

The Constitution is what holds this country together.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Times change and the needs of the nation change with it. A peice of paper written 200 years ago cannot be releveant forever. Common Law moves with society as it changes, so why not the constitution. You don't see me clinging to the Magna Carta!!

You're suggesting that we shouldn't strictly interpret the constitiution in a literal manner?

That's blasphemy. Don't let the second amendment nutters hear you say that.

[AlHayatZween 2]

The South (Texas & Louisiana) may be able to sustain itself because of oil revenues & potential exports... Same with Alaska. The Midwest maybe with foodstuffs, grain, etc...

If the Northeast becomes a nation of its own, how will we sustain ourselves? Maybe we can export our good ideas and good maple syrup (from Vermont).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Texas consumes more oil than it produces. Their peak oil production was decades ago.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Texas consumes more oil than it produces. Their peak oil production was decades ago.

wait, are you talking about cooking oils?

[Niels Bohr 72]

I am laughing at myself now for laughing at the Russian Guy.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think anyone quite realized how totally unhinged the wingnuts would get at an Obama presidency.

Unhinged? What is it that you don't like about it? I think it's a good resolution.

They demand that the federal government stop assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution.

Good!

It defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution and no more.

Good!

The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states, rather than the states being agents of the federal government.

Agreed!

Many powers assumed by the federal government and federally mandated are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Yep.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

North Dakota - another state of rebelling federal teat suckers. Over the five year span 2001 - 2005, the Union provided net support to each ND resident in the amount of $21,600.00 - i.e. for each resident in ND the state paid 21,600.00 less in taxes to the fed than the state received from the fed.

If all these teat sucking states (thus far MT, ND, OK) would leave the union, we might just get that federal budget straightened out.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

North Dakota - another state of rebelling federal teat suckers. Over the five year span 2001 - 2005, the Union provided net support to each ND resident in the amount of $21,600.00 - i.e. for each resident in ND the state paid 21,600.00 less in taxes to the fed than the state received from the fed.

If all these teat sucking states (thus far MT, ND, OK) would leave the union, we might just get that federal budget straightened out.

TX? They're in front.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

North Dakota - another state of rebelling federal teat suckers. Over the five year span 2001 - 2005, the Union provided net support to each ND resident in the amount of $21,600.00 - i.e. for each resident in ND the state paid 21,600.00 less in taxes to the fed than the state received from the fed.

If all these teat sucking states (thus far MT, ND, OK) would leave the union, we might just get that federal budget straightened out.

TX? They're in front.

They ain't sucking on Uncle Sam's teat, though. They're giving about as much as they're taking. That's why I didn't include them here. I just think it's hillarious how those states that take more from the Union than they give are the ones making the most noise about their sovereignty. I could understand such sentiments coming from net contributors but here you have the states that can't stand on their own making all the noise. Teat suckers.

[Kevin and 10]

Sovereignty and seceding are two different things.

The States claiming sovereignty are just exercising their Constitution rights, using the 9th and 10th amendment. States are supposed to have power over the Fed.

Secesion is leaving.