General Question

Sorceren's avatar

Have you heard that some nine of the United States are declaring sovereignty?

Asked by Sorceren (666points) February 8th, 2009

I swear. Not only have nine states now crafted bills in the state senate declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, but if you look at the shipping index, everybody’d better start stockpiling food anyway.

Have you heard a word — or, as is more common with serious news these days, read in the crawl — any of this?
Heard it from “wacko” friends?

If not, why do you think that is?

And if either catastrophe happens, how are you prepared?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

Jayne's avatar

Yes…but this is just a movement for greater state control in government, not a rebellion. It is largely a reaction to what is seen as excessive spending by the federal government, especially in light of the stimulus package going through congress. I quote: “Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.”

laureth's avatar

It just sounds like the States are trying to remind the Feds that the 10th Amendment exists. (The 10th Amendment is nothing all that new.)

laureth's avatar

Also, going to the same website that the guy talked about in the video, the guy recorded his doom-and-gloom prediction at the very bottom of the chart, and it’s gone nowhere but up since then.

Sorceren's avatar

@Jayne — Obama didn’t even come to mid. This is no more his fault than 9/11 was Bush’s. But, @laureth, Congress has been overstepping its bounds since the 17th Amendment passed. It’s only taken 60 years for the states to figure it out.

Sorceren's avatar

Again, have you heard any of this in this news? If not, why do you think that is?

Jeruba's avatar

Because something that happened in 1994 isn’t big news?

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Here, let me quote the language from the bill that Michigan passed.

“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s 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. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

To understand this you need to understand the 10th amendment. There are 2 schools of thought on how to interpret it. Either A: congress has the power to do what they want if not explicitly told they are not allowed by the constitution (this is known as a loose interpretation of the 10th amendment and constitution) or B: congress does not have power to do something unless explicitly stated by the constitution (aka strict interpretation).

Furthermore the major complaint of the state of Michigan is this as quoted from the same document.
“Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal
government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal

Seems to me like these states have decided to define the 10th amendment for the federal government. I think they are just getting tired of footing the bill for a lot of federally imposed regulations and laws etc.

Also it is important to remember that the dictionary definition of sovereignty is not the same as a legal definition. Which could be defined how ever the state of Michigan chooses to define it. I could not find a legal definition attached to this document but I know they are not “succeeding” from the union by declaring sovereignty. But of course, it certainly could become a slippery slope.

Just a side note, at first I totally discredited this Russian professor for saying this, then I read it isn’t the first time his predictions were pretty much spot on, then of course after reading some other interesting things about our government and now this I have to say I am starting to wonder.

Here is my source on that document from Michigan

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Of course here is another persons opinion with similar success in predicting the events, and he also seems to agree with the professor.
– this was edited by me because I realized later that it was not the russian guys words but some other guy who has a similiar opinion – however it still gives some credibility to both people

Jeruba's avatar

Psst:; seceding, withdrawing, is different from succeeding, achieving success.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

lol thanks, I thought it looked funny 0_o

asmonet's avatar

@Jeruba: You beat me to it.

Ria777's avatar

I think that they wanted to withdraw because of GWB. with GWB gone and with Obama as president. and if they did withdraw, then so? I don’t care if the u.s. breaks up into pieces. I don’t think that would happen, though, I see the u.s. as crumbling and liable to collapse for other reasons. see Reinventing Collapse by Dmitry Orlov. this book came up shortly before the stock market collapse and in retrospect seems predictive, though the worst case scenarios described in the book have yet to happen.

laureth's avatar

But… they don’t want to withdraw.

In a Federal system of government, there are (at least) two tiers of soverignty over any jurisdiction: the individual States, and the overarching Federal Government. The 10th amendment tells us that whatever powers are not granted to the Feds are reserved for the States. These bills seem like attempts by the States to remind the Feds not to meddle in things rightly controlled by the States… their soverignty, if you will.

In other words, they’re not reaching for any Soverignty that they don’t already have.

Sorceren's avatar

Yes, @laureth. Exactly — but this is the first time they’ve felt the need to remind the federal government that that sovereignty is theirs and to assert it. To remind the government that they control the fed, not the other way around. They haven’t done this for 60 years — not since the 17th Amendment was passed; that makes this a momentous event. So why isn’t it front page and top story on the news?

@Ria777, not everything can be GWB’s fault. GWB inherited the bad done during Clinton’s watch, yet he got blamed. So Obama’s inheriting all the bad wrought during GWB’s campaign, and everyone’s blaming Bush again. I know some of the bad shit happening must be one of my ex-husbands’ fault. He was always to blame.

@LKidKyle1985, much lurve for your helpful quote and cites. The Wall Street Journal can hardly be accused of being pro-Bush.

Jeruba's avatar

@Sorceren, “this is the first time they’ve felt the need to remind the federal government” is a careless and misleading statement. Not only is states’ rights a very old and hotly contended issue in the U.S. but “this is the first time” suggests that this “reminding” activity is new or recent.

I looked up every one of the links in the source provided. I can’t decipher all the legislative lingo, but I could see this much:

California bill
Introduced April 14, 1994
Filed with Secretary of State 08/29/94

Georgia bill
Introduced 3/10/95
Committed 1/8/96

Oklahoma bill
Resolution first filed in 2008

Montana bill
Draft request received 10/27/2008
To be returned with amendments 04/02/2009

Michigan bill
Introduced 1/22/2009 and referred to committee

Washington bill
Introduced 1/30/09

New Hampshire bill
Introduced 2009

Arizona bill
Introduced 2009

Missouri bill
Bill currently not on a calendar; hearing not scheduled

So for some, this is an old resolution. For some, it is too recent to have been acted on and is simply on the record. For one, apparently nothing is happening. This does not add up to a sudden trend such as you are suggesting.

If you want your interpretation to be taken seriously, it should stay closer to the facts.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther