What's new

Texas Gov. Declares State Sovereignty

Billski

Here I am, 1st again.
Texas Gov. Declares State Sovereignty
4/14/2009

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
AUSTIN, TX – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

VIDEO »Video: Click Here
Gov. Perry of Texas
“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

To view the full text of the resolution, please visit:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm.


By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50



CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads as follows: "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";
and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the
Constitution of the United States and no more; and
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 government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union
of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal
government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim 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; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.
 
Just a suggestion - but why don't we put a lid on the political crap?

It really doesn't add anything to the group here. It certainly doesn't seem to generate much in the way of worthwhile discussion. It is of little or no value to forum participants from outside the USA.

There are literally millions of products, services, experiences, etc. for us B&B fans to discuss.

Please don't turn this community into some sort of recruiting ground for (whatever) political philosophy you follow.
 
Just a suggestion - but why don't we put a lid on the political crap?

It really doesn't add anything to the group here. It certainly doesn't seem to generate much in the way of worthwhile discussion. It is of little or no value to forum participants from outside the USA.

There are literally millions of products, services, experiences, etc. for us B&B fans to discuss.

Please don't turn this community into some sort of recruiting ground for (whatever) political philosophy you follow.

I never thought I'd be in here defending "the political crap" but I think there are some very worthwhile discussions on the subject. Some of the most interesting points I read are brought up by Americans and my fellow non-Americans alike.

I avoid a lot of the politics on this site but sometimes it's fun to see a global discussion on what would normally be a boring topic. Besides, most of the time things stay on track or get back on track very quickly. So if people want to discuss politics in here, I say go for it. :wink:

Though I admit there really isn't much to discuss in the OP...
 
I disagree!!! :tongue:

hehe.

Seee.. someone (like myself) might ask..

WHY NOW?

What about the last 8 years of Bush? Everything HE did was a-ok, but now suddenly when Obama is in office, ya'll are screaming about "States' rights" ?

I think it's just an example of the South trying to "rise again" if you know what i mean..




Now, I would never post that because I know it might be inflamatory.. :lol:
 
i find this kind of interesting and i am not much for politics. though i am unsure from this post alone why this has been brought up or even what exactly it is in reference to (why texas was prompted to do so now).


i may read a bit of political discussion but i generally just ignore threads about topics i do not find interesting. not sure what past threads around here on the subject turn into, but seems like this section of forum is for pretty much anything not in the shaving related category of discussion. so i am unsure why posting political threads (that are not demeaning to people specifically) should not be allowed.

but who knows i have not been on this forum long
 
hehe.

Seee.. someone (like myself) might ask..

WHY NOW?

What about the last 8 years of Bush? Everything HE did was a-ok, but now suddenly when Obama is in office, ya'll are screaming about "States' rights" ?

I think it's just an example of the South trying to "rise again" if you know what i mean..




Now, I would never post that because I know it might be inflamatory.. :lol:

Yeah, that could be just a little inflammatory... :lol:

Though if you did post something like that I would be inclined to agree that one can't help but notice the timing. :wink:
 
i find this kind of interesting and i am not much for politics. though i am unsure from this post alone why this has been brought up or even what exactly it is in reference to (why texas was prompted to do so now).


i may read a bit of political discussion but i generally just ignore threads about topics i do not find interesting. not sure what past threads around here on the subject turn into, but seems like this section of forum is for pretty much anything not in the shaving related category of discussion. so i am unsure why posting political threads (that are not demeaning to people specifically) should not be allowed.

but who knows i have not been on this forum long

Well, in recent B&B history (six months to a year ago?) there was an outbreak of political threads and very few of them were able to stay on track without getting locked and having the mods do a few practice swings with the ban hammer. Most, if not all, of the people involved in those threads aren't here anymore for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

Politics always get people riled up, no matter where you go, and since the Internet provides a certain sense of anonymity a lot of people will act a lot differently than they would in public. Every now and then there's still a thread that goes in the wrong direction and I think some people are worried history will repeat itself.
 
When Texas became a state, I believe, as part of the deal, that it was written into their constitution that they were free to leave the union, should that ever need to be done.

But I've been wrong before.
 
To stay on point factually...I believe it is not a southern thing alone as ther are 27 others such state resolutions proposed.
 
lol well i am from texas and am very used to comments about texas especially in the political light (we are to much fun to ignore).

When Texas became a state, I believe, as part of the deal, that it was written into their constitution that they were free to leave the union, should that ever need to be done.

But I've been wrong before.

this is correct but there are lot of unknowns if that were to happen (it won't happen i am pretty positive on that). but fun speculation was something like texas as an independent nation could possibly have the 9th or maybe it was 13th largest economy in the world.

again that's all speculation and assumes we would function with the same efficiency without being part of the US (pretty radical assumption IMHO)
 
Yes indeed, I hope I can say something with adding fuel to the (potential?) fire (not sure if that analogy is possible, maybe I'd be starting the fire). Anyway, the timing is interesting. I would say that states are under quite a bit of pressure at the moment to fall in line, where the feds don't have real authority to tell them to. HOWEVER, this is not something new, and yes, someone could hark back to the last eight years, but it wasn't new then either.

I am no student of the law, so I can not remember every specific instance of the feds "gently" stepping around that amendment, but I do recall (not personally, but from hearsay and folklore) way back when states would lose tons of funding if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21 (where it is still not officially on the books in many states) or when funding would be cut if they didn't fall in on lowering the legal amount of alcohol allowed when driving (however you should say that, I garbled it up. i.e. .1 to .08.)

Maybe I drink too much or Americans do or our government is too concerned about it, but for some reason those are two prime examples I can think of. Someone tell me if I am wrong though, and there was some reason the federal government could do that in those cases.
 
Unfunded mandates have been part and parcel of the US government since Roosevelt at least.

Though the timing may be the result of partisan politics, I say hear-hear and what took ya so long. I would love to see this end in secession for Texas - that would do more to tame the ravenous US government beast than any other single thing I can think of.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom