Infowars | Texas has joined the states’ right and Tenth Amendment movement by introducing House Concurrent Resolution No. 50, filed earlier this week by Republican state representatives Leo Berman, Brandon Creighton, and Bryan Hughes. H.C.R. 50 cites Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
“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,” the resolution declares, while “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.’”
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…
H.C.R. 50 serves “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 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or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”
Finally, the resolution directs the Texas secretary of state to forward official copies of the resolution to president Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi, the president of the Senate, Joe Biden, and all members of the Texas delegation to the Congress. In addition, there is an official request that the resolution be entered in the Congressional Record as a “memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.”
Texas joins Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia, states that have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are also considering such measures.
“While the ramifications of these resolutions are still uncertain, one thing is clear,” writes Barbara Minton. “People are sick and tired of the federal government’s usurpation of power not granted to it by the Constitution. They have had enough of fear based economic terrorism and underhanded promotion of policies and procedures that bypass public scrutiny and the will of the people.”
It should be noted that a resolution is a statement and not law and does not necessarily represent a consensus of a state legislature. “Still, the fact that two states, California and Georgia, have already passed their versions of state sovereignty may be setting the stage for secession down the road if the federal government continues to show its scorn for the Constitution. The Oklahoma resolution has already passed in the House and is awaiting vote in the state Senate to be codified,” writes Minton.
For more information on the Tenth Amendment and states’s right movement, see this Infowars resource page on the subject.
As should be expected, the corporate media has all but ignored H.C.R. 50, while Vince Leibowitz of Dallas-based Pegasus News calls the resolution “bizarre” and intimates that Berman, Creighton, and Hughes are insane. Leibowitz’s comments are a sad testament on how out of touch many Americans are when it comes to the Constitution and the increasing encroachments of the federal government.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
The Constitution was written for the common man and it is his understanding that gives it its meaning.
What are rights? Rigts objectively belong to the individual and constitutes the basis of justice or the responsibility of society to permit each individual to achieve that which belongs to his perfection.Justice has its own special object and this is called the just which is the same as the "right".
The states are sovereignly free to determine how they will achieve this perfection in as much as it is possible to attain and to reach it.The 9th Amendment was to ensure that the federal government did not introduce rights into the state whether they thought they needed them or not.It was not for the federal government to tell or determine for the states by what rights they were to obtain their individual perfection. Each state was and still is free to determine this and the manner it is achieved may vary from state to state.
If the US government cannot do this under the 9th Amendment then the US government cannot do it under the 14th Amendment.The 9th Amendment could abridge any rights they deem not in their best interests and can do the same with the privileges and immunity clause of the 14th Amendment since it is the US government operative in both cases.
In Art4 Sec2 privileges is used instead of rights, which is not used in the 9th Amendment.Privileges is also used in the 14th Amendment.Is there a distinction between privileges and rights or do they mean the same thing? Furthermore in Art4 Sec2 it says "the citizens of each etc"Since the state has the right to abridge the rights,privileges,and immunities of the citizens of its state then what are the privileges and immunities of the US that are mentioned in the 14th Amendment.What is to be done in the case of conflict?Both the 9th and 10 Amendments are laws.
In any case the Bill of Rights was to ensure unwarranted,illegal, and unlawful intrusion by the Federal Government into the affairs of the states.Furthermore if the privileges and immunities of the US were to interfere with the individual states and their legitimate ends then they have no legal authority.All one has to know is whether it is good,right,and just.As far as I am concerned the 9th Amendment is still operative against the intrusion of the Federal Government.
Amendment X
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 powers not delegated to the US means those powers not delegated to Congress, the Presidency,and the courts,specifically the Supreme Court.
The powers delegated to the Congress are to be found under Art1 Sec8 and these are the only powers they have and the Supreme Court in making its opinions should stick to this.These are delegated powers granted to the Federal Government who is our agent,supposedly work for us as employees and should never forget that these powers were granted by the states in compact in which the Federal Government does not participate.
"There is a host of instances where the federal government has overstepped its authority concerning states rights. The entire abortion debate should be left up to the individual states; liberals have no problem when a single state passes legislation to allow gay marriage, why not allow all states to pass their own abortion laws as well? It is true that states have the right to impose certain restrictions on abortion, but I’m talking about making it legal or illegal totally within the individual state legislatures. A state could do that, but they would be hauled into court so fast, and the eventual result would be federal law trumping state law."This statement was made by Gov.Rick Perry of Texas.
Federal law does not trump state law in many instances particularly if not made in pursuance of the Constitution and if it is contrary to the general welfare of the state. Furthermore state legislatives can overturn Supreme Court opinions.An opinion is holding to one side of a proposition while in fear the other side may yet may be true.All opinions are always erronerus with the exception that the opinion may be true but the one giving it may not know it to be so.The judges formed this opinion in sheer ignorance.A law has to be an ordinance of reason not framed in absolute ignorance.
The legislative,governmental,and judiciary powers of the states were not given to the Federal Government.Using Gov.Perry's example of abortion any state in the union can declare this law null and void for any number of reasons.What if the Governor alone or acting with the legislature overturned the abortion law and its horrific extensions.What about parents not needing parental norification? How is this going to end up in court?Just ignore the courts.What are they or what can they do that cannot be upset? Are they going to drag Gov.Perry into court.I don't think so.If push comes to shove he uses the police powers of the state.
There are many other resources such as nullification,interposition,and if need be secession which every state in the Union can do legally and lawfully.
How does Roe get her case heard in the Supreme Court? There are no provisions anywhere in Art3 Sec2. They created a privacy right and used the 14th Amendment.But such a right can be ignored by the states both on the 9th and 10th Amendment.It is for the states to determine the limits of privacy for their citizens and for the states to determine whether or not they will grant abortion on a state by state basis. Since the states are self-determining this Roe vs Wade should have been only for the state of Texas who could have still overturned it.The state legislatures are the checks and balances on the Supreme Court.
Any state can make or abridge the privileges and immunities of any so called citizen of the US within its borders if such person represents a threat to the common good and general welfare of the state.And this is not a federal case nor is it to be given federal jurisdiction.
To me federally guaranteed rights are a means to circumvent states rights.If the federal government doesn't like the way the states are doing things they simply create rights that infringe on the 9the and 10th Amendments.This is not to say that things didn't need to be done but it could have been handled differently. It is not for the federal government to provide for the general welfare.Agencies were created that came under the necessary and proper clause.