10th Amendment | The Conservative Sensei

State’s Rights, Anyone?

26 Jul 2009 @ 9:17 PM

State's Rights are Back in Style

Governor Rick Perry of the great state of Texas is once again making a stand against a Federal Government that continues to ignore the Constitution and try to force their will on the citizens of his state. You will recall that Governor Perry made BIG news when he refused $550 Million of the Federal stimulus because it would have caused a financial burden on his state once the Federal money ran out.

He has stated in this article (Click the picture) that he would not accept the Federal run health care program if it survives DC and is pushed to the states. He claims this right under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. While he hopes that he can help defeat the bill before it passes in DC, he is reserving the right to refuse the plan if need be in the future.

Posted By: The Sensei
Last Edit: 26 Jul 2009 @ 09:17 PM

Email • Permalink • Comments (0)

Categories: 10th Amendment, Constitution, Economy, Government, Law, States Rights

Power to the 10th Amendment!

22 Jul 2009 @ 10:24 PM

The Long Lost Constitution

Alaska has passed a state sovereignty bill that states the following:

“Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state 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.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

(Click the picture for the associated article) This is an important move by Alaska and its Governor who have decided that the Federal Government is over reaching its Constitutional authority. If the Fed continues to pass legislation that has associated monetary policies, they are telling the states how to do business.

What does that mean? Let me explain. When our “leaders” passed the myriad bailouts they attached certain monies for the states for specific social programs of their choosing. Now, you could argue that is was a good thing but here is the problem: The states are left holding the bag when the stimulus money goes away. Get it? Take South Carolina: They take the money and increase the amount of money that qualifying personnel get in their state. The bail out is good for 2 years. What happens after 2 years? The checks decrease if South Carolina doesn’t fund the increases.

The Federal Government does not have the authority to direct state budgets. Read the Constitution folks. It may not be around for much longer.

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 25 Jul 2009 @ 02:59 PM

Email • Permalink • Comments (2)

Categories: 10th Amendment, Blogs, Conservative, Constitution, Government, Law, Un-Constitutional

Beginning of the End? Oklahoma House passes sovereignty bill

02 Mar 2009 @ 6:54 PM

So the great state of Oklahoma has stepped up and passed a socereignty bill. What does this mean? I’m glad you asked.

“That the State of Oklahoma hereby claims 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.”

The language of HJR 1003 further serves notice to the federal government “to cease and desist, effectively immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

This isn’t a single state acting on its own, some 20 other states are currently taking or are working on legislation that will have the same effect. The Federal Government has a role as detailed in the US Constitution. I, for one, am glad to see some of the states are waking up trying to bring the power back to the states and the people, where it belongs. Press on!

Oklahoma House passes sovereignty bill.

Posted By: conservativesensei
Last Edit: 02 Mar 2009 @ 06:54 PM

Email • Permalink • Comments (3)

Categories: 10th Amendment, Blogs, Conservative, Constitution, Government, Law, News, States Rights

If the US Constitution is Living, When Did it Become Viable?

14 Dec 2008 @ 11:01 PM

In a society today that thinks everything is relative and there is no right or wrong it becomes harder and harder for segments of society to claim they actually believe in something without those people immediately being branded various derogatory names. Closed minded, unintelligent, simpletons, bigoted…etc.

One clear example of this happening is from the so called “Living Constitution” advocates throughout the United States. Their position, put in the most simplest terms here, is that the US Constitution is living and therefore the meaning of the document evolves as societal standards evolve. This triggers about 47 ,000 questions in my head when I hear this but lets keep it to a couple due to space and time considerations.

If the US Constitution is living, when did it become viable? Liberals have used the viability argument for sometime to justify the killing of innocent babies (Abortion) for decades. ”The fetus is not viable and could not survive outside the mother’s womb therefore it is her right to abort it.” Sound familiar? So, back to the original question? When is the Constitution viable and able to survive on its own? Was it when it was amended to allow suffrage for women? How about when it was amended to abolish racist Poll Tax policies? Or, I know, how about the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in the United States? Were any of these the viability point?

I offer to anyone reading this that none of the above instances proved that the Constitution was, is, or every will be a “Living” document. The Constitution does not nor could it every have attempted to foresee and address every single issue that becomes faddish or hip during the nuances of a changing society. (Read Abortion “rights”, Same Sex marriage, Gun ban or restriction gun legislation.) All of the above illustrations are clear examples of the Constitution being amended to deal with issues not addressed in the Constitution. See the pattern?

The founding fathers could not have imagined a society that argued that killing an unborn baby was a mother’s right or that the government could pass laws that took away your right to own a gun because a person lived in a specific geographical region (Washington D.C., for instance). The Constitution isn’t living and should not be viewed as such. Certainly not from the “enlightened” left who only think it is living when it helps their newest pet cause.

The Constitution is not alive! Advocates can not simply add to it when they find it convenient. If it doesn’t specifically address it, it doesn’t address it. It becomes a legislative issue at that point and falls back to each state and by proxy, the people, to decide what the laws will be. If the citizens of this great country agree that something should be addressed by the Constitution, then it has to be added (read amended) not magical inserted through acts of judicial activism. The 10th Amendment says it best:

“The Powers not delegate to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”