Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty

Eyemagistus,

Those of us who were lucky enough to spend our formative years IN Oklahoma, wandered about at will and then returned when we wanted to, don't seem to have the same immobility problems you're suffering. Not sure if there's a connection at the formative years or what, but I don't see what's so difficult about the series...key in ignition, turn on, put in gear, drive until the zip code changes.

But I would like to say this - Oklahoma has a great heritage...one you seem to not quite understand. Oklahoma is not the pinnacle of the Indian holocaust, but where the survivors of that holocaust made their new home in spite of the repetitive lies and murderous acts of white folk who spent their formative years or remained war-mongering in OTHER states. And the historical record shows we have contributed more per capita to intellectual endeavors such as aeronautics, astronautics and things I'd be glad to take the time to school you on, but only after you've rid my state of your worthless malcontent.

[snip]
[edit on 6-16-2008 by Valhall]

Texas friendly edit.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by dbates]

This is simply wonderful! More than that, it is absolutely correct and exactly what the states need to do! It is only because of the corrupt media that the Feds have gotten away with this for so long. There is no authority for the national parks, EPA,FBI, etc., etc.. States are absolutely not 2nd class citizens to the feds. The feds have limited powers and abuse them all.

I ran into my Rep. today and asked him about the resolution. He said it was in response to the Mexican Highway and it is a non binding resolution.

I get the impression that this resolution is more of a " we are watching you" kind of a deal.

To Eyemagistus, what Valhall said, plus don't leave mad, just leave and bless your heart.

Roper

Oklahoma is also one of the national leaders in elder abuse and near the bottom in health care. If I thought I could trust all you good okie Christians with my own mother, I could put her in a nursing home and go back to my own life, now that she has survived cancer.
But alas, I am not a Christian, so I told her not to worry. I will stay here and take care of her until the end. She could not survive another move anyways.

This place is a real paradise for you angry white men who need to blame everyone else for their problems. You guys should form your own tribe on some really sh#tty land no one else wants. Maybe you could get the same kind of "sovereignty" you gave the Indians.

You guys really crack me up -- Kill the messenger, ignore the message. Yeah, that'l work.

how the hell is this not making the news at ALL

Originally posted by jhill76

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
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 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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 BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
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.
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.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President
of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker

of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

PDF Document

The last time this was done, civil war broke out. Do the members here think that the Feds will actually cease and desist? This is good, I hope more people who know more about politics can weigh in.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by jhill76]

I think I want to move back to Oklahoma (I spent some time there as a 2nd Lt).

How old are you people? Just give the facts and your opinion on the subject, please. Take your childish ways to the playground.

JHR 1089 is not dead.

from the WorldNetDaily

Though House Joint Resolution 1089 received great support in Oklahoma's House of Representatives, it has now hit a roadblock. In the state's Senate, where the seats are split, 24-24, between Republicans and Democrats, the resolution was sent to the Senate's rules committee, where it languished without action until the legislature adjourned.

This resolution was not "killed" as a few websites have claimed. It went to the Senate's rules committee but was never acted up in the 2008 Legislative Session. Perhaps the Senate will approve of it once they meet in 2009.

I've lived in Oklahoma for the past ten years and am determine to let the Senate hear my support for this resolution.

reply to post by jhill76


Finally. The state of oklohoma has done what has been needed to be done for quite some time not just by them but by every state in the union. Since at least the Second World War and starting immediatly following the civil war, the Federal governement has continued to pass laws completely overstepping their bounds without legal backing. To make matters worse whenever they can't simply ram a law down the states throats they blackmail, bribe, bamboozle, bully and back door things until they are forced into existance.

For example the Feds decide that they want to raise the drinking age to twenty one. Since this was around the time of vietnam, they couldn't very easily come out and say that because people were dying (in car accidents and such) that they had raise the drinking age, when their actions were forcing men to fly half way around the world at eighteen, many of whom never made it home let alone to twenty one. The government needed a back door and got one in the federeal highway safety act, stating that any state who didn't comply with the drinking age would lose federal funding something states desperatly need since the feds take so much of our paychecks anyway. Bada Bing Bada Boom, Feds get what they wanted by blackmailing states into passing a law they couldn't.

And don't thnk this is an isolated event. The federal government has made a bad habit of scoffing the constitution and using words like National Security and Public Safety to sweep it under the rug. America is far too large and far too diverse to try and force all of us under one penal code. That is the reason for having states, to better deliver on the needs and wants of the people, not to bend over every time the Feds get jonesy. The closer your politicians are to you the closer they are to your needs and watns and the better they are able to act for you. Way to step up OK

I have a technical problem with a state issuing a decree out of the context of the U.S. Constitution. First I realize that there are many people in America that are immigrants, some maybe termed illegal aliens or simply border violators whatever, of the legal immigrants there are also folks from foreign countries here which are here on special purposes which requires them being certified by the other nation to be here in the form of a Visa they must always have in their possession and they do not have to have any special privileges or diplomatic immunity to be here as a few other do and of those a few are capable of handling firearms which they bring from their country. OK this means in essence that America through the orchestration of the Federal Government allowing these foreigners to be within the US and they are also required to have a US Visa if they leave for good reason and this is difficult to understand but some of these individuals have been incarcerated in prisons, technical issues become falsehoods if they are imprisoned without due course or without enough convicting evidence and this can cause their presence in America to lapse beyond the legal date which their country recognizes that their Visa is valid, (are you understanding that much so far), now if they needed to return to their own country where they have a relatives, a wife and children that love them they simply cannot do this or they will be locked up for a illegal Visa (it is this way with Chinese people if you do not understand their legal situation I suggest you study some prisoner records and find one fitting this situation, there is one in fact), OK so if then a Judge in America allows this individual to leave without proper notice he then will be arrested, but also if he does not return within a proper amount of time to America then the Feds can arrest him and he is returned to prison to finish the term regardless if he were guilty or not pending the outcome of the trial but if the date lapses in America that he does not return he never can be granted a Visa again upon return yet the Judge can only make it a valid certification, yet the court of previous session would have to have certified the individual as being in America legally without any reason to return to his or her country. The problem occurs with a state that declares itself sovereign of the U.S. Constitution thinking it is the Feds that are violating the laws within their state through the tenth amendment it will help them resolve the issue, it will not resolve the issue of a foreigner in the United States with a Visa from their country because a state has no jurisdiction to release a prisoner from a prison, only a Federal Judge can do that and the states are not empowering their own Federal Judges that operate on only a state level, it is a regional level like US Districts are encompassing not one but several states and the Federal Laws are compelling for all those states within a certain US District. A lower court has no authority to make a decision and must hand a case to a higher court and the decision cannot be certified if and when the date has lapsed beyond the authorized time span allowed by the other country not American States and not Oklahoma if it were sovereign then it would lose the right for any and all foreigners to travel through it, I mean they could not even land an airplane in that state without being within the Federal Guidelines set forth by their country and America. So this is a problem and Oklahoma needs to understand why the problem exists, it did not get created by either Oklahoma nor surrounding states, it does not get created by the Federal Government, it happens and it does not have to involve a prison or a prisoner cause a simple lapse of a date due to detainment causes a violation to occur not in America always as it occurs in a foreign nation. We have no legal authority to provide a criminal with a Visa to come to America. Problem not solved.

reply to post by OoTopNotchoO


I could give a really long winded explanation about this, but it is very simple.

Oklahoma is not asking for -anything- that is -not- already granted by the Constitution of the United States.

Are you seriously implying that the Constitution be dismantled so foreigners on VISAs have free-reign throughout the country when it is -ultimately- up to the states to decide?

This is not even the issue.

This has only to do with the rights -already- granted to the States in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and the fact that the US Government seems to think they can supercede the States when the Constitution clearly states that "any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States".

They are -NOT- declaring themselves sovereign of the Constitution. The meaning of sovereignty is that you govern yourself, and make your own laws, etc. The Constitution is a document that lays out the framework for the Federal Government and outlines the powers of the Federal Government and gives rights to the States and people. They are declaring that they are sovereign and that the Federal Government does -NOT- have the right to make laws in direct violation of the Constitution.

They have the Constitutional right to govern -themselves- without being impeded by Federal laws that are in violation of our Constitution. We can go over what powers are delegated to the United States, but you are missing the real issue here.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by apolluwn]

reply to post by apolluwn

A state has no power it can enact regarding a Visa for a individual to travel outside the USA or to travel inside the USA that is a Federal matter, if sovereignty neglects a part of the US Constitution which must be adhered to 100% so says the foreign agreements, which came before this idea concept of Oklahoma setting itself outside the wrong doing category by not mentioning anything about having detained individuals throughout its statehood beyond which we could consider a Visa issuance approved date sequence. So, No is the answer to a state allowing a foreigner to go anywhere in America. Even if not it is just one small part omission which would be construed as a change (Feds are not making law violations they are ceasing them according to the US Constitution) and require a new federal agreement to occur in the foreign country but why, for one state alone & there are 50 states in this issue not just Oklahoma. A framework which for the Federal Government must compel itself to command to a large extent without which smaller court entities within states must produce loads of information to understand how and why. Well, where did the US Constitution include a foreigner except to become a American but if a law has been violated a individual couldn't do just that much to get a Visa to come back and that is how the other nation sees a judgment trial thats postponed cause of a lower state court having to produce the paperwork for the Federal Judge to manage the Visa he approved for a few days only so to not miss a trial. It happened to a Chinese man and he was placed in prison in China and couldn't return to the US without a (1) Chinese Visa, (2) Missing trial in the USA is a violation of the US Law. The Federal Judge couldn't write him a reprieve to give the China Govt. laws here are not honored there as such, so the Judge could only issue a Visa to travel and did that but China detained the man in prison beyond that Visa and beyond the trial in the US and this they saw as a violation, again the US Law stepped in a they flew there to get the man out of his jam with China yet his problem was not resolved he had to be returned to prison here. The Federal Judge wanted to send the case upwards to decree the matter closed but was himself being detained and could not. OK so Oklahoma has a Constitutional right, so do the US Citizens that are voters, why should they have to agree to accept the CO2/Carbon Laws if they wanted a Electric Vehicle they should have one and not have to go along with the Gasoline Price Fixation and the 2025 end result when there will be to many people needing fuels for cooking and heating/cooling and a fossil fuel vehicle which would increase in numbers by 10 fold within the US. I mean our freedom has been stollen by the Federal Laws protecting our environment and if we want a Electric Car we have to either take the runt of the litter else pay out the yen yang from $10,000 - $150,000 for one and suppose we needed two vehicles or three vehicles then we got a new change which I look at as the same old Tax Program we have always had to deal with the so called luxury items which they would see as a Electric Vehicle, can we afford the increased taxation, what when 80% of the people get Electric Vehicles, is it then a luxury. If we all had to own a diamond and gold and platinum would it be considered a luxury. It is our freedom which is being scammed off the top of every sound mind. I personally do not need Al Gore nor Obama telling me we need Change, I know what we need and it is Our Freedom Back so we can have what we need instead of what OPEC wants us to have, now its more oil for the buyers says Saudi Arabia. Al Gore in the year 2025 will be either dead or a old man in his dead bed or in a wheelchair telling folks you should have taken me and Obama up on the change when we got cooking together.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by OoTopNotchoO]

reply to post by OoTopNotchoO


You are missing the real issue.

This is already in the Constitution. The states are already sovereign.

Until the visa issue is regarded as an abuse of power not granted by the Constitution this argument is moot.

End of story.

whcih came before this idea concept of Oklahoma setting itself outside the wrong doing category

What came first? The Constitution, or the visa? This is rhetorical.

I personally do not need Al Gore nor Obama telling me we need Change, I know what we need and it is Our Freedom Back

Then why are you trying to say that an amendment in the Bill of Rights granting you freedoms and rights should be disregarded because it could possibly put a snag in someone from China getting here?

Personally, I don't care. I am not giving up my rights because it could possibly inconvenience someone in another country.

reply to post by apolluwn



I have to agree with you on this. It is a battle that needs to be put to rest. There have been so many cases where someone with a visa has killed someone, and use a visa to try and get out of being punished for what they did. That is why we frown on those that have visas today.



[edit on 17-6-2008 by FiatLux]

I have a technical problem with a state issuing a decree out of the context of the U.S. Constitution.

Really? I have a "technical problem" with a President who has used the Constitution and Bill of Rights as kindling and the Congress who fiddled as they burned:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... " '...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I called my state Rep. but they didn't provide any info even though rep voted for it. But here is a news article from today with interview with sponsor. Getting Very Interesting.

www.wnd.com...

I'm dropping in t otell you great thinkers that the AP Show is going to chat with Liberatarian VP pick Wayne Root. For those who care about State's Rights, this might be the guy to ask those burning questions that keep you up late at night.

to those that think this is going away, dying, or already dead, here's a bit of news on the subject from Representive Keys:

Key said his bill "is making a difference" in the way legislators in Oklahoma are talking and thinking about state's rights. "I think it will make even more of a difference," he said, "when I bring it up again." He vows to put the pressure on Oklahoma's Senate to pass a resolution like 1089, and he plans to begin communicating the cause with legislators around the country, urging them to bring up the issue in their states.

Key passed a similar resolution in 1994, when he was serving a previous tenure in the legislature. But that attempt was only a House resolution. He authored 1089 as a joint resolution because, he said, he wanted to increase its exposure. "As people who believe in this constitutional form of government," he said, "we need to bring this issue to a national level and debate."

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by apolluwn

Our rights, mind you any nation that depends on Visa and no Green Card (which takes the place of a Visa for exchange students whom would have a Visa only for the duration of their scholarship without becoming a US citizen). Yes our rights we do not want foreigners misinterpreting so the State Department has to intervene many times to help us when they abuse our rights and those stem from them detaining us and invalidating our Visa on purpose in their country and abuse is another word for harassment.

>> Until the visa issue is regarded as an abuse of power not granted by the Constitution this argument is moot.

Cannot be moot when we are among all the nations that must use some documentation for each individual, the Federal Government makes Visa available and they agree with Visa whether they are communist of dictators like in Iran Visa is important to their leadership to some extent it helps them identify us when there and thats good not moot. Since we are not sharing the operations of this argument with other nations they have to adopt their own procedures, we must therefore either endorse those of find workarounds that they agree with so a state cannot officiate these litigations.

In some ill mannered countries such as was the case in Iraq during Saddam's leadership if a individuals Visa was taken and subsequentially were arrested by Iraq military they then could be executed or treated as traitors. We don't want that to happen over and over again. From the scores of bodies found with open Visa's it appears after death the victums received their Visa back.

Dealing with the United Nations itself instead of the Federal Government doing it via their computer services means two things for people in Oklahoma, more taxes to pay for more computer systems and secondly a new law leadership which orchestrates issues which the Federal Government once would have litigated before a sovereignty issue took place. This would then make the Federal Government computer system into a Proxy or vice versa of the Oklahoma computer system a proxy. Whichever one would have to depend on the other to make contact with the UN and I know for certain the Federal Government will not work that way for the UN. So on two fronts why should the US Senate allow one state to be isolated from the rest of the states on Federal matters that they feel the Feds cannot handle appropriately enough and really theres a docket problem coming from the Oklahoma court systems towards the District Courts and it ties the hand of the Fed Judges anyway by neglecting aspects of the laws which are not written to the Federal Government. It trys to play a Bingo Game with its own numbers. Visa laws are only one issue, there are many Federal issues and to nail which is the prune for the Oklahoma legislature making the madness of the issue of sovereignty from the tenth amendment goes a step to far.