Log in to become a member of Joel Hendon's Fan Club!
On February 2, 2009, the state legislature of New Hampshire took a huge and bold step, unprecedented as far as I know. But from what I have read thus far, I'm on their side one hundred percent. They introduced a resolution, HCR 6, which declares many of the federal government's actions and laws null and void.
I'm glad New Hampshire did that, because if it had been done in some southern state such as Alabama, Mississippi or such, the entire nation would have ridiculed us into the ground. But these people have addressed a subject which has been long known to a lot of us. Here are the introductory remarks to their resolution:
A RESOLUTION affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, "First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;" and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring
This resolution has far reaching implications. It basically says that gun laws, hate laws, and such passed by the feds are null and void, that such laws are left to the individual states and the Federal government has no right to intervene. This has been a problem for decades, where the federal government has usurped the authority of the states. We have had third party candidates from all over who have included much of this into their platforms, only to get nowhere. But I believe the main thing New Hampshire is doing here is to give warning that further actions in the directions of gun control, etc. Will not be tolerated without reciprocal action. Just what action is questionable but it could get nasty if enough states buy into this.
Joel an interesting article. Now if I recall we did fight a war over states rights sometime ago? Now just what does the Constitution allow the government to do? Well short of writing it all over again when it can be read by one and all. Hum, provide for the common defense. That seems right? Provide for domestic tranquility? Once again, we can all buy that but where has that gone? To provide for the general welfare and the common good. Now thats a truly sad laugh. Have they changed that somewhere along the way to for the "world." Oh, yes and this they are good at, to raise taxes. Yes and don't forget just a short time ago we were a Republic, once that is. Yes the same as Rome. That means we elect representatives from each state, who as duly elected and sworn before God to be representatives of each state are to insure that for the citizens of their respective state. I think that has been changed to pork barrel? Now can anyone else embellish this before we split the union all over again? Good work, interesting.
Hi Robert, yes this is definitely an interesting occurance. Just what, if anything, it will amount to, I don't know. But it is encouraging to me that these legislators have had the desire to express this anyway.
Hi Gregory, thanks for reading and the comment. I'm no authority on this subject, however, what the NH legislature has laid out is true. If I understand it correctly, they U.S. Government should have no say whatsoever in states affairs other than those they specified.
You see, this is what caused the war between the states. Not nearly all the people in the south were determined to keep slavery, but nearly all were convinced that the federal government had no right to force their opinion upon them, thus some states seceded from the union, just like some of the states of the former Soviet Union, such as Georgia.
But the law was determined by who carried the biggest stick, not the constitution. Same with segregation. Many of us in the south welcomed desegregation, but many resented the Feds interference. Take George Wallace. He was not a racist. He ran for governor as a segregationist, but after the Feds moved in, he turned out to be a pretty good governor. I never once voted for him, but facts are facts.
Take prostitution for instance, in Nevada, brothels operate openly and are not illegal in several counties. Rhode Island does not allow brothels or street walker solicitation, however, sex for cash is not illegal. These types of sorriness are left to the states, or were supposed to be, but it is like the two poker players. After dealing one said, "Hey I win, I have a straight flush". The other guy says, "no you don't, I've got 3 nines and a .45". The other guy says, "Man, how come you are so lucky"?
We almost always have some 3 party candidate(s) running on this type platform, giving back the states their rights. As bad as I am against abortion, I do agree that the constitution would allow each state to make that decision. States are supposed to be sovreign, but only a member of the union for free commerce, national protection from other nations, etc. Our government now is probably 100 times the size that it should be.
Don't take all this as gospel, it is only my understanding. And again I am no authority on it.
Gregory, as the situation now stands, there are some things, and I guess illegal drugs is one of them, that a state would face real problems if they tried to legalize them. But that is the point this resolution is making, the government does not have constitutional authority to do what Obama has done since his swearing in. That of ending all limitations to abortion, that is not authority given him by the constitution. And several other things.
There are four other states which have issued resolutions similar to this one, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arizona and Washington state.
There will be many more, I'm sure. Some of them are spelling out the items which they do not intend to accept.
Actually, each state is supposed to be autonomuous, only signed into a union agreement. But the federal government has been usurping states authorities fo years now and it appears that it is coming to a head. It could mean lots and lots of trouble.
Joel, great article. Very informative. I am in agreement with NH, and I think you are right about the federal government interveining in some instances. I am sure that would have to be a collective absolute for the congress and the senate, i.e. Drugs, abortions, etc. I sure that all states would not want the headaches associated with such a thing anyway. I really enjoyed this.....very thought provoking, and hopefully a awakening for all......Well done my friend, Great article.....I also agree with what Robert is saying as well.....your friend in pen.....Gary.....always like reading your work.
It is always a pleasure to get your engouraging comments. I also agree with New Hampshire, and the other 4 states who have also written such resolutions. It is time that the feds stop running over the states. But as you say, things like drugs need a really heavy hand and of course, states have the right to grant such authority to them.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
