Monday, February 23, 2009

The States Are Not Branches Of The Federal Government!

The States Are Not Branches Of The Federal Government!
By: J. D. Longstreet

"We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” that from Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges. And more and more state legislators and state legislatures are expressing the very same feelings. And they are doing something about it.

A state senator in Oklahoma, Randy Brogdan, has introduced a resolution that would enable his state to "reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment."

The Tenth Amendment, a part of the "Bill of Rights", says flatly: "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."

Some legal experts say that the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution makes all the efforts of the states moot. The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict. Here's the text of the Supremacy Clause lifted from the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Whoa! Talk about throwing your weight around!
OK, so what do the state legislators have to say about that, huh? Well, remember Oklahoma state senator Randy Brogdan? His answer, we believe, sets the stage for the coming fight in the Supreme Court. Brogdan is quoted as saying: "Federal law does not trump the Constitution."

We have heard from Arizona and Oklahoma... You have to ask if this is a repeat of the uprising of the states in the 1800's. The answer is no. This is different, and yet, at the same time, it is about the same thing: My Confederate ancestors called it "State's Rights.” That is exactly the underlying cause of the unrest in the states today... States Rights. States involved in the States Sovereignty Movement, as of this writing include: Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington and, of course, Arizona and Oklahoma. Reports tell us that the same sort "resolutions", "bills', and so forth, are soon to be introduced in more than a dozen other states. There's an excellent article at the Washington Times we recommend you read. You'll find it HERE.

As I surveyed a map of the country with the states involved to one degree or another in the States Sovereignty Movement highlighted on it, I must tell you, it made this old man’s heart beat a little faster. For, you see, the states involved were from the north, the south, the east, and the west, and even way out in the Pacific Ocean. No matter how it turns out, no single section of this country will ever bear the stigma of “traitors” as my beloved South has done since the 1860’s. No state, no group of states, should ever have to bear that indignity, especially when what they did was perfectly legal as is what the states in the State’s Sovereignty Movement are doing today.

For even more information on the State’s Sovereignty Movement and a map pf those states involved go HERE.

I fervently hope this gets to the Supreme Court before the Federal Government does something stupid, as it did in the 1860’s. We all know the Federal Government has stretched its legal bounds beyond those intended by The Founders of this country. We know that. Its time they were called on it.

J. D. Longstreet

href="" rel="tag">Conservative+States+Sovereignty+Constitution


  1. we'll be talking about this on my show in 25 minnutes

  2. Good article.

    By the way, your Washington Times link didn't work; it had some superflous stuff near the start of the URL. Here is the correct link:

  3. Wow, Excellent article dude, well done!


  4. See dictionary definition of soverign.

    Under the constitution, the states indisputably are not soverigns. For example, they are prohibited from making treaties with foreign nations and from regulating commerce with other states.

    None of the Confederate states claimed, prior to secession, to be a soverign.

  5. The US tried almost complete state's rights under the Articles of Confederation before the current constitution and it didn't work very well. Don't see why you think it's a good idea to try again.

  6. Dear dumbass state representative Judy Burges: the various states are, by definition, NOT sovereign. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! How in the >fuck< did a moron like you get elected?

  7. Sorry dude, once you start waiving the magic money wand, it becomes absoluetly impossible to stop.

  8. Often left out of talks about the Bill of Rights is its preamble:

    "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

    What this makes clear is that the Constitution and federal law are restricted from violating the Bill of Rights. This means that the Supremacy Clause must respect the rights reserved for the states. Even more interesting is that since the Constitution imposes the limits on congress, amendments would have to be passed for any expansion of congress's power.

    Sadly most in DC see the Constitution as more of a suggested guideline or even an obstacle to creating laws. The federal government also has a nasty practice of withholding some federal funding for a state when they do not pass laws the federal government wants.

    We should not have to ask permission to exercise our rights.

  9. It seems to me there is a distinct chain of command that goes from your town selectman or mayor up to county or district, then state, then up to the federal government and depending upon your personal wealth is where you interact with the government, kinda like a zipper, where would a CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation go and where would your local barber go. Our foundation is built on local governance and the only money the federal government gets should come from the states and the only money the states get is from the towns and the only money the towns get is from the people. WE ARE TOO TOP HEAVY!!!

  10. I thought that was the whole point of amending the Constitution: to change the original language (or even a previous amendment, like prohibition). If so, doesn't that mean the 10th Amendment automatically trumps/replaces the Article VI Sumpremacy part??

  11. I really enjoyed the anonymous poster who suggested we "see the dictionary definition of [sic] soverign" when they can't even be arsed to spell it right.

    I would also take umbrage with the number of federalist positions citing no references whatsoever, but by all means, please continue to disparage the debate with ignorance.

  12. I thought that was the whole point of amending the Constitution: to change the original language (or even a previous amendment, like prohibition). If so, doesn't that mean the 10th Amendment automatically trumps/replaces the Article VI Sumpremacy part???

  13. This bears repeating: "dumbass state representative Judy Burges". And therein lies the problem. We DO NOT want more power in the hands of morons like Judy Burges.