Posts Tagged state’s rights

Academic Paper Re-examines The Second Amendment

From David T. Hardy:

This article proposes third approach, which is better founded in the historical record. The militia clause and the right to arms clause are completely separate concepts. They have different origins, one looking back to the Renaissance, the other forward to the Enlightenment. In 1787-91 they largely had different constituencies: some Americans were concerned that the new Congress would neglect the militia, others that it might disarm the people. For most of this period, drafters of State declarations of rights, or of proposals for a Federal bill of rights, chose either to praise the militia as an institution, or to guarantee an individual right to arms, but never both.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

States Preempting Feds On Gun Laws


On March 12 and 14, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed both Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) “Fix Gun Checks Act,” which would criminalize all private firearm sales and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) “Assault Weapons Ban.”

These bills have a long way to go before they become law – if they ever do – but states across the nation are introducing their own legislation to preemptively defeat any new federal gun laws.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Alan Keyes: Unconstitutional attack on the state of Arizona

Alan Keyes

“Back in April, I wrote a column pointing to the constitutional provision (Article I, Section 10) that recognizes that when one of the United States is “actually invaded,” the state government may act, without federal authorization, to defend itself.

Due to the federal government’s ongoing dereliction, in open and abusive defiance of existing federal law, Arizona and several other states of the Union are the victims of an ongoing invasion, which endangers and damages the lives and livelihood of their inhabitants.

According to the Constitution’s language, when actually invaded, a state may go to war in defense of its citizens. Arizona has undertaken instead to respond to the invasion by directing its police forces to make a special effort to do what the federal government refuses to do – carry out existing federal law.

But even if there were no such federal laws, Arizona has the clear constitutional prerogative to respond to the actual invasion of its territory.”

, , , ,

No Comments

U.S. District Judge: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?”

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton

PHOENIX- The judge who will decide whether Arizona’s new immigration law is constitutional hasn’t indicated whether she’ll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton:
“You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.”
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?” she asked.

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them. They don’t want to know about them,” he said.”

, ,

No Comments

“Biggest fight of the 21st Century just started”

“Nothing gets Americans’ dander up like messing with States’ rights. This is especially true when the Federal Government, as it says, has jurisdiction but then failed to do their job.

Federal law trumps state laws as the Preemption clause says in the Constitution, but what if the Federal Statue is full of holes or is unenforced, leaving states with demonstrated material damage. Can the state recover damages through their own suit against the Feds for the cost of illegal immigration?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am in favor of legal immigration, but it must be within our capacity to manage in accordance with the law. Illegal immigration is a wound that has been allowed to fester to the point of threatening the health of the Nation.” – by YankeeJim

, , , ,

No Comments

Many legislators aim to copy Arizona immigration law

“BOISE — Arizona’s sweeping new immigration law doesn’t even take effect until next month, but lawmakers in nearly 20 other states are already clamoring to follow in its footsteps.

Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Minnesota are singing the law’s praises, as are some lawmakers in other states far from the Mexico border such as Idaho and Nebraska. But states also are watching legal challenges to the new law, and whether boycotts over it will harm Arizona’s economy.

“If the feds won’t do it, states are saying, ‘We’re going to have to do it,'” said Idaho state Sen. Monty Pearce.”

, , ,

No Comments

The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center is a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.

, , , ,

No Comments

SD Gov Signs Firearms Freedom Act into Law

From: Dakota Voice

The South Dakota Legislature recently passed SB 89 which declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.”Now, a little more than a week later, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed the bill into law.

The bill is the latest of many crafted in states across the country in the last year which re-assert the Tenth Amendment rights of the states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.


, , , ,

No Comments