Kansas Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to The Sunflower State.
Welcome to Kansas Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 08-06-2009 8:03 PM by salinateaparty. 11 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (12 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    • admin
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-19-2008
    • Posts 52

    2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    Introduced in the Senate on February 11, 2009

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 03-05-2009 8:50 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    There are currently 30 states trying to pass this kind of legislation.  It seems that the powers in Washington have no regard for the Bill of Rights anymore.  It is important for Kansas to join the chorus of states who wish to remind our Federal Government that there truly are limits to the things they can try to force on the people of these United States.  Approving this legilsation and refusing to take the Federal Stimulus money will make a strong statement to Washington that Kansas will not be tricked into forfeiting its soveriegnty to the Federal Government nor will our allegiance to the new power in Washington be purchased by some temporary windfall at the expense of freedom.  THIS IS NO SECESSION!  It is just reasserting the rights we already have which are coming under assault.

     

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

    Filed under: , ,
  • 03-07-2009 3:57 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

     I'm so glad to see our state represenatives standing up to the feds. I would really like to see enough states band together to either oust the present regime or at least get their attention long enough to let them know that we do not approve of the way they have been running our country and will not be bullied into adhering to their policies.

    I feel Sebelius should have been asked to resign on account of her ethics (attending the Bilderberger concention,twice) which I feel was more of an act of treason. I know these are strong words, but I feel that meeting in secret with a group of whose self admitted goal is to disband the American government qualifies for this charge. I also feel there are many others who should be held accountable for similar actions. I hope the people wake up and become aware that our government has been taken away from us and that we want it back,OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. I urge everybody to stand up and be counted now, because tomorrow may be too late.

    What is happening now is what the founders of this country feared  most, and is the reason the tenth as well as other amendments were added to the constitution, to preserve and protect the people's rights.

  • 03-10-2009 7:47 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    by State Rep. Samuel E Rohrer, PA-128th District

    The danger of being number 10 is that no one really knows who you are. George Washington was our first president; but how many can name number 10 off the top of their head? And Sir Edmund Hillary was the first person to climb Everest, but does anyone know who the tenth person was to reach the summit?

    And then consider our amendments to the United States Constitution: most of us know the 1st Amendment verbatim, but do you know what the Tenth Amendment says?

    “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.”

    Sometimes thought of as an afterthought, to “sweep up” anything the Founders may have forgotten, the 10th Amendment today is taking on monumental importance as increasing federal intrusion into state affairs threatens to completely destroy the balance between state and federal power.

    In the Federalist Papers, authors Jay, Madison, and Hamilton labored to convince a monarch-shy colonial population that they needed a strong government to preserve a free, cohesive nation. The authors took pains to outline how the Constitutional structure of the government would prohibit the federal government from becoming big enough to overwhelm the powers of both the states and the democratic process.

    The 10th Amendment was foundational to this system of checks and balances, constitutionally restricting the federal government to covering issues related to commerce, national defense, the postal system, and the like.

    “Power begets power,” though, as the saying goes, and the federal government slowly began expanding its powers. One of the most effective and insidious ways that the federal government has taken over control of state affairs is by first passing a mandate and then offering federal money to states with significant strings attached.

    Whether the issue is welfare, Real ID, No Child Left Behind, or health insurance programs, tantalizing packages have been dangled in front of state governors and legislators, promising to stop the budget gap or expand a politically successful program. States have taken the money and over time, the requirements and restrictions on those state funds have slowly but surely changed the direction of state policy.

    Instead of developing programs to fit the needs of state citizens and altering them to best use the state resources, programs are instead clumsily built around the federal funding requirements, so the state does not lose a single available dollar. This significant paradigm shift should be a wake-up call to every citizen not only in Pennsylvania, but also across the nation.

    Therefore, because the Supreme Court allowed the federal government to offer funds on conditions, states have subjected themselves to Washington. This submission completely distorts the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution, and enshrined in the 10th Amendment.

    In order to raise awareness of this improper delegation of power, I have joined with representatives, senators, Democrats, and Republicans from over 30 states and introduced a resolution into the Pennsylvania General Assembly that reaffirms Pennsylvania’s constitutional powers under the 10th Amendment.

    This 10th Amendment Resolution (House Resolution 95) is little more than a restatement of the last amendment to the Bill of Rights, reminding state legislatures that the federal government must no longer be allowed to commandeer our rightful authority.

    As difficult as it is to believe someone could oppose a resolution as plain as reaffirming a basic tenet of our Constitution, sadly, opposition is too often the case in our state legislatures. This issue, however, is gaining traction among American citizens who are unwilling to sit back while Washington blatantly ignores their voices.

    Supporting the 10th Amendment Resolution is a grassroots effort if ever there was one. I encourage you to spread the word and contact your family, friends and relatives, in and out of Pennsylvania, and encourage them to speak up. This issue will not go away—and it gives a voice to those who have grown frustrated and disillusioned with our federal government.

    The 10th Amendment Resolution simply yet powerfully affirms our belief in the constitutional structure of our government. Join me today in that affirmation.

    Rep. Rohrer will be holding the “10th Amendment Rally for the State of Independence” on Monday, March 16 at noon in the Rotunda of the State Capitol. Please make plans to join him there. Visit www.samrohrer.com for more information.

  • 03-27-2009 6:53 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    The Bill 1609 in the legislature has now changed to a new Bill #. It's now SCR 1615 (a Senate Bill). It was taken out and new Co-Sponsors were added so it has been re-submitted.

    Without SCR-1615, expect that measures such as the fraudulently named so-called “Freedom of ‘choice’ " Act (FOCA) which is really exactly the opposite of its name, and many more pieces of ill-conceived (or just plain evil) legislative edicts from Washington will be crammed down the throats of the citizens of Kansas without any fear of repercussion. We need to ensure that the citizens of this state are afforded protection from a dictatorial central government that has lost touch with the will of the people.

  • 04-06-2009 7:55 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    States that have already passed this legislation:

    Georgia (Passed House on 04-03-09)

    Idaho (Passed House 51-17, on 03-23-09.)

    South Dakota (passed house on 03-03-09 by a vote of 51-18, passed senate on 03-05-09 by a vote of 20-14)

    Indiana (2nd Senate Resolution Introduced 03-19-09) (SR0042 Passed Committe 8-0 on 04-01-09)

    South Carolina (passed house on 02-26-09, senate - referred to subcommittee)

    Oklahoma (passed house on 02/18/09, senate version passed 25-17 on 03-04-09

    )
  • 04-22-2009 2:08 AM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Thanks for sharing this! The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the amendments which doesn't get brought up a whole lot.  The 10th Amendment states that all rights not given expressly to the government are reserved to the states, or the people.  Granted, this should apply to payday loan regulations, but not a whole lot of people take that view.  Tax Day Protests are beginning and the 10th amendment is being used to reject any stimulus funds directed to states, if the state governments aren't willing to accept them.  It seems that segments of the people are not willing to get short term loans on 10th Amendment grounds.

  • 04-22-2009 8:54 AM In reply to

    Tenth Amendment Talking Points

    Tenth Amendment Talking Points

    1.  The Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” What this means is quite simple. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are “positively” “granted” to it by the Constitution. If a power is specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government can do it - and vice versa.  This principle was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment.

    2.  The language of the 10th is clear and concise: “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.”  Thus, the federal government’s powers are limited to a specific set of activities – the rest is to be handled by the state government, or locally, by the people themselves.

    3.  The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

    4.  If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?

    5.  James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

    6.  The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government.  With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and illegal.

    7.  Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront.  Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states – not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise.  Why?  The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything – including local colonies from across an ocean.

    8.  Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it.  If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.

    9.  A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Action once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    10.  We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

  • 07-22-2009 8:50 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

     Does anyone know the present status of this Resolution ? Is it still in the Judicary commitee?

  • 07-22-2009 10:46 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

    As far as I know when the legislature adjourned it did so until January.  I was told there would be no further action on this bill until January 2010.  in the meantime, you can just hook up with groups that are forming to bring more attention to this.

    Perhaps this person can get you more information on how to get involved.  

    http://www.resistnet.com/profile/LarryHalloran

  • 08-06-2009 8:03 PM In reply to

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

     Check out http://www.pilchercook.com/    We are Salina TEA Party  www.salinateaparty.com and we are working very close with Mary Pilcher Cook as are Wichita and Topeka 912 We'd love to hear from you and we'll get you in touch with someone.  What area are you in?

  • 08-17-2009 11:32 PM In reply to

    • Neil_J
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-18-2009
    • Posts 1

    Re: 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (Oppose federal government legislative mandates)

     SCR 1609 has been replaced by SCR 1615.

    Only a few words different.

    Filed under: ,
Page 1 of 1 (12 items)