Whoa Jack! The Tenth Amendment is Resurrected!

Two of the sovereign states of the United States of America, Arizona and New Hampshire, have presented resolutions in their respective legislative bodies. Both houses will debate these resolutions and if they pass, the formal notification will be sent on to the Federal Government in Washington, D.C.

Just to give you some context, Arizona was the home of our most famous libertarian, Barry Goldwater, who was a strong advocate of states’ rights and the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Its history is that of the Wild West, the individualism so characteristic of pioneers who settled the American Southwest.

New Hampshire, in its own way, is no less a maverick. Many people move there because of its low tax base. Its motto is “Live Free or Die”. It seems to be a motto New Hampshire takes seriously since all vehicles licensed in the state prominently bear that motto.

This is a most interesting development. Constitutional lawyers will be abuzz with their opinions as to the legality of this move by both states.

What remains to be seen is how many other states will be pushed by their citizens to propose similar resolutions. In a way, even to propose these resolutions is amazing, for the Tenth Amendment has been honored more in the breach than in the observance for many years.

Stayed tuned…it may turn out to be an interesting ride with no final destination, but I’m gob-smacked that anyone has gotten on this particular horse at all. Our Founders are no doubt smiling down on this new development.

You can find the U.S. Constitution here. Scroll down to click on to the 9th and 10th amendments.

Below are the introductions to both bills.

State of Arizona

House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
First Regular Session

HCR 2024

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 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; 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.


Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona 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.

2. That this Resolution serves 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.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution 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 and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine



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:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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 that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

Hat Tip: The Final Redoubt

23 thoughts on “Whoa Jack! The Tenth Amendment is Resurrected!

  1. Wow, that New Hampshire bill is impressive. Is this the real deal or this just some grandstanding? Are these State legislatures ready to fight against tyrant Obama-slash-Lincoln over state sovereignty?

    Maybe that Russian guy was right about the break up of the US. lol.

  2. Hate to be a spoiler but Oklahoma was first to the starting gate with this idea.

    And since I can’t link to it, the following is a letter from the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill I received as being on his 10th Amendment mailing list:

    December 22, 2008

    Subject: Tenth Amendment Resolution

    Dear Friend,

    I want to give you an update on the 10th Amendment Resolution. Last year the bill passed the Oklahoma House 92-3. It was not heard in the Senate because the Senate Democrats refused to let it be heard. I have refiled the bill for the upcoming session as HJR 1003.

    This coming session should be different because the Republicans took control of the Senate. The margin in the 2009-2010 session will be 26 Republicans to 22 Democrats.

    It is not guaranteed that the bill will be heard or passed. This is where I need your help. I need you and everyone who cares about preserving our constitution to contact your state representative and state senator and tell them you want them to support HJR 1003.

    If you live in a state other than Oklahoma, please contact your state representative or state senator and ask them to file a 10th Amendment Resolution in your state. If you do have a legislator in your state that is interested in sponsoring a bill, please let my legislative assistant know and we will be in communication with them. My assistant’s name is Sharon Brown. Contact information for Ms. Brown and my office is:
    sharon.brown@okhouse.gov or 405-557-7354.

    Thank you for your efforts and help in saving our constitutional form of government.


    Charles Key


    “bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  3. From IBA

    New Hampshire





    a discussion (which I haven’t read all of)

    From the comments at the last link (cleaned up a bit):

    * they are enforcing the constitution by reminding the federal government of it’s constitutional authority, and where it ends -at state sovereignty

    * one guess is that they are just covering their bases and telling the Federal Government to stop screwing with the Bill of Rights.

    * more an affirmation of state soveriegnty and the right of the governor to declare martial law which is in direct contradiction to legislation passed under Bush which claims he can order the national guard around [the globe] as he sees fit, no governor required.

    * In short- this is New Hampshire saying- we know what plots you have in the works to try and balance your federal budget by beating the [expletive deleted] out of our citizens.. we ain’t havin it.

    * Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law. This seems to directly address the upcoming national service program.

    * speaks to the plan to sell our nations infrastructure to foreign countries so they can then set up tolls on our property to charge us for the right of safe passage which we already paid for in our taxes

    HCR6 Bill Status

    A common thread among the states is the FSM (Free State Movement).

  4. Charlemagne–

    Thanks for the tip. I will update the post to reflect your information. Heck, if I’d seen Walter Williams on it back then, I’d have posted.

    A great economist with a wonderful sense of humor. I try to read a bunch of his essays at once but I missed this jewel entirely.

    For those not familiar with WW, he teaches Economics at George Mason University in Northern Virginia. He has a wonderful speaking style and he makes economic theory comprehensible and interesting.

    Back in July, at the link Char. posted, he said:

    One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

    Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key…

    “States’ rights” has been defined by the Left as racist talk. However, Dr. Williams is a black man. Actually, he’s quite chocolate brown and has a genuine smile. So this kind of talk makes him, to the Dems, an Uncle Tom, an Oreo, or whatever the latest “race traitor” terms are.

    Dr. Williams is fond of the Constitution. And I don’t mean the “living” version so popular with O’bama.

    O likes dead babies (has voted down every single attempt to limit partial birth abortion bans) but he likes his Constitution “living” — i.e., changeable. He’s a big fan of reparations and sees the Constitution as a vehicle for that insane idea. He is on record (in an interview several years ago) that granting Equal Rights wasn’t enough. Not only should blacks have the right to eat at the lunch counter (a fight we won) but the One thinks that the black customers are owed free meals…

    I kid you not. O is now head of the Entitlement and Grievance Committee.

    I pray that a majority of the states jump on this bandwagon. It would be the most delicious karma for our corrupt, bloated and imperial federal government.

  5. My last two attempts to post have failed.

    Anyway, I’ve often wondered why the Supreme Court doesn’t declare more federal legislation unconstitutional. I know they tried to declare much of FDR’s New Deal legislation unconstitutional and he threatened to pack the court. Since then they are never proactive in determining the constitutionality of legislation. I don’t think those kinds of cases ever cross their docket.

  6. Many thanks for the link to the Final Redoubt. For a blog with 5 regular readers and thousands in search of photos of Gail Porter… it is indeed a real honour.

    Harry Hook.

  7. Hey Dymphna, did you agree with the Bush Administration when it shut down California’s medical marijuana law and tried to shut down Oregon’s Death with Dignity (assisted suicide) statute? Or did you side with the noble states in their resistance to the overreaching federal government?

    Methinks I might smell a bit of hypocrisy here …

  8. The reason the federal government can order the states around is because it has all this cash, thanks to the Income Tax. It thus can bribe state legislators (or directly bribe local entities like police departments) with offers of grants in exchange for performance of certain actions.

    Prior to 1913, the federal government was very limited in its ability to raise money. It could impose tariffs, excise taxes on certain commodities like alcohol or tobacco, sell federal land, etc.

    If all that was not enough, it had one last thing it could try: Article I Section 2: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons”

    What does this mean? Each state could be told “We need money. You account for X% of the population of the US according to the census. You are responsible for X% of the amount. Raise it however you like and send it in”.

    This would not be popular with state legislatures. More to the point, there would be no point in the feds being involved in education, health, welfare, housing, etc if the money would have to come from the states, only to be sent back to the states.

  9. Herroyalwhyness: Of course the President can order the National Guard around without needing a governor’s OK. Contrary to popular belief, the National Guard is not a state militia. Per the Militia Act of 1903, a “National Guard of the United States” was created, as a Reserve component of the United States Army.

    The National Guard is equipped and financed by the feds, who LOAN it to the use of the state when not needed for federal duties.

    A state which wanted a militia not subject to arbitrary federal orders would need to finance its own separate militia independent of the federal funding, like Texas does with the Texas State Guard

  10. Ah Gordon, me boy–

    Is this going to be another case where you fly over GoV, relieve yourself and then move on, not to return until your next bomb? That ain’t dialogue, Gordon. It’s a hit-and-run using fecal matter.

    However, I’ll reply this time. As usual, you manage to misunderestimate my strategery here.

    I have spoken out against the Oregon law, based on what I’ve seen in the Netherlands’ experience. Euthanasia is a slipppery slope that will get even slicker as the Boomers begin to reach old age and become a “burden.”

    OTOH, though Oregon’s law seems ill-considered, Oregonians have a Constitutional right to make laws for Oregon w/o the Feds’ interference. Notice, however, that the ruling was judicial in that case. The people didn’t decide that, a judge did.

    Back when divorce was rare and difficult, Nevada set itself up as the Divorce State. People needing to get out of their marriage in a hurry went to Vegas or Reno. That law was Nevada’s perogative as a state, though it seemed a weak spot in our cultural fiber. However, I do not consider my own moral compass as a universal.

    Bush? As Licoln did, he took extraordinary steps in cases of national security. OTOH, I think he was wrong in other areas– e.g., that federal abomination, “No Child Left Behind”. Just another teachers’ union boondoggle. The kids who have to go to govt schools remain dismally ignorant.

    IOW, I differentitate actions of the Executive. When it comes to matters of national security, he is our CIC. Bush
    wasn’t out of bounds re Gitmo. Obama’s not either, in deciding to close it. Do I find Bush’s Gitmo ideas more to my liking? Yes. Do I find Obama’s actions evil and stupid? NO.

    My heavens, you sure do appear to be inclined to bruise your fine self jumping to conclusions, Gordon. Maybe that smell enveloping your person is due to your own indigestion?…

    Whatever. It ain’t me, babe.

  11. PapaBear – what you fail to mention in your diatribe against the income tax is that it was authorized BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in 1912-13. So all of your arguments about “direct apportionment” are so much blather when it comes to the income tax.

  12. Back to the main point – Arizona and New Hampshire are whining that the federal government forces their hand on issues by threatening to withhold money.

    The Tenth Amendment doesn’t say “states may do whatever they want on matters not authorized to the federal government, and the federal government has to pay for it.”

    If Arizona and New Hampshire want to be lily-white (er … I mean lily-pure) and unsoiled, they should virtuously refuse federal money with strings attached.

    Ho Ho Ho!

  13. Papa Bear–

    You are a font of information.

    1913 was a killer year, wasn’t it?

    The feds have no business in public education. They spread corruption via the virus of humungous sums of money mindlessly applied to problems that can’t be solved with cash. Keeps the teachers’ unions happy but the children remain trapped in their ignorance.

    Any parent who can possibly make the sacrifice ought to get their kids out of govt schools and either home with a parent or in a competent private school. Public schools damage kids. I know because I’ve had to work to undo some of the damage inflicted on family members. I’d like a penny for every minute I’ve sat and listened to bureaucrats drone on about a child’s IEP, a farce mandated by regulations re “learning disabled” children. Those jokers don’t even know the difference between a goal and an objective. They just know they have reams of paperwork to turn in so the school can get more money. The child is incidental to the process.

    Oops…I’d better not get started. Let’s just say that one school principal of my acquaintance, when confronted by a child who went mute when scared, decided the best way to get him to speak was to knock him into walls for a while. His ummm…”pedagogical methods” didn’t work. The child stayed silent: bruised and battered, but never uttered a word. That boy learned early that there are indeed some things worse than dying (which he thought was going to happen to him in the moment).

  14. “Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

    VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition…..”

    Indeed, to my everlasting joy, people here in God’s green New Hampshire take their Second Amendment rights seriously.
    Having fled from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts, it was quite refreshing to hear the next door neighbor ( who is a former Selectman here in town ) celebrating on New Years Eve by setting off skyrockets and firing his pistol in his backyard, and a fine, noisy, Patriotic display it was!
    Since moving up here, I have also done my part to help stimulate the economy: do a Google search for
    Arsenal of Bulgaria (Las Vegas, NV) or K-VAR Corp. If you cannot afford an AR-15, let me highly recommend Arsenal’s Model SLR 107F. These are probably the best made Kalashnikovs on the market today and appear to be the equivalent of the Russian AK 100 series. Also, the K-VAR Bulgarian military magazines, which have plastic bodies but are heavily reinforced with steel at all stress points, are PRIMO mags, if you can afford them. You can also get brand new Bugarian steel mags for less, do a Google search. But so far I’ve
    only got 6,000 rounds of 7.62×39 ammo, so I will have to stimulate the economy even more!

  15. Gordon–

    Ad hominem attacks are not permitted. Read our rules again. This statement–

    your mouth-frothing “liberal court bashing”

    fails the civility rule.

    But thanks for the heads-up on the Oregon law. My bad for thinking it was judicial, as the same-sex marriage laws have been. A categorical error there, and I stand corrected.

    Hmmm…I wonder about the Law of Unintended Consequences that may follow in the wake of this legislation. For example, will Oregon become like Nevada was? everyone who could afford it and wanted it went there for their divorce. So until more such state legislation goes into effect will Oregon become a place to ship Granny when she needs to be put down?

    And I wonder what Oregon’s laws are re the length of residency in order to get it done and over with.

    I’m not going to delete your comment telling someone they are whining. However, if you continue to use these tactics in the future, it’s trash can time. So watch the rude words.

    Try Afonso’s humorous approach maybe? Wit works wonders.

    BTW, California — or any other state — can do what it wants re dope. In fact, that poor state is in such a bad way that all residents ought to be permitted a monthly allotment of mj just to cope with living there.

    And I’m sincere when I say I’m glad you didn’t do a hit-and-run. Just abide by the rules, linked above the post box.

    But as I said, a little humor will go a long way in stretching some of those limits…cf Afonso Henriques. Of course, he does get deleted from time to time but mostly for being too verbose (verbosity being defined as anything past 500 words or so).

    You can also be as snarky as you want. Heavy irony and sarcasm are permitted, but they can be minefields. I hope you will make the crucial differentiation between sarcasm and incivility because your thoughts (stripped of their rudeness) leaven the mix and that’s good.

  16. Dymphna and Gordon:

    1913 was an interesting year. We passed the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and then two months later the 17th Aemendment had Senators elected by popular vote (before that, they were elected by state legislatures, and had the job of ensuring that federal power did not encroach over their Constitutional boundaries). We also had the Federal Reserve created in Dec 1913.

    The following year, the First World War began, and with it the huge expansion in the power of the Federal government.

  17. To the states, or any one of them, or any city of the states.
    Resist much, obey little. Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved.
    Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty!
    By Walt Whitman

  18. Dymphna,
    WI also had a 10th amendment bill introduced last year that was stalled by the democratic majority. The text of the bill, to be re-introduced this year, can be found here.

  19. Any further news on these bits of legislation? I don’t know much about the speed of action in the AZ and NH capitols; things like this often die in committee here in TX.

  20. @cyber wombat:

    You’re flying under the radar here. There has been an update post on the current 10th Amendment activities.

    It has a link you should bookmark so you can keep up, since I’m sure the tally will change up and down as some resolutions are killed (to be resurrected next year) and some will pass.

    Tenth Amendment Center

    I just checked in at the home page. New Mexico and South Dakota are talking resolutions…

    Look around the site.

    It’ll probably have changed again tomorrow.

    This is a snowball now but wait until more and more states start seeing that thing rolling down the hill at them…

Comments are closed.