Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty - What does this Mean?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 05:58 PM
Original message
Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty - What does this Mean?
How does this effect the relationship between the Federal Government, the United States and the state of Oklahoma?

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (200 8)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

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 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and


WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 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.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma 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.


THAT this serve 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.


THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed 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 states legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 05:59 PM
Original message
Adios NCLB, maybe? (Hope!) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Means we can stop all federal spending in Oklahoma. Hell use it for rebates for the other 49 states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Not all spending...
Just spending on itmes that are not consitutionally mandated... Of course taxing for services not provided also gets dicy..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keep_it_real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. What does Oklahoma want the United States to cease and desist doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I'm not sure, but it could be the state doesn't want Federal land....
given away to east coast mining interests that cares spit about local conditions and have no problem closing up shop and leaving in the middle of the night after vacuuming all the wealth from the land, leaving a poisoned mess for the state to deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Exceeding its legal mandate
The federal government dictates to states in a broad range of matters with no Constitutional basis for federal involvement, using financial coercion rather than legally derived power in order to impose its will.

OK has a solid 10th-Amendment argument. IMO more states should do this, return the power to the people from whom it derives. If they really want an effective measure, though, they should look into repeal of direct election of Senators - that more than any other structural change to our form of government is an enabler of an unaccountable, aristocratic, and corrupt class of legislators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keefer Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Unfunded mandates.
Oklahoma wants the federal government to stop forcing the State to pay for things the federal government should be paying for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Looks like wingnut bullshit
Texas is usually the place where this kind of stuff gets introduced -- and promptly killed.

It's grandstanding for libertarian rightists.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Vintage Wingnut Bullshit
Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 06:38 PM by rwenos
The quickest way to get a rise out of a Constitutional law professor is to tell them the 10th Amendment is an independent source of state power.

States' rights ended with the 14th Amendment, kids. And it was passed AFTER the 10th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction othereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Personally, I'd just as soon Texas left the Union, and the suggestion about distributing Oklahoma's federal subsidies is both apt and amusing.

Edited for typos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. I have to disagree, Though I am not law professor..
THe 14th just means rights guaranteed by the constitution can *not* be abridged it does not expand the scope of federal power.

Its not like the 14th was passed and suddenly states became irrelevant.. Personally if it ends unfunded mandates, or the federal government pushing around people on non atomic rights issues I'd support it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yours is an Old Argument
Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 11:04 PM by rwenos
The Southern States have been making it with regularity -- about every 20 years -- since 1865. It has never gained the support of any substantial portion of the Supreme Court -- even with the conservative Court we have today. The last time it was run up the flagpole was in the Reagan Administration.

With respect, take another look at the clear language of the 14th Amendment. ALL citizens of ANY state are also citizes of the UNITED STATES. The 14th Amendment made clear what the Framers did not -- i.e., that a citizen of California, of Oklahoma, of New York, Michigan or Alabama, is BOTH a citizen of that state, with rights under that state's constitution and laws, AND a citizen of the United States.

Regarding your point that the 14th Amendment does not expand the federal government's power: You will notice that the final clause of the 14th Amendment empowers Congress (with the same force as anything listed in Art.1 Sec.8 (or 9 - the list of enumerated powers), to "enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation." The 14th Amendment actually MASSIVELY expanded the federal government's power.

Thus, Oklahoma can't do anything that runs afoul of the guarantees in the 14th Amendment -- the greatest of which have historically been (1) the Privileges and Immunities clause; (2) the due process clause; and (3) the equal protection clause.

States' rights is a dead letter. Rehnquist's "federalism" is a segregationist's wet dream. No more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Blonde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
35. How exactly would we benefit from Texas
leaving the union?

Saying that is no less ridiculous than conservatives saying we would be better off if California left, fell into the ocean etc. Its economy is the second largest in the nation and 15th in the world. Exactly what good does it do us to have that leave?

It also has the headquarters of 58 fortune 500 companies, which, btw, is more than any other state.

Please give me enough reasons to justify how we would be better off without Texas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Well, for starters, they could no longer run candidates for the U.S. Presidency.
Denying us another LBJ (Vietnam, bad; Great Society and civil rights laws, good) would be worth it if it also denied us another W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwenos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. I'll Let the Secessionists Speak for Themselves
Check the link:

http://www.texassecession.com /

Good riddance. I live in California. I have in-laws who live in a Houston suburb. Most of them would LOVE for Texas to be independent. I think we should SUPPORT them in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. I hope they also plan on self-funding
That's the one huge flaw in this overly-simplistic plan. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oklahoma, the state formerly known as Indian Territory
Should go back to the tribes it it is going to secede from the union. The resolution doesn't appear to be heading in that direction, but what a can of worms they will be opening if they think they can get away with challenging the US without considering the different native nations, i.e.; the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, etc. Very strange. It will be interesting to find out which oil company put the legislators up to this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I was wondering about that, too.
It would seem that all the Nations in OK should have some say in this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. I need to 'phone home' for the low down on this.
Yes, the nations within the nation will undoubtedly have something trenchant to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-17-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
41. I phoned home...
This is what my friend says: "The story I'm getting is that when the various states signed their
contracts to be part of the United States there is a clause about gun
control. Something about if the United States ever passed gun control the
contract with the state would be null and void and apparently D.C. and
Oregon are trying to pass a gun control law. I was told the story was
about Montana, though, and was told that Texas had the clause, also.
Apparently several states do, but if anyone does anything about it???
Supposedly, Montana and whatever Canadian province they're connected to
are each planning on joining forces and starting a new country. That
would be interesting. LOL"

Oh, the passion of gun owners...so it's not the oil companies, it's the NRA this time and it seems they are always hoping for a chance to shoot someone. Rings true to me. Whenevr you get them started and they go with the Charlton Heston line of "You can have my gun when you pry my cold, dead hands off of it..." you can be sure that they are visualizing YOUR cold dead hands, not theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. didn't a group of southern states do something like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You are correct, if I'm remembering history correctly.
Yes, seems I remember something along those lines....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. It did cause a bit of a dustup as I remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. Hmm, maybe it has to do with the Oglala Sioux getting the Badlands?
Unexploded bombs lie in ravines, a reminder of when the military confiscated the land from the Oglala Sioux tribe during World War II and turned it into an artillery range. Poachers who have stolen thousands of fossils over the years have left gouges in the landscape. On a plateau, a solitary makeshift hut sits ringed by empty Coke cans and shaving cream canisters. It is the only remnant of a three-year occupation by militant tribal activists who had demanded that the land be returned.

Now the National Park Service is contemplating doing just that: giving the 133,000-acre southern half of Badlands National Park back to the tribe. The northern half, which has a paved road and a visitor center, would remain with the park system.

The park service has dissolved 23 parks and historic sites since 1930, but none has been returned to tribes. "It's really exciting for us to think about walking down this road," said Sandra J. Washington, head of planning for the service's Omaha office, which oversees Badlands. "The intention is to be as honorable as possible."

The change would require congressional approval and the process is in its earliest stages, with officials still to decide whether the south section should be handed over solely to the tribal government, become a separate park run by the tribe with help from the park service, or left as is.

--Los Angeles Times


It may seem nice, until you consider that the GOP has been trying to drill in national parks. If parks are given back to tribes, the federal government will negotiate directly with the tribe for drilling rights.

Don't forget what oil companies do in Alaska: they pay people off with a yearly stipend, but profits go to the corporations.

Never trust a republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. I doubt if it is the tribes who are 'resolving' to secede
No tribe ever beat the government on any deal. I found this quote in reference to The Bowl, a Tsalagi (Cherokee) chief who settled in the eastern part of the Louisiana Purchase at the request of the Spanish in 1807 but was driven from Texas across the Red River into Indian Terr. in 1839. "At the same time as the Trail of Tears, another group of Cherokee was being forcibly removed to Oklahoma ...from Texas. In 1807, after the Louisiana Purchase, the Spanish government was nervously watching the American expansion towards Texas and requested a number of tribes to resettle in eastern Texas as a buffer against the Americans. The first Cherokee settlement in the region was at Lost Prairie in 1819, and it received a land grant in 1822. After the successful revolt by the Texans in 1835, a treaty confirming the Cherokee title failed ratification in the Texas legislature during 1836 despite the strong support of President Sam Houston. White Texans pressed for the removal, and in July of 1839 three Texas regiments attacked the Cherokee of Chief Bowl and forced them across the Red River into Oklahoma. The irony of the Cherokee situation in Oklahoma in 1839 should not be lost. No matter what course chosen: war, accommodation, surrender, or flight; their fate had been the same."

If the Oglala get the Badlands back, more power to them. At least nothing worse will happen to the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sounds serious,
Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 06:31 PM by jimshoes
What the heck are they talking about? :yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. "State's Rights," most likely...
Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 06:57 PM by Wednesdays
And if so, it's a pre-emptive strike against the progressive legislation that's almost certain to come from Washington beginning next January.

Methinks they're trying to slip this under the radar screen, too, 'cause I'm in Oklahoma City and this is the first I've even heard of it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'm in Tulsa.........
...and it's the first I've heard of it too!!

Still, I wouldn't put anything past all of the right wing legislators here!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KatyaR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Never heard of it, either,
Edited on Mon Jun-16-08 05:55 AM by fifthgendem
with a Repuke House, though, I'm sure this can't be good . . . .

Seriously, did they do ANYTHING this year that was even worth talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Myabe a protest of the NAFTA highway?
I think the next leg after Texas (Trans Texas Corridor) goes through Oklahoma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
20. This did not work out well for South Carolina in 1861
I thought this issue was resolved sometime between that time and certain meetings at Appomatox Court House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GA_ArmyVet Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. Just for clarity
Oklahoma did not secede as SC did. They simply demanded the US Federal Government stop violating a portion of it. They do have a point. The state is by itself a sovereign entity, this is way you can be tried for a criminal act by the State Government under state laws, and by the federal government under Federal Laws (ask Mike Vick), and not be subject to Double Jeopardy. The BIG BIG BIG question is not that they demanded the Fed's obey the 10th Amendment, but instead, what is it they claim the Fed Govt is doing to violate it?

I do agree that "states Rights" is often a code name for segregation and so on and so forth. It is also a legitimate issue in the limiting of the scope of the Federal Government authority, and provides for power to remain with the people unless specifically released by those same people who are governed by the Fed or State Govt. I personally do not care to cede any more power or authority to a Federal government which has consistently demonstrated the lack of will, desire or competence to accomplish or support the accomplishment of the goals of the people governed by it. At least not until there appears to be some way legitimate way of forcing the Government to act upon grievances and make them responsible to the people again.

I often see on here strong defense of some parts of the Constitution, usually, freedom of speech, expression, rights to privacy and so forth, while others are not a strongly defended, (the right to bear arms, limited federal government) and it appears that some people only want to defend the amendments that support their positions or beliefs. But I believe you have to support the whole concept or the entire idea of a Government "of the people, by the people" goes out the window. Every time any power is ceded to any Government, your individual rights are reduced. I am certainly not advocating taking all power from the Government, but I do believe that every single instance of ceding authority to the Government should be reviewed and reviewed very carefully, examined so the legislation can be written to avoid as much as possible the inevitable "unintended consequences" the allows follow. Additionally, all legislation expanding Governments power should have to be re-authorized every so often to ensure the Government remains honest and focused on the needs of the people, not the needs of the government.


Sorry for the rant, but I spent 25 years defending the US Constitution and I did not pick and choose which parts to defend, the entire thing was written for us, the people, to protect us, not from foreign enemies, terrorist, criminals, or "illegal aliens" but to protect us from our own federal government. The Government of the US is supposed to serve us, we the people, not the other way around. Sometimes Presidents and Senators and Congressman need that reminder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Succession was one alleged manifestation of sovereignty
Edited on Mon Jun-16-08 07:28 AM by HamdenRice
It is true that in the United States, we have developed a nearly unprecedented (in terms of comparative political systems) form of "shared sovereignty" between the federal government and the states. But the problem with sovereignty as a concept is that ultimately there can be only one sovereign -- the highest power.

Before the Civil War, the political classes were torn over which level of government ultimately had sovereignty -- the states or the federal government. The claimed state power of succession, claimed by the south, ultimately was a claim that the states were sovereign, not the federal government, which was just a compact among sovereigns.

My point is that the civil war ended that debate. The federal government is sovereign. It's powers are limited by the constitution, and the states have sovereignty only within their legal realms.

Btw, the example you cite for state sovereignty is not appropriate. When you mention criminal law, you are confusing jurisdiction with sovereignty. Many systems have shared jurisdiction without having any impact on sovereignty. No one thinks, for example, that a municipality has sovereignty within any American state, and yet the criminal courts of a municipality can share jurisdiction over certain criminal matters with a state.

Also, I disagree with your overall model of history. The current disposition of political power and sovereignty between the states and the feds isn't a matter of the Constitution or some abstract mind or group of policy makers doing what's best. It's largely a hodgepodge put together as a result of historical contingencies and ad hoc political decisions -- from Washington's suppression of the Whisky Rebellion, to the north's industrial superiority in the Civil War, to the compromise of 1877, to Teddy Roosevelt's decision that the only way to deal with robber barrons was to expand federal jurisdiction, to the Warren Court having to use the commerce clause to enforce civil rights.

It's a constantly evolving creature of circumstance, bound only by evolving political culture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GA_ArmyVet Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Thank you for the reply
Interesting take and well reasoned. Not that I agree with all that you said, but I like the polite discussion of differing view points and I thank you for that.

On the criminal citation that I made though, it is precisely correct. The city municipality derives it authority from the state, and must operate within the states laws. That does not mean that municipality is sovereign only that the state is. The city cannot and never will be able to charge a person for an act in which the state has already prosecuted someone for. The Federal Government can and often does. I am a US Federal Agent and I am well aware of jurisdictions, purviews, and adjudicating authority. You are correct in that there are several types of jurisdiction, for me, I normally operate in an exclusive federal jurisdiction, though I often work in joint and shared jurisdictions.

My point was that the State is considered a sovereign entity by the constitution. I also agree that the civil war established that the primacy of the federal government by right of arms and force, and subordinated the sovereign Individual States, it did not remove their sovereign status, but did subject the states to a subordinate status to the Union. One of the most visible change in that dramatic philosophical change was that prior to the civil war, the country was almost always referred to as the "Union of These Several States" and but after the war it was almost always referred to as the United States Of America. In fact the USofA and the European Union or more closely related in form than many people realize. The EU is a Union of several sovereign European States as is the US. Currently the EU states retain more of their sovereignty than do US states.


I really have more to respond on but I just don't have the time right this minute to fully lay out more right now. I rarely have time to respond and due to work and kids, but I do love to read others points of view and broaden more own points of view, so seriously thank you for the response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
24. So their gays can't marry? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
26. Interesting, they cite NY vs US 1992
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...


In 1992, in New York v. United States 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 63 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice OConnor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Are you trying to say that when gays marry they become radioactive!? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. ......
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
31. Meh. It's a toothless gesture.
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution has already been stated by the SCOTUS to trump (and for all practical purposes, nullify) the 10th Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
32. An attempt to criminalize abortion?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Let's hope not.
I just checked the morning paper quickly. Nothing about this bill in it today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Blonde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
34. I have been told
this was killed with bipartisan support in the senate. Apparently the author is a bit of a kook. Surprising I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. If that's so, and if it's too kooky even for the OK legislature,
then what does that say about the lurkers here cheering it on?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 14th 2014, 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC