{"id":4269,"date":"2009-02-24T06:00:55","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T11:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=4269"},"modified":"2013-01-09T10:43:39","modified_gmt":"2013-01-09T16:43:39","slug":"enumerating-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=4269","title":{"rendered":"Enumerating Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since the Heller <\/em>decision last summer, pride of place as the second-most-misinterpreted and underenforced part of the Bill of Rights has devolved to the Tenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

That looks like it could change<\/a>, with eleven states proposing laws that’d nullify federal trespasses onto powers reserved to the states – tresspasses that are part and parcel of The One’s plan so far:<\/p>\n

State governors — looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama \u201cstimulus\u201d plan — are saying they will refuse to take the money.\u00a0 This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.<\/p>\n

In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of \u201chope\u201d equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government\u2019s authority over the states. These states — Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas — have passed resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to \u201ccease and desist\u201d from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As befits a states’ rights issue, the issues are very different:<\/p>\n

For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri\u2019s \u201cHouse Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama\u2019s stated intention to sign into law a federal \u2018Freedom of Choice Act\u2019, [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law \u2018enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment\u2019 and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n

The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, \u201cAn Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And Retained In Montana.\u201d<\/p>\n

New Hampshire\u2019s resolution actually references certain federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama\u2019s administration, according to americandaily.com. Among these are \u201cAny act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Absent from the list:\u00a0 Minnesota.<\/p>\n

I suppose that’d require us to be controlled by a party that was more attached to the Constitution than to the thrill of being in power.<\/p>\n

For now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since the Heller decision last summer, pride of place as the second-most-misinterpreted and underenforced part of the Bill of Rights has devolved to the Tenth Amendment. That looks like it could change, with eleven states proposing laws that’d nullify federal trespasses onto powers reserved to the states – tresspasses that are part and parcel of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[245],"class_list":["post-4269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-liberal-tyranny","tag-bergs-10th-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4269","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4269"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4269\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33303,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4269\/revisions\/33303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}