Oklahoma To Claim Sovereignty

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762



Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.



Gov. Brad Henry speaks to members of the Oklahoma Press Association at their convention held at the Doubletree Hotel Downtown in Tulsa. SHERRY BROWN/Tulsa World Friday, Feb. 6, 2009


Advertisement

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.

"I think our governor is out of step.”

House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”
What do you all think? If they are going to do this I really hope more states plan on doing Oklahoma won't survive on its own. I don't want another Civil War, I just want to send Washignton a message.

[GodAndParty]

I believe the correct word is Autonomy, not sovereignty

[i_love_being_so_wicked]

The federal government takes too much power. I think anything that is not in the Constitution should be left up to the states to decide on. The tenth amendment to the Constitution does say, "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." The U.S. government should NOT be handing out bailouts to anyone. I think more states need to revolt against our federal government. I think we need another civil war if that is what it is going to take to clean out the corruptness of our federal system.

[scarymary]

The federal government takes too much power. I think anything that is not in the Constitution should be left up to the states to decide on. The tenth amendment to the Constitution does say, "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." The U.S. government should NOT be handing out bailouts to anyone. I think more states need to revolt against our federal government. I think we need another civil war if that is what it is going to take to clean out the corruptness of our federal system.

Wow, I'm shocked. I never would have thought you would say that. Unfortunately, it will probably come down to forceful measures to get our government back.

[Dr. Madd]

Unless OK can get more support, I pity its people at the wrath of the statist Bolsheviks.

[Dr. Madd]

As for me, I already have my stars and bars ready.

[Ne0LyFeiSm]

Hasn't Texas already done something similar? - I could've sworn that was in the news a few weeks back...

[FireDog]

I hope Florida's next.

[FarRightWing]

As for me, I already have my stars and bars ready. LOL :icon_lol:
You say that in gest I take, but I bet you anything that a revolt will start in a southern state and all those people laughed when they said the south will rise again.Speaking of the stars and bars I was driving down to Sarasota this morning and saw the biggest Stars and Bars flag flying above I-4 and I-75.It belongs to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.As per usual though the leftys had a fit about this.Personally I would love to shove that big flagpole up their backsides.
I was born in Florida so I consider myself a southerner.Maybe not a full fledge rebel, but in my heart I am.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Spanish still owned Florida in 1861, but now I’d say you’re technically in the south. Funny part is if there is ever to be another Civil War the south would defiantly win considering the majority of soldiers are southern and we have a crap load of guns which the libs up north don’t like. But I honestly don’t hope it ever comes to that. The day Obama or any liberal president completely throws out the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence than that is the day we should rise up.

[Aurelius]

You're making the assumption that the US would actually go to war. From an economic standpoint we'd actually be better off without any southern state save for Texas.

[Rob]

Florida has the fourth highest gross state product, right behind Texas and your beloved NY and CA... so I'm curious is Florida not really in the south? From an economic standpoint we'd actually be better off KEEPING all our states and having a country where both sides are still being heard. It's pretty sad that Obama runs on a platform of ending the partisanship in Washington and now we have the first talks of secession in 140 years. WTF?

[GodAndParty]

You're making the assumption that the US would actually go to war. From an economic standpoint we'd actually be better off without any southern state save for Texas.

then we'd just have new border states after the mexicans overtook the South- wait, too late

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

You're making the assumption that the US would actually go to war. From an economic standpoint we'd actually be better off without any southern state save for Texas.

Thats a bold statement even when you have no proof.

[earthtoned]

Thats a bold statement even when you have no proof.

well, if he had added Florida, he would have been correct......at least from an economic standpoint.

every southern state except for those 2 receive more in federal dollars than they pay for in taxes. that essentially means the residents there are subsidized by northern and western state taxpayers. but thats ok, most of the residents of the blue states, based on their recent voting, have no problem giving a helping hand to the less fortunate :icon_wink

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

[Rob]

Hmm... I wonder if Blue states make more money because the Red states grow the inexpensive food the US and the rest of the world eats and the West Coast leads the world in technology. I suppose next you will say that everyone who works in technology was born and raised in a Blue State? Ah, what it must be like to be elitist... our country is great because of our diversity so just knock it off with the finger pointing bullshit.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

OOOooooo Rob is laying the smack down.

How many of those southern states are BLUE....I wonder?

In fact, I'd like to see a list of all the states that take in more Fed dollars than they pay in taxes, who runs them, and for how long..........

I bet Michigan ranks high on that list.

Then of course there are abberations like NYC and CA that tax the living crap out of people and still have billion dollar deficits.....

[earthtoned]

pointing fingers? we're talking about states threatening to revolt against the federal government. oklahomans recieve 1.36 for every dollar in federal taxes they send to washington. i see no problem pointing out this fact in light of their coomplaints.

as far as growing food, california is by far the largest agricultural producer in the country, producing over twice the amount of food of any other state in the nation. this hasn't stopped california from paying more than their share of the federal tax burden, recieving 78 cents per dollar sent to washington.

[earthtoned]

How many of those southern states are BLUE....I wonder?

why not just look at the list.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

of the 17 states that pay more in taxes than they recieve from the fed, only Texas voted red

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I wonder too what the tax rates are for those that take more than those that don't.

BTW, isn't there something more recent than 2005?

[earthtoned]

I wonder too what the tax rates are for those that take more than those that don't.

BTW, isn't there something more recent than 2005?

those numbers are based on federal tax receipts, so they should be the same rates applied to every state. i'm no tax expert, but i don't think there is variation on federal rates between states.


if you can find a more recent breakdown than 05, go for it. i spent a little time looking and gave up.

[Rob]

I don't remember hearing that Florida is gonna seceded, have you? So if you want to say something about Oklahoma then fine, but when you say...


that essentially means the residents there are subsidized by northern and western state taxpayers. but thats ok, most of the residents of the blue states, based on their recent voting, have no problem giving a helping hand to the less fortunate

You are now trying to put Blue States versus Red States and your comment has nothing to do with Oklahoma... You make it sound as if Red States are worthless and should be thanking the Blue States for subsidizing them, and then pointing at Texas and Florida as the only acceptable Red States worth keeping in the new "Utopic States of America"... but nah, that's not finger pointing. And FYI, I'm in a Blue State... I'm just trying to end the "my state is better than yours" side discussion here.

And most of the agricultural sections of California voted Red, so take that for what it's worth...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html

[earthtoned]

From an economic standpoint we'd actually be better off KEEPING all our states and having a country where both sides are still being heard.

you said that earlier and i agree.

California gets a bit of flak on this board. forgive me if i can be a little defensive of my adopted home state. i have nothing against okies, floridians, or any other part of the country. but it is texas and oklahoma that are talking secession, sovereignity, etc. not me. i appologize and retract my "blue states are happy to help out the less fortunate" statement, but i thought i made it clear i was just poking fun at my conservative friends by my use of a ":icon_wink".

[Rob]

Cool, I guess I win! :icon_wink (there's that icon, lol). Yea, I just really hate to see our country getting so divided as I'm pretty sure the USA is a complex machine... that's why I don't like Obama messing with too many of it's parts, lol. :icon_lol:

[scarymary]

pointing fingers? we're talking about states threatening to revolt against the federal government. oklahomans recieve 1.36 for every dollar in federal taxes they send to washington. i see no problem pointing out this fact in light of their coomplaints.

as far as growing food, california is by far the largest agricultural producer in the country, producing over twice the amount of food of any other state in the nation. this hasn't stopped california from paying more than their share of the federal tax burden, recieving 78 cents per dollar sent to washington.

Is there a problem with states claiming sovereignty because the federal government is overstepping their bounds as defined in the Constitution? Is that a problem? Are you in the same circle as Obama in believing that the Constitution contains negative restraints that limit the federal governments' reach?