Blog

Over the last several of years many states have introduced states’ rights legislation commonly referred to as Tenth Amendment legislation.

 

Joint resolutions have been introduced and passed in several states.  Representative Charles Key of Oklahoma introduced two pieces of legislation that combined actually put “teeth” into Tenth Amendment legislation.

 

The first piece of legislation is a (HJR) House Joint Resolution that if passed would call for a ballot measure.  The essence of the ballot measure is the people would give the state legislature the authority to declare a federal law unconstitutional.  In Oklahoma if 31% of either chamber, the house or the senate determined that a federal law is unconstitutional then the Speaker of House or the Senate Pro Tempore would be obligated to bring the “issue” to a full floor vote.  If one chamber had 51% of the members agree with the 31% of the members then the “issue” would move to the other chamber for a floor vote.  If the second chamber has 51% of it’s members agree that the federal law in question was in fact unconstitutional then the state would not comply with the federal law. 

 

The second piece of legislation would direct that a “federal tax fund” or escrow account be established.  Money that currently is sent directly to federal government by business owners would go through the federal tax fund account.  The state of Oklahoma would control said account.  If the state legislature determined that a federal law is unconstitutional and the federal government attempted to hold back money from the state then the state would not forward the money out of the federal tax fund account to the federal government. 

 

Yes, both pieces of legislation are meeting resistance.  What Representative Key has done is started the dialog that many believe needs to take place.  What can states do prevent the continue overreaching of power by the federal government if in fact states or citizens believe the federal government has overstepped it’s authority?

 

Representative Key hopes that other states will come up with similar legislation.  The details may be different but the purpose the same.  Representative Key believes there must be measures put in place to stop the federal government from exerting more authority that the constitution allows. 

 

A recent example is healthcare legislation being proposed in Congress.  To date nobody has explained where the authority is for Congress to mandate that all citizens have healthcare insurance. 

 

There are constitutional issues surrounding the Real ID Act 2005.  To date 25 states have passed resolutions or laws that prohibit the respective states from complying with the Real ID Act.  The implementation of the Real ID Act has been delayed twice now.  The new date is April 2011.  One issue among many is does the federal government have the right or power to use the states as surrogates to collect the personal information of citizens?  Specifically of issue is the fact the Real ID Act calls for all citizens to be enrolled into a single global biometric identification system.  Some people speak of the Real ID Act as creating a national ID card.  The fact is the standard for the digital facial image/photo is not a federal standard but rather an international standard thus creating an international identification card. 

 

Many believe the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is on a crusade.  The purpose is to collect any and all information about each citizen of the United States.  There are several methods being employed.  Data mining companies are used.  National Security Letters can be issued by the FBI to corporations.  It is noteworthy that the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that the FBI had overextended it’s authority provided in the Patriot Act.  DHS issued a “Lexicon” report that named evangelical Christians,

constitutionalists, anti-war groups, militias, environmentalists, third party supporters and many others as potential domestic terrorists.  The National Security Agency has been caught on more than one occasion “spying” on United States citizens.  Obviously there are constitutional questions that have been raised.

 

Many state law enforcement agencies, state fusion centers and agencies or departments that control the Department of Motor Vehicles in the respective states have come under scrutiny for providing the agencies and departments of the federal government with whatever information the federal government wants.

 

The Constitutional Alliance is an educational source.  We simply report on facts to better educate citizens and yes at times lawmakers.  That being said we have noticed a trend around the country with regard to state lawmakers.  Agencies and departments of state government around the country are entering into MORs (Memorandums of Record), MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) and MOAs (Memorandum of Agreements) that state lawmakers are not aware of the particulars of.  An example being in Oklahoma where the Department of Public Safety has entered into between 20 and 30 such agreements.  In some cases these “Memorandums” are with agencies and departments of the federal government or even entities outside the United States.  Obviously there is a great deal of concern whether Fourth Amendment issues are being considered.  We at the Alliance are aware that this issue is of grave concern to many state lawmakers.  In Oklahoma there has been a call to create a special committee that would oversee the MOAs, MOUs and MORs that state agencies and departments enter into.  The committee would consist of members of both chambers of the state legislature.  Other states are also tackling this issue. 

 

At the end of the day we at the Constitutional Alliance are grateful for the service of both the men and women that protect us all.  These people consist of first responders, members of law enforcement, our military and our intelligence community.  As part of our mission at the Alliance we believe we have an obligation to report on issues related to the rights of citizens and states.  There should be no argument that living in a free society cannot be reconciled with living in a surveillance society.  We applaud lawmakers regardless of political party that want to insure that the rights of citizens are protected.