Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty

[Poli Sci]

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
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 state's
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.pdf

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt

Its from March 13th but today is the first I have heard of this.

[Widescreen]

I predict it's the last we'll hear of this too.

[Poli Sci]

It only passed in the house (92-3) so it isn't law but it makes a loud statement.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

SECESSION.

Gather yer muskets, boys.

Okie Reb is on the march.

[sooner_born_1960]

After messican food and a few beers, I can make a pretty loud statement also.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

DOWN THE BRITISH!

NO TAXATION WITHOUT... *brrrrrrrrrrrrIP!*

REPRESENTATION!

[Flagstaffsooner]

You Go Oklahoma!
http://www.radiofreedixie.com/images/confederate_flag.gif

[NormanPride]

Saw this on another site yesterday. Buncha nutcases were saying how it meant nothing unless we stopped paying income tax. Whatever. This is just posturing.

[SicEmBaylor]

Saw this on another site yesterday. Buncha nutcases were saying how it meant nothing unless we stopped paying income tax. Whatever. This is just posturing.

It might be posturing, but posturing isn't always a bad thing. A good reminder every now and then that states are ultimately sovereign units is a very very good thing.

There is nothing I hate more than central control and those people who want to destroy local and state government.

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm willing to throw my lot in with my fellow Okies if need be :D

[NormanPride]

It might be posturing, but posturing isn't always a bad thing. A good reminder every now and then that states are ultimately sovereign units is a very very good thing.

There is nothing I hate more than central control and those people who want to destroy local and state government.

Yeah, these guys seemed a lot like your type at first, then they kept going... and kept going... it got kind of creepy. I like the SicEm type of constitutionalist rather than the scary "I live in a shack with my guns" type.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

KILL WHITEY

[ousoonerfan]

The South will rise again!!!


Led by Oklahoma?!!?

[Poli Sci]

I totally agree with SicEmBaylor as well.... I'm not the crazy arm ourselves type

[SicEmBaylor]

The South will rise again!!!


Led by Oklahoma?!!?

It's not a Northern/Southern thing. Even before the war the Northern states were every bit as pro-state as the south. Northern states were the first to consider secession over Jefferson's embargo of British goods.

Local and state control based on the proper constitutional balance of states taking the lead and primary role in domestic affairs while leaving disputes between the states, foreign affairs, and regulating interstate trade to the central government benefits EVERY citizen whether you be liberal, conservative, yankee, southerner, westerner, or easterner.

Why wouldn't you want most of your affairs to be governed by the government closest to you rather than a central government made up of many different states, interests, and people that often conflict with and outnumber you?

This is about proper government not regionalism.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/rosie-o-donnell-people.jpg

Rosie wants proper government, not regionalism.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Heh.

It would be funny if California were to secede from the Union.

:cool:

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh.

It would be funny if California were to secede from the Union.

:cool:

It's their right.

I don't like the idea of anyone, today, seceding.

[mdklatt]

We declare...SOVEREIGNTY!

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Image/rosie-o-donnell-people.jpg

Rosie wants proper government, not regionalism.

Again, that is California's business and not ours.
Honestly, why do you care if they allow gay marriage? How does it affect you in the least bit?

[SicEmBaylor]

We declare...SOVEREIGNTY!

It sort of reminds me of that scene from Office Space when Michael declares bankruptcy.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://splinteredsunrise.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/braveheart.jpg

THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES...

BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR SOVEREIGNTY!

[LosAngelesSooner]

It's their right.

I don't like the idea of anyone, today, seceding.
Oh, me neither.

Besides California seceding from the Union would just about destroy the U.S. The Fed would never let that happen.

I, personally, wish that the states would stand up for their rights more and shrug off the overly active and interfering Federal Government.

If Oklahoma wants to ban gay marriage and abortion and only drink 3.2 beer and close their liquor stores on Sunday, let it. But if California wants to allow both while getting drunk after church on 11% home brew, then they should be allowed to do so as well.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Again, that is California's business and not ours.
Honestly, why do you care if they allow gay marriage? How does it affect you in the least bit?

Who said anything about California?

Chong Li blows your attempt at civilized debate from his nose like a booger.

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/bloodsportchunglii.jpg

[mdklatt]

THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES...

BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR SOVEREIGNTY!

Looking at that picture, you can see that Mel Gibson was already nuttier than a squirrel turd by then. Maybe he wasn't just acting crazy in Lethal Weapon?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Chong Li has cRaZy EyEz...

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh, me neither.

Besides California seceding from the Union would just about destroy the U.S. The Fed would never let that happen.

I, personally, wish that the states would stand up for their rights more and shrug off the overly active and interfering Federal Government.

If Oklahoma wants to ban gay marriage and abortion and only drink 3.2 beer and close their liquor stores on Sunday, let it. But if California wants to allow both while getting drunk after church on 11% home brew, then they should be allowed to do so as well.

That's my opinion, anyway.

We're in 100% agreement.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I hear in California, they let Homo...wners get married.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I hear in Beggs they let siblings get married.

;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I hear in Waco, they let ex-boyfriends be bridesmaids.

[soonerscuba]

How cute, Oklahoma thinks it can sustain itself without federal funding. States that are dependent on the fed. treasury for properly functioning roads and farms should probably be careful for what they wish.

[JohnnyMack]

Why wouldn't you want most of your affairs to be governed by the government closest to you rather than a central government made up of many different states, interests, and people that often conflict with and outnumber you?

This is about proper government not regionalism.

No.

Have you ever been to the Wal-Mart in Wagoner, the Taco Bell in Henryetta or the Sonic in Marietta? Have you ever been to Grand Lake on 4th of July weekend, the State Fair in OKC or Tulsa or been to a chuch service in McAlester?

Have you ever met me?

You see me and all those above listed things don't really get along so well. I for one don't want my rights and my family's rights trampled on by the will of the whitebread Christian masses which is what I fear would happen with more states rights. I'd have to quit my job and move.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I hear in Waco, they let ex-boyfriends be bridesmaids.
*cringing*

Oooooh...that one hurt somebody's acorns.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You see me and all those above listed things don't really get along so well. I for one don't want my rights and my family's rights trampled on by the will of the whitebread Christian masses which is what I fear would happen with more states rights. I'd have to quit my job and move.

But that legislation is only reasserting what's already the legal gospel. The X Amendment.

Just because there's a reaffirmation of state's rights doesn't mean the process as it stands goes away.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No.

Have you ever been to the Wal-Mart in Wagoner, the Taco Bell in Henryetta or the Sonic in Marietta? Have you ever been to Grand Lake on 4th of July weekend, the State Fair in OKC or Tulsa or been to a chuch service in McAlester?

Have you ever met me?

You see me and all those above listed things don't really get along so well. I for one don't want my rights and my family's rights trampled on by the will of the whitebread Christian masses which is what I fear would happen with more states rights. I'd have to quit my job and move.
A lot of people would have to quit their jobs and move.

"The will of the people." :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, and this is just a hunch, but if we did allow that to happen and California got all the rights they wanted while the southern states got all the Christian Laws passed that they wanted I'll bet you dollars to dougnuts that those same southern states would eventually try to change the states like NY and Cali (either by law or by force) to make them comply to their "Christian Values."

That's the problem with thinking your way is the only way and the only RIGHT way to go. You feel the need to force it upon everyone.

gah...

[Sooner_Havok]

Again, that is California's business and not ours.
Honestly, why do you care if they allow gay marriage? How does it affect you in the least bit?

That is my thoughts. All these people up in arms about not wanting a "nanny state" should applaud gay marriage in California. If they want to smoke pot and have the butt-sex, why should the federal government be able to tell them they can't?

[Viking Kitten]

This resolution has to do with the Real I.D. act, specifically Oklahoma's refusal to comply with it. The lawmakers opposed to it say the feds telling the states what to put on their driver's licenses is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070406/ai_n18995941) is a good article about it from the Journal Record.

The author of the resolution, Rep. Key also authored the bill that did get signed into law by the Gov; a law directing that the state will NOT comply with Real ID. The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back the deadline for compliance because so many states are passing similar laws.

[SicEmBaylor]

How cute, Oklahoma thinks it can sustain itself without federal funding. States that are dependent on the fed. treasury for properly functioning roads and farms should probably be careful for what they wish.

The solution to that is to cut taxes on Oklahoma's citizens proportional to what it expects to get back in Federal tax money then let the state of Oklahoma tax and spend that money on those projects that it wishes (aside from Federal highways).

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's not the federal government. I mean, kinda not. It's the Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 1., the infamous Full Faith and Credit clause.


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

AKA, Oklahoma has passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. California has made it legal. Therefore, according to the Full Faith and Credit clause (with pending clarification by the legal eagles), the state of Oklahoma may have to recognize marriages held in California. It's beyond my understanding, but because one group of folks likes it one way, shouldn't serve to mean that another group of folks, who have overwhelmingly voiced their opinion on the matter, should hold to the legislative actions of the former.

[SicEmBaylor]

No.

Have you ever been to the Wal-Mart in Wagoner, the Taco Bell in Henryetta or the Sonic in Marietta? Have you ever been to Grand Lake on 4th of July weekend, the State Fair in OKC or Tulsa or been to a chuch service in McAlester?

Have you ever met me?

You see me and all those above listed things don't really get along so well. I for one don't want my rights and my family's rights trampled on by the will of the whitebread Christian masses which is what I fear would happen with more states rights. I'd have to quit my job and move.

That's kind of absurd. You're connecting the proper role of state governments with the infringement upon the clearly written and applied Bill of Rights. States rights doesn't mean a violation of the Bill of Rights -- it means taking charge of its own domestic affairs. Whatever the case may be, a state can not violate the Bill of Rights. Having said that, they should. Until the 14th Amendment, Constitutional rights and protections only stopped the Federal government from infringing. I personally like that formula. I share your mistrust of the Christian-Right, but there's a right and wrong way to prevent against it. Go out and make the case to your fellow citizens and if you lose then deal with it or move to a more progressive state.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's not the federal government. I mean, kinda not. It's the Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 1., the infamous Full Faith and Credit clause.



AKA, Oklahoma has passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. California has made it legal. Therefore, according to the Full Faith and Credit clause (with pending clarification by the legal eagles), the state of Oklahoma may have to recognize marriages held in California. It's beyond my understanding, but because one group of folks likes it one way, shouldn't serve to mean that another group of folks, who have overwhelmingly voiced their opinion on the matter, should hold to the legislative actions of the former.

Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has said that the full-faith and credit clause does not prevent a state from setting its own domestic social policy. In other words, the full faith and credit clause doesn't always apply especially in hot-button situations like this where one state's beliefs and social policy clearly conflict with another. It's called the "public policy exemption."

[SicEmBaylor]

The full faith and credit clause should work like this.

Let's say Louisiana passes a law that says you have to moon alligators every Monday night. Let's say you don't moon your alligator on Monday night, you're indicted, and then you flee to Minnesota. Now, Minnesota does not have to enact that law but it has to recognize that Louisiana has that law, arrest the criminal, and extradite him to Louisiana. In other words, just because Minnesota doesn't have that law doesn't mean they should disregard Louisiana's statutes but nor does it mean that they have to adopt it themselves.

[ousoonerfan]

Let's just mellow out for a while.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevYBsShxNs







Mahna Mahna

[NormanPride]

Oh lawdy, please state gubmint save us from the gays! But don't lose me my welfares, or I ain't gonna vote you no more.

Isn't this also about the NAFTA superhighway?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The two pink things are married heaux meauxs.

FROM CALIFORNIA.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh lawdy, please state gubmint save us from the gays! But don't lose me my welfares, or I ain't gonna vote you no more.

Isn't this also about the NAFTA superhighway?

That's interesting. I haven't heard what Oklahoma's reaction to the TTC/superhighway have been.

I do know that the TTC is the greatest evil ever burdened on the citizens of the state of Texas in its long and glorious history.

[Sooner_Havok]

Oh lawdy, please state gubmint save us from the gays! But don't lose me my welfares, or I ain't gonna vote you no more.

Isn't this also about the NAFTA superhighway?

Yeah, like Oklahoma will ever get a road like that built. ****, it is going to take us 4 years to build a new cross town, how many decades would it take to build a new 8 lane I-35 from boarder to boarder?:rolleyes:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

6 months, but it'll be under repair for 146 years afterwards.

[Sooner_Havok]

6 months, but it'll be under repair for 146 years afterwards.

Would they still be fixing I-35 at the same time they were laying the NAFTA super highway on top of it?

[SicEmBaylor]

Would they still be fixing I-35 at the same time they were laying the NAFTA super highway on top of it?

In Texas it's going to run parallel to and not over I-35. The footprint and cost of this thing will be enormous not to mention the thousands of Texas families that will have their homes seized by the government to build the thing.

[Sooner_Havok]

Anyway, it was my understanding that the I-69 corridor was going to be the main one. Since that one completely bypasses the state, I am sure some folks here wouldn't be to thrilled with the thing.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Sixty NINE!

*air guitar riff*

[Sooner_Havok]

In Texas it's going to run parallel to and not over I-35. The footprint and cost of this thing will be enormous not to mention the thousands of Texas families that will have their homes seized by the government to build the thing.

Funny how they always want to eminent domain property of the poor, but will bypass folks like Justice Souter 's property huh.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Can we PLEASE get back to talking about heaux meauxs?

[Sooner_Havok]

Can we PLEASE get back to talking about heaux meauxs?

Sure, hows life treating ya man;) :D

[ousoonerfan]

Can we PLEASE get back to talking about heaux meauxs?



Do Do Doot Do!!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Random picture.

http://edgecastcdn.net/800004/fa01.jaman.com/dload/u1/04czItCHf78E/1/4/1/1186172669/l/

Discuss.

[Okla-homey]

cupla points:

1) Congress stopped sweating the Xth Amendment once they figured out they could condition federal funds with strings attached. IOW, you wanna blow off our mandate? Fine, do without your federal dollars.

2) I find it somewhat unsettling and inconsistent that OUr fine state which passed HB 1804 to get rid of the messicans opposes a federal mandate to develop drivers licenses that are tough to fake.

[SicEmBaylor]

cupla points:
2) I find it somewhat unsettling and inconsistent that OUr fine state which passed HB 1804 to get rid of the messicans opposes a federal mandate to develop drivers licenses that are tough to fake.

Because the former is simply trying to enforce existing Federal law that the Federal government is not enforcing itself while the latter is the Federal government enforcing an inappropriate statute. It's apples and oranges.

[ousoonerfan]

Random picture.

http://edgecastcdn.net/800004/fa01.jaman.com/dload/u1/04czItCHf78E/1/4/1/1186172669/l/

Discuss.

SAY IT!!!!

[Okla-homey]

Because the former is simply trying to enforce existing Federal law that the Federal government is not enforcing itself while the latter is the Federal government enforcing an inappropriate statute. It's apples and oranges.

IOW, since the fellers in OKC are unconstitutionally usurping the exclusive province of the Congress (under Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution) in matters of immigration and naturalization regulation, we may as well go balls deep and blow off stuff Congress decided can help in this area. got it.

[Chuck Bao]

SAY IT!!!!

Ouch! Okay.

Uncle.

Uncle Sam.

[SicEmBaylor]

IOW, since the fellers in OKC are unconstitutionally usurping the exclusive province of the Congress (under Article I, Sec 8 of the Constitution) in matters of immigration and naturalization regulation, we may as well go balls deep and blow off stuff Congress decided can help in this area. got it.

They are not usurping anything. They're enforcing the law. If a local cop were to catch a guy committing any other Federal crime then isn't it his responsibility to arrest the guy regardless of whether or not it's against state law?

You can not simultaneously make the claim that Federal statutes trump state statutes and then claim that the states are usurping the Federal government when they enforce those statutes with whatever means is available.

I think your desire for cheap lawn care has clouded your judgment and objectivity on this issue. Let me make this even more clear. The state would only be usurping if they were to redefine what is or is not an illegal immigrant and what constitutes legal residency. The state has done none of those things as it's the purview of the Federal government. The Federal government has clearly defined the legal ways to enter the country and the state is merely finding ways to prosecute and/or identify those who are already breaking Federal law and are defined by Federal law as an illegal immigrant. There is absolutely no usurpation. Surely you're intelligent enough to understand the difference........surely.

[Jerk]

How cute, Oklahoma thinks it can sustain itself without federal funding. States that are dependent on the fed. treasury for properly functioning roads and farms should probably be careful for what they wish.

Fine. We'll keep our grain and our oil. You can keep broadway and those speculators on Wall Street.

[Mixer!]

In Texas it's going to run parallel to and not over I-35. The footprint and cost of this thing will be enormous not to mention the thousands of Texas families that will have their homes seized by the government to build the thing.
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6916/pickenswindpv2.jpg

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

[bluedogok]

How cute, Oklahoma thinks it can sustain itself without federal funding. States that are dependent on the fed. treasury for properly functioning roads and farms should probably be careful for what they wish.
Where do you think all that Federal money comes from? The states.....
Road money is gas taxes collected by the states, sent to the federal gov't and redistributed. Up until 2003 Oklahoma (and many surrounding states) were donor states which meant they did not get as much federal money back as they paid in...this went on for 30 some years. Only because of the cost of the I-40 crosstown project was that changed. That was also a road built in the early 60's with a life expectancy of 20 years with 1/8th the traffic that it carries now. I would say the state got their money's worth out of that stretch of road.


Yeah, like Oklahoma will ever get a road like that built. ****, it is going to take us 4 years to build a new cross town, how many decades would it take to build a new 8 lane I-35 from boarder to boarder?:rolleyes:
"Free" (really gas tax) roads are built in incremental funding, so basically a project gets a portion of funding that has to be approved every year, so in effect they build up to the yearly budget. They also don't build ahead because the funding for the next year could be stopped. That is why they take so long to build "free" roads. It doesn't take long to build toll roads because of the funding model, toll roads are fully funded at the start of the project so you have all the money to throw at it. You are better off getting the road built quicker so you can start paying the bond debt down sooner.

All of the toll roads in OK were built in a fraction of the time of the "free" roads. Lake Hefner Parkway construction was accelerated because the Kilpatrick turnpike went into design/construction while LHP was under construction. Since the turnpike was off and running the interchange at Memorial moved over to turnpike funding which freed up the money from the LHP project to accelerate its schedule. Four years is nothing for a project like the Crosstown, they have been working on Ben White (290/71) down here for 15 years with no end in sight while they are almost done with the toll road in less than 4 years.

The TTC is owned and being built by the Spanish company Cintra, they will take in all the toll fees and pay the state a lease fee, the roads will technically be owned by the state but it is a long term (100+ year) lease. They have halted the east (I-45) branch but the west (I-35) branch is still well underway, in fact some of y'all might have used a portion of what will become the west branch if you took the toll road around Austin going to San Antonio.

KHOU.com - Scaled-back Trans-Texas Corridor hailed (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080609_tj_txdot.1c78fdc5.html)

[tommieharris91]

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6916/pickenswindpv2.jpg

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

We should replace :texan: with Boone's face.

[Okla-homey]

They are not usurping anything. They're enforcing the law. If a local cop were to catch a guy committing any other Federal crime then isn't it his responsibility to arrest the guy regardless of whether or not it's against state law?

You can not simultaneously make the claim that Federal statutes trump state statutes and then claim that the states are usurping the Federal government when they enforce those statutes with whatever means is available.

I think your desire for cheap lawn care has clouded your judgment and objectivity on this issue. Let me make this even more clear. The state would only be usurping if they were to redefine what is or is not an illegal immigrant and what constitutes legal residency. The state has done none of those things as it's the purview of the Federal government. The Federal government has clearly defined the legal ways to enter the country and the state is merely finding ways to prosecute and/or identify those who are already breaking Federal law and are defined by Federal law as an illegal immigrant. There is absolutely no usurpation. Surely you're intelligent enough to understand the difference........surely.

Come on. You can do better than that. Here's a question. Let's say you don't pay your federal taxes. Let's say your local DA is fully aware you don't pay your federal taxes. Let's say your local sheriff knows you don't pay your federal taxes? Do they do anything about it? Could they even do anything about it if they were so inclined? Who prosecutes? The state or the feds? It's a jurisdictional thing for crying out loud.

Similarly, when states try to regulate naturalization, they're out of their lane. In fact, states are constitutionally foreclosed from enforcing federal law UNLESS that power is vested in them by Congress. Look, I realize this does not comport with your ante-bellum world view that mourns for a time "gone with the wind" when happy darkies chopped cotton while massah sat on the veranda enjoying a julep and a stogie, but that doesn't make you right.

:les: IT'S THE SAME THING!

alrighty then.

[AggieTool]

Why does this thread make me want to marry my sister?:confused:

[Sooner_Havok]

Why does this thread make me want to marry my sister?:confused:

Cause you already did and are looking for something to explain why you did it?

[mdklatt]

Similarly, when states try to regulate naturalization, they're out of their lane. In fact, states are constitutionally foreclosed from enforcing federal law UNLESS that power is vested in them by Congress.

Can't states enact their own requirements for state residency or citizenship? They define who gets to vote and who pays resident income taxes.

[Okla-homey]

Can't states enact their own requirements for state residency or citizenship? They define who gets to vote and who pays resident income taxes.

States have very narrow rights in that area. The XIV Amendment, Sec. 5 has been interpreted to mean Americans have a constitutional right to travel and live anywhere on the Fruited Plain our little ol' heart desires. Thus, if state got hinky over limiting state provided benefits or rights based on how long a person had been in the state, they get smacked down by SCOTUS because that chills folks's right to move around the country. On one famous case, California tried to limit state welfare benefits to people who had resided in the state for six months. SCOTUS said NO-GO!

States can and do put residency requirements on voting, but those have to be relatively brief. SCOTUS has held three months is too long but 50 days is okay. Thus, we can infer that residency requirements for voting must be less than 90 days in order to be constitutional.

[bluedogok]

States have very narrow rights in that area. The XIV Amendment, Sec. 5 has been interpreted to mean Americans have a constitutional right to travel and live anywhere on the Fruited Plain our little ol' heart desires.
BUT an illegal (or undocumented) alien is NOT an American :D

They aren't here legally, so why should they be granted the same (if not more) rights than American citizen or documented alien? What they did being in this country is break the law, even if it is not enforced it is still against the law. If they aren't going to enforce it, then it needs to be modified or abolished.

[Okla-homey]

BUT an illegal (or undocumented) alien is NOT an American :D

They aren't here legally, so why should they be granted the same (if not more) rights than American citizen or documented alien? What they did being in this country is break the law, even if it is not enforced it is still against the law. If they aren't going to enforce it, then it needs to be modified or abolished.

I agree. Since the government doesn't appear to have the wll to enforce the law, it should be changed. Nothing breeds contempt for law and order than the gubmint's refusal to enforce laws on the books.

I think its silly to build fences and what not. They won't keep anyone out. if the gubmint was serious about enforcing the law, they would make it a criminal act to knowingly employ an illegal. And that my brutha, will never happen. Heck, the meat, fruit and veggie processors in this country would all have to shut down. For good.

As far as gubmint bennies go, those can be denied to a certain extent. One thing states are not permitted to do is refuse to let the kids of illegals go to school, even if those kids are illegal aliens themselves.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Isn't that the whole reason why the TCSO trained and approved themselves by federal guidelines to act as immigration enforcement officers?

So THEY could step up and do the "boots on the ground" dirty work the Feds aren't? So they can enforce the law the Feds aren't? So that there's at least some congruity in the enforcement of federal law in regards to immigration policy?

[Frozen Sooner]

It's not the federal government. I mean, kinda not. It's the Constitution, Article IX, Sec. 1., the infamous Full Faith and Credit clause.



AKA, Oklahoma has passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. California has made it legal. Therefore, according to the Full Faith and Credit clause (with pending clarification by the legal eagles), the state of Oklahoma may have to recognize marriages held in California. It's beyond my understanding, but because one group of folks likes it one way, shouldn't serve to mean that another group of folks, who have overwhelmingly voiced their opinion on the matter, should hold to the legislative actions of the former.
The "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." sentence in the FFC Clause clearly says that the Congress has the power to say what that recognition entails-and the Defense of Marriage Act states that states do not have to provide recognition to marriages "offensive to the public morals."

I don't agree with the DOMA, but it seems to be on OK Constitutional ground.

[Frozen Sooner]

And yes, I realize that's a reversal of a previously-stated thought of mine. I thought that DOMA had no chance in front of the Supremes, but I think it'll squeak by.

Oh, also, it should be pointed out that the majority of Californians actually oppose gay marriage-it's been banned by state referendum before, but the referendum was overturned on state constitutional grounds.

[SicEmBaylor]

God, I am so icking drunk bgut i love consti. theory.

[Okla-homey]

Isn't that the whole reason why the TCSO trained and approved themselves by federal guidelines to act as immigration enforcement officers?

So THEY could step up and do the "boots on the ground" dirty work the Feds aren't? So they can enforce the law the Feds aren't? So that there's at least some congruity in the enforcement of federal law in regards to immigration policy?

You are correct. In that case, those local officers are vested with the authority to enforce federal immigration policy by agreement with the federal government and their immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) certification which operates as a form of cross-deputization.

That does not mean deputy Goober in Shattuck is so qualified. If he isn't ICE qualified, he has no authority in that area.

[Okla-homey]

God, I am so icking drunk bgut i love consti. theory.

Aha! Drunkeness explains your wacky world view.

[ousoonerfan]

Ouch! Okay.

Uncle.

Uncle Sam.

OK, USA!

[SicEmBaylor]

Aha! Drunkeness explains your wacky world view.

I wasn't drunk when I wrote the rest of that.

[SicEmBaylor]

You are correct. In that case, those local officers are vested with the authority to enforce federal immigration policy by agreement with the federal government and their immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) certification which operates as a form of cross-deputization.

That does not mean deputy Goober in Shattuck is so qualified. If he isn't ICE qualified, he has no authority in that area.

How qualified does one have to be to arrest a known illegal immigrant and hand them over to ICE? You act as if there is some special talent that one needs.

If illegal immigration is having a largely negative impact on a local community or, in this case, a state then for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone should have a problem with local and state communities getting involved if Federal action isn't sufficient enough to alleviate that negative impact.

[LosAngelesSooner]

And yes, I realize that's a reversal of a previously-stated thought of mine. I thought that DOMA had no chance in front of the Supremes, but I think it'll squeak by.

Oh, also, it should be pointed out that the majority of Californians actually oppose gay marriage-it's been banned by state referendum before, but the referendum was overturned on state constitutional grounds.
That's kinda misleading. Last count it was 51% for gay marriage and 49% against...by one poll and 51% against gay marriage and 49% for by another.

People forget just how redneck the inland part of Cali is. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

How qualified does one have to be to arrest a known illegal immigrant and hand them over to ICE? You act as if there is some special talent that one needs.Okay...lemme paint a picture.

You're in your home watching tv, maybe having a cerveza and some food with your family. Suddenly the door bursts open and four yahoos rush in yelling at you. You grab the pistol you have sitting nearby, or you run to your bedroom and grab one, and you start shooting, defending yourself from the home intruders.

Problem is, you're an illegal immigrant and those "home intruders" are some local men who think they're conducting a raid on a house full of illegals who they totally KNOW are illegal and want to get them into custody and deport them.

You end up killing one or two and they end up killing you and one of your kids in the crossfire.

Now...before you say a word just realize that this is a POSSIBILE outcome. If you don't think there would be any "patriots" who would get that gung-ho about defending the homeland, you're nuts.

The training covers how to SAFELY conduct searches and arrests and how to properly IDENTIFY and then APPROACH an illegal in a way that doesn't trample their rights or endanger anyone.

Trust me...there's a lot more training that goes into it that you obviously understand.

[yermom]

i'd be happy if they would just do something when they are pulled over in traffic stops, etc...

[SicEmBaylor]

Okay...lemme paint a picture.

You're in your home watching tv, maybe having a cerveza and some food with your family. Suddenly the door bursts open and four yahoos rush in yelling at you. You grab the pistol you have sitting nearby, or you run to your bedroom and grab one, and you start shooting, defending yourself from the home intruders.

Problem is, you're an illegal immigrant and those "home intruders" are some local men who think they're conducting a raid on a house full of illegals who they totally KNOW are illegal and want to get them into custody and deport them.

You end up killing one or two and they end up killing you and one of your kids in the crossfire.

Now...before you say a word just realize that this is a POSSIBILE outcome. If you don't think there would be any "patriots" who would get that gung-ho about defending the homeland, you're nuts.

The training covers how to SAFELY conduct searches and arrests and how to properly IDENTIFY and then APPROACH an illegal in a way that doesn't trample their rights or endanger anyone.

Trust me...there's a lot more training that goes into it that you obviously understand.

How is conducting a raid on illegal immigrants any different than conducting a raid on any other house? If little kids aren't getting caught in the crossfire when the local sheriff's department raids a meth house then why would they get caught in a crossfire when they raid an illegal immigrant's house???

Having said that, I've never heard of any local or state police force raiding a house full of people who have done nothing wrong other than be illegal immigrants. I'm not opposed to them doing so in principle, but in practical terms I'm sure they have better things to do. What I have in mind is something more along the lines of when local and state cops run into illegal immigrants they take action which is somewhat different than actively searching them out and busting down doors. Like I said though, I oppose that for practical reasons not on principle.

They can have cerveza and food with their family................in Mexico.

[SicEmBaylor]

i'd be happy if they would just do something when they are pulled over in traffic stops, etc...

That's what I had in mind.

[LosAngelesSooner]

How is conducting a raid on illegal immigrants any different than conducting a raid on any other house? If little kids aren't getting caught in the crossfire when the local sheriff's department raids a meth house then why would they get caught in a crossfire when they raid an illegal immigrant's house???

Having said that, I've never heard of any local or state police force raiding a house full of people who have done nothing wrong other than be illegal immigrants. I'm not opposed to them doing so in principle, but in practical terms I'm sure they have better things to do. What I have in mind is something more along the lines of when local and state cops run into illegal immigrants they take action which is somewhat different than actively searching them out and busting down doors. Like I said though, I oppose that for practical reasons not on principle.

They can have cerveza and food with their family................in Mexico.
You want "militia men" and civilian wannabe border guards conducting raids on meth labs and other houses?! :confused:

[Frozen Sooner]

That's kinda misleading. Last count it was 51% for gay marriage and 49% against...by one poll and 51% against gay marriage and 49% for by another.

People forget just how redneck the inland part of Cali is. ;)

The referendum passed, man. The will of the people was to ban gay marriage. It turned out that in this instance the will of the people violated the state consitution, and the California supremes exercised their proper duty of judicial review and struck the law made by the referendum down.

However, it could certainly be that if the vote were held again it would not pass.

[SicEmBaylor]

You want "militia men" and civilian wannabe border guards conducting raids on meth labs and other houses?! :confused:

Hah. Absolutely not. I thought we were talking about local and state law enforcement. I don't have a problem with groups on the border simply observing and calling ICE when they observe illegals, but I absolutely do not believe they should take any kind of direct or active role. I am not condoning vigilante groups.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hah. Absolutely not. I thought we were talking about local and state law enforcement. I don't have a problem with groups on the border simply observing and calling ICE when they observe illegals, but I absolutely do not believe they should take any kind of direct or active role. I am not condoning vigilante groups.Ooookay. Good.

Phew! :)

[LosAngelesSooner]

The referendum passed, man. The will of the people was to ban gay marriage. It turned out that in this instance the will of the people violated the state consitution, and the California supremes exercised their proper duty of judicial review and struck the law made by the referendum down.

However, it could certainly be that if the vote were held again it would not pass.The referendum BARELY passed and only because they snuck it through. When they held the telephone campaign recently, the ban lost by 5%, which is close, but still a loss. If it went up again for a real vote it would be a squeeker. I'm just glad the courts upheld the Constitution and made the right call.

I'm never for taking rights away from people. This is America.

[Scott D]

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6916/pickenswindpv2.jpg

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

These are not the droids you are looking for.

[CORNholio]

Heh.

It would be funny if California were to secede into the pacific ocean.
:cool:

fixed

[Tulsa_Fireman]

How is conducting a raid on illegal immigrants any different than conducting a raid on any other house? If little kids aren't getting caught in the crossfire when the local sheriff's department raids a meth house then why would they get caught in a crossfire when they raid an illegal immigrant's house???

Having said that, I've never heard of any local or state police force raiding a house full of people who have done nothing wrong other than be illegal immigrants. I'm not opposed to them doing so in principle, but in practical terms I'm sure they have better things to do. What I have in mind is something more along the lines of when local and state cops run into illegal immigrants they take action which is somewhat different than actively searching them out and busting down doors. Like I said though, I oppose that for practical reasons not on principle.

They can have cerveza and food with their family................in Mexico.


Jurisdiction, my friend. Homey can shed more light on it than I can, but as has been mentioned, it is not within the scope of municipal, county, or state duty to act on federal law except in the example of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, where they've been approved and deputized to act in the role of federal agencies. To touch on what you've mentioned in regards to local and state law enforcement acting on illegals, I've witnessed it firsthand where my fellows in blue, the Tulsa Police Department, have arrested those in state illegally upon their act of even a misdemeanor offense. The way it was explained to me, HB1804 opens that door. Maybe the door's been open this whole time, but municipalities simply failed to act. It doesn't allow door kicking and snatching people off the street, but it DOES allow jurisdictions that once had no recourse other than informing ICE the ability to make an arrest on commission of an offense for the offense, with intent to detain for ICE processing.

Again, there's a pile of fellas taller than the BOk tower that know more about it than I. That's just how it was explained to me by a TPD officer as another was slappin' cuffs on an illegal for not having a driver's license and insurance after causing a motor vehicle incident.

[LosAngelesSooner]

fixedheh. Ignorant.

Expected.