Idaho State House Resolution Affirms Sovereignty

[barbaro]

Is this an anachonistic act of symbolism, or a potential sign of future desire by some states to get more autonomy, semi-independence, or independence?

BOISE - Promoting his state sovereignty resolution on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives on Monday, St. Maries Rep. Dick Harwood declared that the United States is really a “confederacy.”

“To be accurate, we’re a confederated republic,” the fifth-term Republican then told the House.

Not everyone was buying it, though.

Rep. George Sayler, D-Coeur d’Alene, a retired high school government teacher, attempted a quick rebuttal. “The Constitution clearly states that … we the people do ordain and establish this government. Our government is a government of the people and by the people and for the people - it is not a compact of states,” he told the House. “I think that issue was further defined during the civil war … I think that this memorial is probably fighting a 200-year-old battle, and I’m not quite sure how it’s going to serve us.”

But Sayler’s comments did little to change the tenor of the debate, and Harwood’s resolution affirming Idaho’s sovereignty won easy approval in the Republican-dominated state House.

Now, some in Idaho are shaking their heads.

Political scientists, for example, said Harwood’s description of the U.S. as a confederacy is dead wrong, and a longtime Kootenai County human rights activist said the use of the term is offensive. “It’s a very offensive term for minority communities in our country, like African-Americans,” said Tony Stewart, a board member and co-founder of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, and a retired political scientist at North Idaho College. “That whole term refers to the period of slavery.”

Steve Shaw, a professor of political science at Northwest Nazarene University, said, “I don’t know if Harwood is intentionally blurring the categories or if he’s just confused.” Shaw said the United States is neither a unitary system, where the federal government is all-powerful, nor a confederacy, a loose organization of sovereign states which can secede at any time and have no central power. “We rejected a unitary system, we rejected a confederacy,” he said. “We have this federal system.”

He added, “The original thing the founders did was to create this so-called federal republic, because there wasn’t one like it at the time.”

Switzerland is an example of a confederacy today.

“Sometimes the terminology gets confusing,” Shaw said. “But I haven’t heard anyone talk about the confederacy since I went to school in the south.”

Shaw said Harwood may be in need of “remedial U.S. history courses.”

Harwood, for his part, said, “If I’m wrong, then I guess I’m wrong. But my understanding of it all was that we were a confederated republic.” He said he thought President Lincoln changed things so that states couldn’t secede, but that the nation remained a confederacy.

Stewart said the Articles of Confederacy governed the initial 13 colonies, but they were abolished in 1787 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Only when the south seceded from the union in 1861 was a confederacy formed among the southern states; it ended in 1865 when the South lost the civil war.

Harwood said, “History changes a lot over the years, especially in our colleges. Lots of things that have happened in the history of our country never get told in college courses.”

The lawmaker, who didn’t go to college but did earn a community college vocational certificate, said he picked up on the “confederacy” term after reading a Pennsylvania legislative resolution, though the term doesn’t appear in his Idaho sovereignty resolution, HJM 4.

“What I’m saying is each state has its own constitution, that’s what I’m saying,” Harwood said, “and we have a right to govern ourselves.”

HJM 4, a non-binding memorial to Congress and the president, declares Idaho’s sovereignty from the federal government and ask the federal government to “cease and desist” from violating that sovereignty.

Harwood read from the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and told the House, “With them words, the states of this United States created the federal government.”

His resolution declares, “The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states.”

Shaw said, “That’s historical error to say the states created the system. It’s actually the other way around.”

Harwood disputed that. “He’s wrong, totally wrong,” he said of the professor.

Harwood said his resolution is part of a “grass-roots movement” among legislators around the country, and several states are considering similar resolutions.

His bill, HJM 4 passed the Idaho House on Monday on a 51-17 vote, and now moves to the Senate.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...s-confederacy/

[Norton]

Is this an anachonistic act of symbolism, or a potential sign of future desire by some states to get more autonomy, semi-independence, or independence?

Would think more autonomy. For Idaho, independence would be a disaster. There are very few states that could become independent and survive on their own. From a practical sense, not sure what the passing of such a bill will accomplish.

[Rural Surin]

This is a very fascinating topic to follow. The US has a very deep contemporary history of modern sovereign, independent, and break-away movements regardless of their political identity. Overall, I believe Yanks spend far too much time concerned with whom they think they are and less {or nil} time practiced towards who they really are.

[TSR2]

Well its the united states of America, which pre-supposes a non united states of America at some time, after a lot of legal Bollocks it could be determined, advantages?

[Butterfly]

I believe Yanks spend far too much time concerned with whom they think they are and less {or nil} time practiced towards who they really are.

Truer words have never been spoken

[El Verdugo]

The two party political pendulum is really swinging in the USA. The Democrats have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and Republicans throughout the land are desperately seeking the issues that will bring the American people to their senses...

If history offers up any wisdom here, it that patience will best serve the Republican cause. Just as the Republicans proved adept at their own undoing, so the Democrats will overreach and create a public backlash that will eventually render Republican issues palatable and create another opportunity for the Repubs to self-destruct... and the beat goes on.

[blackgang]

You do know of coarse that Idaho is home to some of the White Supremacists and the Brotherhood is also in NE Washington and on the border of Idaho and the Ruby Ridge incident right along about the time of the Janet Reno Fuck up at Waco, it is libeled to be anything brought this on in Idaho.

[Rural Surin]

You do know of coarse that Idaho is home to some of the White Supremacists and the Brotherhood is also in NE Washington and on the border of Idaho and the Ruby Ridge incident right along about the time of the Janet Reno Fuck up at Waco, it is libeled to be anything brought this on in Idaho.

Didn't you spend a great deal of years in Idaho, BG?

[Bugs]

I guess it depends upon exactly what is meant by Autonomy. I doubt there are many states that could provide the same level of services to the population without the Feds. But I would be more than happy to see the pendulum swing back more towards states rights and having the states be more self-reliant.

I don’t think that the US is anywhere near a pure confederacy. It is quite clear that the US Constitution provides rather specific areas that are to be controlled/legislated on a federal level (Article 1). It is also quite clear that the constitution as well as federal legislation that is passed based upon the rights granted to the federal government in the constitution are the supreme law of the land (I think this is in Article 1, but I know it is in Article 6). So from the get-go the states (by ratifying the constitution, and those that became states at a later date agree by becoming a state in the first place) are surrendering a certain level of control to the federation and that the feds have the final say on the areas the states have agreed to allow them to control.

At the same time the tenth amendment is quite clear that everything not granted to the feds via the constitution is to be dealt with on a state (or lower) level. If anything IMHO the line has been blurred over the centuries due to the “elastic clause” in Article 1, which basically grants the feds the right to pass legislation on nearly anything they see fit if they deem it necessary to fulfill the obligations levied upon them in the constitution.

I don’t really see the need to pass a law or make a proclamation similar to what has been done in Idaho. I think the path folks need to take is to challenge the authority of the feds via the Supreme Court. In a similar vain I would like to see a group/organization challenge the amount of control the has now been assumed by the executive branch via the supreme court (I think Bush and the boys pushed their limits and the only way to make sure those new boundaries don’t become the new norm is challenge them in the courts).

I am all for pushing back against the feds, reducing the size and control of the federal government, and placing the majority of the responsibility on the state (and lower) level(s) of government.

[Texpat]

Wingnuts jabber on like this everywhere, all the time.

Vermont, Texas, California ...

Nothing novel about this story. This is how Europe carved itself into obscurity.

Whittle every country/empire/region down so that you're so small and insignificant as to be a pawn for someone else.

Maybe Americans spend a lot of time thinking about that.

[Rural Surin]

Whatever happened to the 'States Rights'? Has that all disolved?

[blackgang]

RS says

Didn't you spend a great deal of years in Idaho, BG?

I traded a cruising sailboat for 5 acres and a new really nice remote cabin 27 miles north of sandpoint and 10 miles from the end of the county maintained road and was back in the National forest and 1 mile from my nearest neighbor. My driveway was 1/2 Mile long and connected to a forest road.
The the white supremacist groups were down around Hayden lake and Courdalene, if thats what you are so stupidly referring to. But that was expected from a stupid bigot

[Bugs]

Whatever happened to the 'States Rights'? Has that all disolved?

It has not dissolved, in fact there are a number of Supreme Court rulings over the years that help to protect 'States Rights' - but IMHO the feds over the years have whittled away and take on more and more on a national level. Generally when pressed on issues and if they should be legislated at the state or federal level the Feds rely on the "elastic clause" in Article 1.

Also sometimes when the Feds loose the fight, or know going in they would loose the fight should it go to court the Feds turn to funding as a weapon. Legal drinking age is an example of this. Legal drinking age is set by state law, the Feds knowing that the constitution gave them no leg to stand on in regulating the drinking age basically told the states if you don't make the drinking age 21 then we won't give you any funds for roads/highways and the like. So all the states fell into line and did what the feds wanted. This is a weapon that I think needs to be taken away from the feds. They should not be able to threaten to withhold funds that are not directly linked to an issue should states not do what the feds want them to do on another issue.

Yet another area of the US Constitution that I think the Feds abuse, and the courts (IMHO) have not been staunch enough in stopping the Feds from abusing is the commerce clause. On issues that the feds can not rely on the "elastic clause" in Article 1, they try and rely on the "commerce clause" also in Article 1. Basically the "commerce clause" gives the feds the right to regulate (legislate) on matters that deal with commerce with foreign nations and amongst states (also with Indian tribes). So the feds will try to word a certain piece of legislation in a way in such that they can say they are attempting to regulate commerce when in reality they are attempting to regulate something that is not within their rights to regulate.

The "school zone gun law" (I don't remember the actual court case - somebody or something vs Lopez) is a prime example of this (abuse of the commerce clause). In the 1990's the feds passed a law baring firearms within a certain area around schools. They said the law was related commerce because more guns near schools meant an increased possibility of a crime with a gun could be committed, and that such a crime could effect commerce. While I won't argue that there is not a place for gun laws related to keeping guns out of schools, there is no grounds for the feds to be able to pass legislation on this issue, and the weak argument they tried to use linking it to commerce was a joke IMHO and thankfully the Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that while the feds did have powers related to commerce they were obviously overstepping the bounds on this one.


For my two bits the Court needs to do more to prevent the Feds from abusing both the "elastic clause" as well as the "commerce clause".

The topic of the current and recent Supreme Court is an interesting topic in and of itself. Even though the Supreme Court is filled almost to the brink with judges appointed by the red team, over the years they have ruled in a relatively middle of the road way. Many of the red team folks have been continually frustrated with the seeming inability (no matter how many judges they appoint) to over turn Roe-v-Wade. The "right to privacy" that is the corner stone of the Roe ruling is another interesting point of discussion (outside of states rights) as it related to the Court and the US Constitution.