HCR 50 -- Escaping the Thumbs of Tyrants

he never said what HCR 50 is. can you clarify what the bill proposes?

 

81R5789 MMS-F

By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
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 2009, the states are demonstrably treated
as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union
of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal
government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
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, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim 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; and, be it further
RESOLVED, 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; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm

 

What a waste. Supposedly, it's a bill that declares sovereignty for Texas, but it's just the 10th amendment dressed up as secession.

10th Amendment
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.

 

At least he has the balls to stand up and actually say the truth....

Tenth Amendment: (1791)

"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 founders set us up as a representative republic, meaning that each state is represented at the federal level to keep the union sound. But the state should not be subservient to the federal government. States should be free to run themselves and make their own laws. It was set up with this freedom to allow citizens to move amongst the states and allow for freedom of choice; not the fedzilla that we have allowed to grow.

 

Seems like a waste, but he seems to have time since he is waiting on the Guard to come help him out with the border.

 

I agree in principle that the Federalism has eroded and that the relationship between the Fed and the states is not what the Founders envisioned. I also agree in principle that more decisions should be left up to the states but this Bill and Perry's speech don't bring anything new to it. If Perry really feels that the 10 Ammendment is being subverted the best way to challenge that isn't through a Bill that just restates the 10th but with a court case regarding a particular instance. IMO "No Child Left Behind" was an ideal case to bring up.

The other thing about Perry's speech and press conference is while it is onstensibly about the overreaching of the Fed he basically makes the argument for why the Fed has gotten so powerful while the states have gotten weaker. He talks about rejecting Fed unemployment money but also talks about still getting lots of other Federal money. While the National guard is a dual Fed. and State force the State governor has to sign off on deployment of the National Guard from there state. If Perry is truly concerned about tyranny and the threats to Texas he wouldn't sign off on sending the TX National Guard overseas. For that matter he wouldn't be asking for Fed troops to help patrol the border but assign the TX National Guard to do it.

So as much as Perry is reasserting Texas Sovereignity he's continuing to undermine it by asking for Fed money, troops while willing placing TX National Guard into Federal service.

 

Examples? Most court decisions of the last decade or so go the other way.

 

As I said No Child Left Behind is a big one. Other unfunded mandates to states, using the Commerce Clause to try to do things like create drug free zones around schools those are a few things off of the top of my head and will think about more later. My point though criticizing Perry is that the states themselves though have underminded Federalism by eagerly taking Federal money and assistance.

I will agree though that recent decisions have been shifting things back somewhat but I think even you will agree that the balance of power greatly favors the Fed over the states.

 

Drug free school zones laws date back to the mid 1980's, and such laws ran into legal problems in the mid 1990's with the US v. Lopez case (gun free school zone but the same concept)

I'm having a hard time fitting that into the context of a currently eroding concept of federalism - over the last 20 years the balance has shifted the other way.

 

The HCR 50 is a fluff version of the 10th. The original is better.

 

you are right. in reality the people just need to stand up and get in the face of these polititicans, in a polite way of course, and let them know that we have had enough. This is why the tea parties are a great step in that direction...

 

Political posturing by a massive douchebag who's trying to make a name for his presidential run.

Rick Perry is one of the douchiest douchebags who has ever existed.

 

So the bill doesn't actually do anything?

 

See the post above by the thadeus. You have it right. The bill does nothing. A pure political exercise, with meaning only for whoever thinks the resulting publicity benefits them. Perry and various hangers-on.

Pretty disgusting, isn't it?



edit: Heck, JV... I just noticed that I reached some absurd post number. I spend too much time here!

 

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, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim that Rick Perry is a douchebag.

 

You're right that recent court decisions have been shifting the balance the other way but that is relative compared to the relationship what the founders envisioned betwen the states and the Fed. I'm not a Constitutional originalists and understand that especially following the Civil War it was both inevitable and necessary for that shift to take place but I do feel that the balance of power still favors the Fed to the detriment of the states.

Also I don't think this is something that should be partisan as clearly the Bush Admin. not only came to power by a Fed intrusion on what should be a state issue, but also sought to expand Fed power in terms of limiting the ability of states to exercise stricter environmental regulations and education.

 

Can't wait for Good Hair to be taken down by Kay Bailey. He has done nothing to deserve being the longest-serving governor in Texas history.