Esteemed Sirs,
By changing the language in the amendment proposal such as you've done, you're essentially acknowledging that the federal government possesses unlimited power over the states and the people thereof, and that all federal law supercedes state law, contrary to the ninth and tenth Amendments, U.S. Constitution, and in accordance with the doctrine of the enemy. What is more, given that the language in the amendment was changed upon receipt of a slightly veiled threat from the U.S. Attorney General, you give the lasting impression that you have no heart for the fight, and that the good citizens of Oklahoma bear the same deficiency, which is to say a severe lack of spine. How then, esteemed Sirs, can any other state currently, or in future, embroiled in the sovereignty movement trust that this uniquely conservative, God fearing, liberty-loving state will be with them in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part?
My suggested reaction?: "Bring it on!"
Your servant,...
Friday, July 31, 2009
Time to initiate another letter writing campaign (initial draft)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think I would go that far. Amending the language as they have is no doubt cowardly, but if Federal law automatically took precedence over the state constitution, then there would be no need to amend the language to mention it.
They are more acknowledging that it is not their aim to challenge Federal law with this amendment, which implies that the Federal law could be challenged by an act of the state legislature.
Of course, challenging the Federal authority should be their aim, and to back down from making that challenge because of the threat that Washington won't send them billions of electronically created monetary credits which are simply going to destroy the state economy anyway...well, seems a little stupid.
They don't imply that they lack authority, only that they have neither will nor intelligence.
Hmm. I guess you have a good point, Chiu. I'll have to think on it more. But I was letting off a little steam too when I wrote the post. Do keep that in mind. It's an "initial draft letter". I haven't sent it to my state legislators yet. I've just published it on the internet. ;-)
Also, everyone keep in mind that this particular piece of legislation is part and parcel of the state of Oklahoma's answer to the illegal immigration issue (on which the feds have abdicated their authority, if, in fact, they have any), particularly Mexican immigration. Why the state spends its resources printing everything under the sun in Spanish to accomodate Mexicans, I personally cannot even begin to fathom. Irrespective of what the 'federal' government says. End of story.
Well, if you make the point that the legislature must challenge the blatantly unconstitutional and destructive policies of the Federal government, then I think you end up with a much stronger argument.
To that end, pointing out that the Federal government is basically admitting that their original language would have represented such a challenge to the Federal authority goes a ways to establishing the moral imperative. In other words, they have a choice between a mere gesture (one of submission) and a real assertion of their Constitutional authority.
Post a Comment