What will Barack Obama do about the states that are taking measures of protection from him?

To date; 21 states have declared sovereignty from the union since Obama has been elected.



Texas is on the verge of making a succession.What will Barack Obama do about the states that are taking measures of protection from him?That is why he wants a "Domestic Defense Force" . Way back in the '20s and '30s they were called Brown Shirts ; at other times they were called Commissars !|||i'm sure Obama is not losing any sleep over Texas threatening to secede.What will Barack Obama do about the states that are taking measures of protection from him?We would kick your A@@ again if we had another Civil War!|||It should be a major *wake-up call* for Barry but I believe he will find someway to *punish* such states and that will be time for all out WAR!What will Barack Obama do about the states that are taking measures of protection from him?He is brain dead when it comes to listening to Americans.|||The talk of secession by states is nothing new, but rather has been a constant in US history.



"Yankees themselves had been insistent on the right of a state to leave the Union as late as 1815, which kept them relatively mute on the subject during the 1820s and 1830s. By the 1850s, a new crop of Greater New England leaders too young to remember the Hartford Convention entertained no doubt: States could not be allowed to leave. The hypocrisy was widely noted below the Mason-Dixon line." -- "The Cousins' War," Kevin Phillips, Basic Books, 1999, pp. 387



Considering Obama's professed adulation of a President that firmly believed in using force of arms to compel states to remain in what was once a voluntary union of states and bow to a government to which they no longer gave their consent to govern, it takes no stretch of imagination to envision Obama's reaction to secession.





There can be no doubt that Obama has been notified of the number of states that have or are attempting to reassert their rights under Amendment 10. All of those resolutions make it clear those states, nearly all of which have Democrat majorities, believe the government is operating far outside its constitutional boundaries in its relation to the states.



I should make it perfectly clear what that relationship is. The states through the Constitution gave birth to the federal government and it is through the Constitution the states can abolish the government they created. Frankly this creates a rational fear in the government and could cause irrational behavior.



A sufficient number of states have called for a Constitutional Convention for the stated purpose of adding a “Balanced Budget” Amendment to the Constitution. Congress has thus far failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to accept the states call.



The states’ lawful request for a Con Con creates rational fears in both the federal government and proponents of liberty because although the states request and desire as stated is limited in scope, there is no limiting language in the existing Constitution as to what a Con Con could do. It could result in its stated purpose, or it could completely rewrite the Charter, essentially turning it from Obama’s described “list of negative rights” against the government to a “positive list of powers” reserved only to the federal government.



If the latter were the goal, one could believe the Congress would hurriedly meet its constitutional obligation to allow a Con Con to move forward.



Since it has failed in its obligation, one could believe Congress fears the results would lead to an expansion of the “list of negative rights” of the federal government or its abolition as it sits on the sideline, powerless to stop it. The language in the 10th Amendment Resolutions working their way through state legislatures has gotten the attention of all branches of the federal government.





March 30, 2009 General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2009



A HOUSE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE STATE'S RIGHT TO CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY OVER CERTAIN POWERS UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES



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 mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and



Whereas, Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States 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 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:



To read the entire resolution, go here:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills…