House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

Published: May 5, 2009
Modified: May 6, 2009 at 12:51 pm


Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Gov. Brad Henry speaks to members of the Oklahoma Press Association at their convention held at the Doubletree Hotel Downtown in Tulsa. SHERRY BROWN/Tulsa World Friday, Feb. 6, 2009

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.

"I think our governor is out of step.”

House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Congress should not be providing bailouts to financial institutions and automakers, he said.

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt,’” Key said. "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”

Maybe someone can clarify for me, but what is the point of this? I could be missing something, but I cannot believe our elected leaders haven't even found time to make a budget yet they have enough time to make a resolution that will do absolutley nothing except "send a message" to those evil liberal/communists/marxists/whatever in Washington. Give me a break.

Will these same legislators have their hand out in the event, God forbid, we have another major disaster, like May 3rd, in which we always look to the federal government for assistance?

I don't mind state's taking stands. What I do object to is these same politicians talking out both sides of their mouths — shaking a fist at the overbearing federal government with one hand while reaching out with the other hand for those federal dollars.

The Charles Key, the one with Murrah Bombing conspiracy book?

Yeah, that's who I want telling someone he's out of step.
Someone here could still be mad at the government for not handing over loads of FBI Murrah bombing files.


Again, I'm sure he was screaming when Reagan did it.

This is the major question, and it's one I don't think our representatives are capable of answering. Basically, whether or not, when the banks and the autos came to Bush and our economy was tanking with the Dow hitting 5000, whether some more BIG hits would have tail spinned us into a depression.

Now that we bought some time and the Dow is at 8400, its so opportune to get hindsighty and smartassity by telling the feds we don't need them. A great bunch of nose biters, we have.

I applaud HCR 1028 and pray that the rest of the states in the union do the same.

Disaster relief is hardly comparable to bank bailouts and auto maker disasters. The federal government has it's place, and the states reserve those places where the government's leave off.

Shrink the federal government before it consumes the states.

I like the idea. I'm just not sure if it has any teeth to it. Does it actually do anything? or is it just to send a message that will be ignored? In Washington, they already know we disagree. So what does this bill add to that?

What? The government is "consuming the states" when it is bailing out the banks, but not when it is actually bailing out the states?

Clarify that one please.

Can anyone tell me what the legal effect is of HCR 1028?

I don't think it has a legal effect. I think it is just a resolution, or really just an official nasty note.

I don't know what their real point is, except to tell off the liberals. I am quite sure they wouldn't pass anything that actually stopped the flow of federal subsidies for oil and gas, agriculture, infrastructure, or especially disaster relief. They just want to tell the federal government that it is wrong for them to give us all that money. Or maybe they don't realize they are doing that, who knows with these guys?

When Key says that the constitution lists about 20 duties required of the US government, I can only assume that he is referring to Article 1 Section 8. But without actually getting him to fax us a copy of his list, there is no real way of telling what he thinks the constitution says. Maye he does think that it actually restricts bailouts to his constituents' industries and not banks. Who knows?

I guess he doesn't know about the extent and effect of the commerce clause, eh?

But yeah, resolutions are naught but opportunities for grandstanding.

I want a resolution declaring that Midtowner has a bellybutton. That'd be rad.

Zero, zip, ziltch, nada....

This resolution was in committee well before the current Democrat administration was sworn in, elected or even running for the Office of the President. It was really a reaction to two years ago when the Democrats took control of Congress. There have also been several other states who have passed or are considering the same resolutions.

It is really about an issue of the ever growing number of unfunded mandates that come down from Congress like No Child Left Behind when they put all these rules in place for the states to implement that cost money and DC says its for the states to figure out how to pay for those unfunded mandates. This movement has been brewing for many years under different administrations and under Congress being under the control of either party.

I posted this on another thread, but this is a better one.

Hot Air Blog Archive Oklahoma legislature asserts sovereignty, overrides veto

There's even a video if you can't read

> I want a resolution declaring that Midtowner has
> a bellybutton. That'd be rad.

Wouldn't be the silliest thing to ever come off the fourth floor.

Typical Republlican led legislature, grandstanding and wasting taxpayer time and money in a veiled attempt to follow the Texas lead (We always seem to). this action has no teeth and citizens of Oklahoma should hold these idiots accountable for not addressing "real" issues facing the State

Technically, DC, we did it first. Texas just got thier pointless exersize in political puffery passed first.

It seems amazing to me how cartoon conservative our GOP "led" legislature is. After all the back benching for decades about how much better they would be, they've decided to focus entirely on the wedge issues and none at all on the real ones.

It's all emotional BS and nothing practical.

Outsider, let's be fair. They give lots of lip service to wedge issues and are even smart enough to put them on the ballot to get out the white supremacist vote [see: English only bill]. But for the most part, wedge issues only get lip service because the party leadership is smart -- they understand the importance of these issues is not that any actual change be accomplished (because it'd likely be unconstitutional in many cases), but that the God, guns and gays crowd keep voting for the (R)s.

In truth, the legislature has been mostly laser-focused on passing through laws favoring constituent industries such as the insurance industry.

Attention all moderates and liberals - please put your head back in the sand. We will let you know when you can poke it out again. In the mean time, trying doing a little American history research and start with the early 1830s. This is only the beginning and doesn't concern you at this point.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

You talking about Andrew Jackson?

His opposition to the National Bank?

In general, I am referring to events leading up to Southern session. The groundwork is being laid, but like I said, don't worry about it for now. We will let you know when you can worry. Any fears moderates or liberals might have now is premature and will be dismissed as paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Just chalk it up to posturing - a favorite liberal term.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Kerry, resolutions don't lay the groundwork for anything. That's not paranoia or anything of that nature speaking, that's just the truth. Resolutions are de facto posturing, nothing more. They carry no force of law whatsoever.

I think you also forget that secession was only possible because at that time, states were viewed by everyone as being individual sovereigns in much the same fashion as the "countries" exist in the European Union. There wasn't as much nationalism for the United States (but that was becoming palpable for the first time during that period) as there was loyalty and warm regard for the state of one's origin.

It might be fun to make comparisons, but it's not going to lead anywhere. Secessionists have been hard at work thinking that the South will rise again since 1866. To date, they've had no success whatsoever. What makes you think things are going to be different this time?

.oO(anyone else hear Charlie Daniels music?)Oo.

You are correct. Insurance Industry Profit Protection Reform is the primary focus and the party lets Key and others wave thier freak flag to distract from those things.

However, I'm not sure the leadership are smart enough to see down that the road of wedgie demagoguery is leading them off the same cliff the National GOP already ran off.

What was the Southern session you keep talking about? I'm familiar with the South's (attempted) secession, but I'm not familiar with any "Southern session."

Perhaps Kerry is right. If we could only have another civil war which would:
1. Kill hundreds of thousands
2. Marginalize state's rights
3. Establish the supremacy of the federal branch

That's what Kerry wants, right?