Has anyone seen this?

Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2031217/posts)

Yes I have, I work at the House of Representatives and this resolution failed the Senate however it passed the House 92 to 3.

This resolution is dead, but please tell how on EARTH did you find this...not well a publicized resolution.

Somebody posted it on the OU insider boards. Doing a google search turns up quite a bit of hits on it.

Something that sprung up related to the new federally mandated driver licenses? I know Oklahoma was one of the holdout states.

Actually this is unrelated to the REAL ID act, I know that the 10th Amendment has been a pet issue of Rep. Key, he has authored similar resolutions in the past when he was in office back in the 90's.

Well, REAL ID is certainly related to the 10th amendment.

true story...and Rep. Key has been actively involved in the REAL-ID movement...however I am not sure that it was REAL-ID that was the cause of the resolution.

Where do I sign up to get aboard this train?

I would sugest that you call Rep. Key's office and you reps office along with Senator Brogdon and your senator and express your support for this resolution and tell them that you would like to see something like this be pass next session.

Rep. Key - 405-557-5357
Sen. Brogdon - 405-521-5566
Oklahoma Legislature Home Page (http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx)

Where do I sign up to get aboard this train?

Pretty sure you'd have to actually live in Oklahoma.

True, but I can move.

If this ever did happen, I-35 and I-40 would immediately become TOLL Roads.

This kind of state action benefits citizens of ALL states. Kerry, you can support from out-of-state and it's not misplaced. ;)

Bill Search (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebApplication2/WebForm1.aspx)

Search for Measure HJR1089

It came up on Digg.com a few days ago. Was actually fairly prominent. First page maybe.

True, but I can move.

I'll have to see your passport first.

It was on fark.com also.

The entire world knows about this and it has sparked a lot of discussion. I kind of assumed everyone knew about it.

I don't see the big deal about this bill, the Federal government has no rights to push stuff like RealID and we should fire any of our lawmakers that let them get away with it.

I also have a HUGE problem with the power of the purse. I don't have a problem with the federal income tax, but I have a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE problem with the federal government taking our money and telling us we have to do what they want if we want the money back.

I do not know how accurate it is, but I have read a few places that if you do not count superfund sites that the state of Oklahoma gets back 0.75 for every 1.00 that is sent to the feds. For the feds to turn around and expect us to fall in line if we want to receive funding is just flat out wrong, it sounds like the type of crap that abusive spouses pull off in relationships... take the person's money and use it against them.

I'm no expert on matters such as these, so maybe I am missing something; but it doesn't seem like that radical of a statement, does it?

I mean, I suppose the articulation of it is quite "radical" or at least strong, but the fact that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are granted to the state is, and always has been, the case, right? This is simply restating and emphasizing this, isn't it?

what makes this important is that Oklahoma will be actively asserting its rights which would allow us to opt out of pretty much all federal mandates. Also it is a step, like it or not, in the direction of State Sovereignty which helps dethrone the federal government and its role in every day activities, also this could mean the destruction of EPA power over refineries and the such.

While I am just a researcher and not a legal staffer it could have HUGE implications being a Joint Resolution as opposed to a Simple Resolution it has more legal powers.

Support or oppose, this resolution was a big deal.

I'm no expert on matters such as these, so maybe I am missing something; but it doesn't seem like that radical of a statement, does it?

No, the bulk of the statement is not that radical.

It was the use of the word "sovereignty" that raised eyebrows and made headlines. Of course, that's what it was meant to do. Anything Charles Key is involved with is intended to incite. He's one of the bigger hucksters in Oklahoma politics.

And Sethsrott, if you think this could be a good thing - consider the impications on our economy. The last states to try to separate in any meaningful way from the Union didn't get very far - it just cost a lot of lives.

Solitude, let me say that I don't have a view on this one...I see pros and cons...my employment contract pretty much forbids me to have a view...working for the House I really cannot have a view because it could skew my work, especially research...so I am neutral, I have worked with Rep. Key along with almost every other member of the house Republican and Democrat, I have done research for issues that I think are good and bad, and I have learned that in matters like these it is best not to have a view when you are in my position.

The way the resolution reads appears to me to go 'way beyond RealID.

I would interpret it as an attempt to restore the so-called 'Constitution in exile,' which is to say, to limit the federal government's powers to those that would have been acceptable to, say, Jefferson Davis, Jay Gould or John D. Rockefeller.

what makes this important is that Oklahoma will be actively asserting its rights which would allow us to opt out of pretty much all federal mandates. Also it is a step, like it or not, in the direction of State Sovereignty which helps dethrone the federal government and its role in every day activities, also this could mean the destruction of EPA power over refineries and the such.

While I am just a researcher and not a legal staffer it could have HUGE implications being a Joint Resolution as opposed to a Simple Resolution it has more legal powers.

Support or oppose, this resolution was a big deal.

The state could always simply allow/submit to the gov for certain things as it sees fit, such as the EPA...but shouldn;'t that be a voluntary move?

Yes I have, I work at the House of Representatives and this resolution failed the Senate however it passed the House 92 to 3.

This resolution is dead, but please tell how on EARTH did you find this...not well a publicized resolution.

Not well publicized?

Even my out-of-touch-when-it-comes-to-legal-stuff butt found it. It just didn't make the news HERE because there's been a few weeks of bad weather, and that takes priority in our 30 minute news cycles. Well it's either that...Or it's not an easy read and they figure that us stoopid okies wouldn't be able to wrap our pea-brains around the issue, even with an Ogle explaining it.


<slight threadjack>I've gotten THREE emails today telling me how Obama is a Muslim. All from Okies...So I think they may be right.
</slight threadjack>

Let me say something friend...the last action on this bill was in March and you are just now hearing about it. I remember running the message over to the Chief Clerk's office with the news that the Resolution had died in Rules Committee over in the Senate. Did we hear any news stories about that? No. Did we hear CNN, Fox News, The Oklahoman, or Tulsa World cover this? No. How about the alternative outlets? World Net Daily just now published an article. Not a peep from Conspiracy Theorists like Alex Jones until today! Please what was the media coverage was it that I missed...because if I recall Rep. Key never issued a press release on the issue...in fact until his interview with World Net Daily I do not believe that he spoke to anyone at the media.

So if you have media links back from March regarding this bill please do tell...New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times...you said
It just didn't make the news HERE because there's been a few weeks of bad weather, and that takes priority in our 30 minute news cycles. So what news agency DID carry it?

The state could always simply allow/submit to the gov for certain things as it sees fit, such as the EPA...but shouldn;'t that be a voluntary move?

You're right.

The state will voluntarily make that move because the Feds will voluntarily withdraw funding from our state. Kind of like how my wife chooses to stay with me because I have been depositing all of her checks into my bank account and I don't let her have her own drivers license.

(Not married.)


Not well publicized?
Well it's either that...Or it's not an easy read and they figure that us stoopid okies wouldn't be able to wrap our pea-brains around the issue, even with an Ogle explaining it.

<slight threadjack>I've gotten THREE emails today telling me how Obama is a Muslim. All from Okies...So I think they may be right.
</slight threadjack>

It has nothing to do with us Okies, the 35 articles of impeachment they filed against Bush did not reach the news either. I only found out about it because someone called me and told me to turn on c-span. I don't remember what was being carried by all the news stations at the time, but I assure you it was less newsworthy.

It is not just stupid Okies sending out emails about Obama being a muslin either... John Stewart nailed the news media pretty hard on that.

Jon Stewart Mocks Media For Peddling Insane Obama Rumors - Media on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-media-f_n_107539.html)


So if you have media links back from March regarding this bill please do tell...New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times...you said So what news agency DID carry it?

Do you want media/entertainment links or news sources? Those are not the same thing these days.

Let me say something friend...the last action on this bill was in March and you are just now hearing about it. I remember running the message over to the Chief Clerk's office with the news that the Resolution had died in Rules Committee over in the Senate. Did we hear any news stories about that? No. Did we hear CNN, Fox News, The Oklahoman, or Tulsa World cover this? No. How about the alternative outlets? World Net Daily just now published an article. Not a peep from Conspiracy Theorists like Alex Jones until today! Please what was the media coverage was it that I missed...because if I recall Rep. Key never issued a press release on the issue...in fact until his interview with World Net Daily I do not believe that he spoke to anyone at the media.

So if you have media links back from March regarding this bill please do tell...New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times...you said So what news agency DID carry it?

Geez...Relax dude, relax. I'm not questioning your honor or anything. I don't know the generating source of where I read it. As others have said in this thread, it was linked on Fark and Digg. I hit each of those at least daily, and spend quite a bit of time on Fark...So I'm inclined to think that I saw it there...I think they might have linked it directly to the okhouse.gov (or it was linked in the first couple of posts in the thread) doc on it.

I kind of read that like he was pushing his aggression toward the media/entertainment outlets and and not you.

You're right.
It has nothing to do with us Okies, the 35 articles of impeachment they filed against Bush did not reach the news either. I only found out about it because someone called me and told me to turn on c-span. I don't remember what was being carried by all the news stations at the time, but I assure you it was less newsworthy.

It is not just stupid Okies sending out emails about Obama being a muslin either... John Stewart nailed the news media pretty hard on that.

Jon Stewart Mocks Media For Peddling Insane Obama Rumors - Media on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-media-f_n_107539.html)

I know I saw a few linked articles on Fark about the impeachment of Bush.

Here's one...

Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach/index.html?iref=newssearch)

But I agree...The media is (once again) dropping the ball on calling out this administration's failures. We can impeach Clinton for getting a beej, but with all the wrongdoings, failures, and outright lies coming from the White House the last 7 years, resulting in thousands of dead Americans on many fronts...We can't go after HIM? Keerist, I can get spun up when I watch CNN do yet ANOTHER 30 minutes of farms floating footage and not talking about what they should be.

I kind of read that like he was pushing his aggression toward the media/entertainment outlets and and not you.

Well after he started it with calling me "friend"...I read the whole thing in John McCain's voice and the whole thing took on a patronizing tone.

Well, I honestly did not know that our country was imprisoning 10 year old children in places like Guantanamo until I watched Kucinich's speech.

It was crazy, because as a member of congress he is not just making that stuff up, everything in there was from official documents.

Even then, it was a 5 hour speech and that CNN article does it no justice. People would have to take a break from American Idol to sit down and read or watch the whole thing.

I can't help but also laugh at the irony of this all.

This is all probably over the state's immigration law and such, and state leaders fed up with the Fed saying no. Hum...states wanting a say on immigration, sending a warning to the Fed of theri sovereign rights. This could so be a made for TV movie...staring like...umm OH!...Beau Bridges as th Governor, and get James Earl Jones as a reporter...oh wait - that's already been done. :)

The Second Civil War (1997) (TV) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120086/)

You're right.

The state will voluntarily make that move because the Feds will voluntarily withdraw funding from our state. Kind of like how my wife chooses to stay with me because I have been depositing all of her checks into my bank account and I don't let her have her own drivers license.

That's an oversimplification based on your apparent dislike of authority. We could feasibly not chip in and not take out except where we want to...that's the ENTIRE crux of the issues, Toad, is that we should be ABLE to do so. You're arguiing the status quo's restrictions in a discussion about NOT having the status quo. Makes no sense.

And Sethsrott, if you think this could be a good thing - consider the impications on our economy. The last states to try to separate in any meaningful way from the Union didn't get very far - it just cost a lot of lives.

You're confusing this with a Sovereign Nation. We just want to have control over our own state without the federal government trying to override us. It makes since, don't Oklahomans know what we want for ouselves than someone a thousand miles away in D.C.? But we're not trying to become our own separate nation.

Sethsrott, is there any chance of this coming up again, or is this issue dead and gone as far as the lawmakers are concerned?

Rep. Key's office has been FLOODED with phone calls of support, and I also know that he and Senator Brogdon plan on reintroducing a similar/identical resolution next year.

It came up on Digg.com a few days ago. Was actually fairly prominent. First page maybe.

Yep it did. It had several hundred comments too. First time in a long time I've seen a story on Digg about Oklahoma that actually had mostly positive comments.

Well after he started it with calling me "friend"...I read the whole thing in John McCain's voice and the whole thing took on a patronizing tone.

Get off my lawn! Muah!

Sen. Key is the guy that spearheaded the OKC Bombing conspiracy theory stuff a decade ago. For that reason, I tend to think the guy is a little bit off.

But I do like this bill. Everyone always seems to forget about the 9th Amendment, and its granting of all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states.

I don't think people have forgotten about it.

(By the way, this is a resolution, not a bill.)

But this is about a half-notch above all the people in the eighties and nineties who declared themselves 'a state in fact', insisting that no one could make them do anything, then bunkered down with their guns and un-fringed flags and waited for the black helicopters to come after them.

It appeals to those who fantasize about an Oklahoma with no speed limits on highways; latinos, gays, blacks, women, liberals and secular humanists 'put in their place;' everybody buying groceries with Krugerrands and all citizens above the age of ten packing heat with a hair trigger.

But 'Red Dawn' and 'Road Warrior' are just movies, and realistically, we've been very reliant on Washington to keep local governments from turning into oppressive petty fiefdoms and we will continue to be.

And do you really think the federal government is going to say, 'Hey, everyone, hands off Oklahoma! They're passed a resolution limiting the federal government's power! We're helpless to resist!'

All those people in the so-called 'patriot movement' thought there was some set of magic words a person could recite that would immunize them from all responsibility, and this is more of the same thing.

I'm not surprised Charles Key would introduce such a thing. The sad thing is that the vast majority of state representatives are so afraid of the kook fringe in their own districts that they would pass it.

It appeals to those who fantasize about an Oklahoma with no speed limits on highways; latinos, gays, blacks, women, liberals and secular humanists 'put in their place;' everybody buying groceries with Krugerrands and all citizens above the age of ten packing heat with a hair trigger.


Or maybe it appeals to people who fantasize that our government would follow the constitution.

Your take on this is ****ed.

Since when did our forfathers become kooks?

If only Thomas Jefferson or a man as brave and smart as him, were around today...in public office...

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Our forefathers weren't kooks, but neither were they omniscient deities.

One example would be slavery — another of those issues where 'th' goldurned federal gummint was a-interferin' in our states' rights.' The framers waffled on slavery because it was too hot a potato even for their august hands. If the nation had followed the intent of this resolution in the 1850's and 60's, slavery would still be legal in the US.

During the Great Depression, one third of this nation was in poverty. Most of those families had not been thrown into poverty by the depression, but had been in poverty for generations — because all over America, the 'system' was established at the state and local level to benefit those who already had wealth and power, and to lock out any newcomer who had read Horatio Alger and taken him seriously. Large swaths of America still didn't have electricity or running water because nobody named Astor or DuPont could figure out how to make money from it.

But 'state sovereignty' supporters of the day even opposed the Tennessee Valley Authority because they resented 'th' goldurned federal gummint' giving the peons electricity.

Do you really want Charles Key, Sally Kern, Randy Terrill, et. al. running your lives?

I don't like Real ID, but if I have to take my chances with the feds or the mob of flat-earthers who hold forth in the Oklahoma Legislature, I know who I'll choose.

The point is moot, of course, because the feds are not going to shut down the EPA, OSHA, the FBI or anything else in Oklahoma just because the legislature told them to get out.

Sure sure sure.. we all know that "states rights" is another word for racism.

After all, we can thank the federalist for the bill of rights.

It all comes down to liberty and freedom, and if you are taking your chances with the federal government instead of the states you are going to lose.

Imagine if we had some sort of system where the states could protect our liberty when the federal government tried to restrain it and where the federal government could protect our liberty when the states tried to restrain it. It would be a more perfect union if you catch my drift.

It appeals to those who fantasize about an Oklahoma with no speed limits on highways; latinos, gays, blacks, women, liberals and secular humanists 'put in their place;' everybody buying groceries with Krugerrands and all citizens above the age of ten packing heat with a hair trigger.


What an awful misstatement...I don't think you really mean that. And if you do, you're not very intelligent.

After all, we can thank the federalist for the bill of rights.

Actually, you can thank the anti-federalists. Hamilton, Federalist-in-chief, believed that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the government wouldn't have any power not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Jefferson disagreed and the first 11 Amendments (only 10 were ratified until the 1990's when we finally ratified the last of them) were born.

Of course, the Federalists, by and large, were the same folks who wanted to set up an American monarchy with George Washington as King.

During the Great Depression, one third of this nation was in poverty. Most of those families had not been thrown into poverty by the depression, but had been in poverty for generations — because all over America, the 'system' was established at the state and local level to benefit those who already had wealth and power, and to lock out any newcomer who had read Horatio Alger and taken him seriously. Large swaths of America still didn't have electricity or running water because nobody named Astor or DuPont could figure out how to make money from it.

That is a gross oversimplification and actually wrong in many respects.

Electricity was a fairly new thing at the time, and congratulations, Rural Electrification is one of the only liberal programs not to have wrought devastating unintended consequences for the American people.

What an awful misstatement...I don't think you really mean that. And if you do, you're not very intelligent.

You're right. I'm one of those morons who think we're mostly better off now than we were under the robber barons.

I don't share the impression that under this 'sovereign Oklahoma' theory, life would be like a Sergio Leone western with me as Clint Eastwood.

No, you're just one of those morons that can't respond to a point.

The idea of a reduced federal presence in state affairs also appeals to normal, intelligent libertarians. Not just "those who fantasize about an Oklahoma with no speed limits on highways; latinos, gays, blacks, women, liberals and secular humanists 'put in their place;' everybody buying groceries with Krugerrands and all citizens above the age of ten packing heat with a hair trigger.". Your stereotyping and intolerant statement is just as bad as your hypothetical person that is intolerant.

I wish sarcasm came through better online...

appeals to normal, intelligent libertarians

I certainly have no answer to that.

I certainly have no answer to that.

Oh!! How clever!! I see what you're trying to do!! Libertarians can't be intelligent!

OMG How did you come up with that!? So very clever.

Bornhere.

If you hate liberty so much, there are places you can go live without any of it.

My precious bodily fluids are fine right where they are, thank you.