[UPDATE on the Tenth Amendment/State Sovereignty Movement, March 4, "Good News and Bad News for the Tenth Amendment Movement."]

On Wednesday the Oklahoma House of Representatives became the first state legislative body this year to pass a resolution affirming its "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." This resolution, HJR1003, was passed by a very large margin, 83 to 13 on February 18. At least another 20 state legislatures are considering similar resolutions. [Update, February 23, 2009: Click here for "The Tenth Amendment Movement: Status by State, 2009," to see which states have already introduced Tenth Amendment resolutions this year along with links to the full-text of each resolution.]

The official summary of HJR1003 reads as follows:

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.

After nine "Whereas" clauses, the resolution concludes with:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims 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....

I've taken pains to quote from HJR1003's official summary and concluding passage to demonstrate that referring to passage of this resolution (and consideration of similar resolutions by another 20 or so states) as being part of a "State Sovereignty Movement" is quite misleading. The expression "state sovereignty movement" implies that this is a movement among the states to secede from the union and become independent nation-states. However, the texts of Oklahoma's HJR1003 and many other similar resolutions under consideration in other states do not confirm this secessionist implication.

Here's the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

It is clear from reading the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the texts of Oklahoma's and the other states' resolutions that are based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that the intent is simply to restore the balance of powers between the states and the federal government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

This Tenth Amendment Movement, as exemplified by Oklahoma and the consideration of similar resolutions by another 20 or more states, is certainly a most welcome development. As the federal government is rapidly consolidating its usurpation of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, we can readily appreciate the benefit of restoring state sovereignty over those powers.

Here's an interesting video of an interview between Glenn Beck and New Hampshire representative Daniel Itse, cosponsor of New Hampshire's HCR6, "A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles":

New Hampshire's HCR6 resolution makes great reading because it's based on Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which were an eloquent affirmation of states' rights under the Constitution. This is the document where Jefferson made his famous statement, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Beginning with its founding meeting in 1958, the John Birch Society has been very concerned about the loss of states' rights. At that meeting founder Robert Welch provided a list of ten dangerous trends in our nation. Number seven on this list was:

Far more centralization of power in Washington, and the practical elimination of our state lines. There is a many-faceted drive at work to have our state lines eventually mean no more within the nation than our county lines do now within the states. (The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch, 1959)

Here's a fascinating nine-minute video of excerpts from two speeches given by Robert Welch in 1974. In the first speech you'll hear him quote from his 1958 speech about the ten dangeous trends for the U.S. mentioned above. In the second speech you'll hear his platform for what should be done to preserve freedom in our nation. Listening to this speech over 30 years later, it is amazing just how similar Robert Welch's prescription for America in 1974 is to Ron Paul's campaign platform in 2008.

May this year's Tenth Amendment Movement mark the beginning of the successful restoration of states' rights under the Constitution as envisioned by the Founding Fathers!

The Bill of Rights now seems to have been relegated to the dustbin — just an old document containing a few good suggestions — because the Supreme Court surely doesn’t take it seriously these days.

In Oro Valley, Arizona, police officers conducted a pat-down search of a man who was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. There was nothing to indicate that the man had committed a crime, or was about to, but a female officer frisked him anyway, based on his attire, and discovered he carried a gun and marijuana. His record was checked and he was an ex-con recently of out jail.

He took them to court.

The State of Arizona argued that all vehicle stops made by the police are inherently dangerous, and it would be a reasonable assumption that persons in vehicles could possibly imperil the safety of the police and therefore a good frisking is not out of the question.

At a business forum in Harrisonburg, Virginia on December 16, 2008, Virginia State Senator Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon) announced that he planned to introduce a bill in the Virginia Assembly in early 2009 that would request Congress to call a constitutional convention (con-con) for the purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On January 14, 2009, Senator Hanger followed through and introduced Senate Joint Resolution No. 315 (SJR315) "Applying to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States to provide for a balanced budget requirement. "

[Attention Virginia residents: Click here to take immediate action to email your representative and senator in Richmond in opposition to SJR315; and click here to view and join (requires free registration to join) "Virginians Against a Constitutional Convention," an online group for networking with other Virginians who oppose  a con-con.]

Back in the 1970s and 80s thirty-two states passed resolutions calling on Congress to convene a con-con for the purpose of considering the addition of a balanced budget amendment (bba) to the U.S. Constitution. According to Article V of the Constitution, when two-thirds (34) of the states issue requests for a con-con, Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Thus, only two more states requesting a bba con-con would be needed in order for Congress to go ahead and call a con-con.

However, during the past 20 years there has been a growing awareness among voters and state legislators that an Article V constitutional convention could not be restricted to considering just one type of amendment, but could (and probably would) go on to entertain and propose many amendments to the Constitution. If many amendments were to be proposed by a con-con, and if three-quarters of the states were to ratify them, the Constitution could be radically changed for the worse. For more background on this matter, please view a free online video, "Beware Article V":

This growing awareness of the negative downsides of a con-con has led ten states to rescind their con-con calls during the past 20 years or so. One of these ten states is Virginia, whose legislature rescinded all of its previous con-con calls in 2004.

The bottom line is that as few as two more states requesting a con-con for a balanced budget amendment could force Congress to call a con-con. It would take a total of 34 states. If we count every state that has ever issued a bba con-con call, there are already 32 on record. If Congress and the courts would honor the rescissions of con-con calls by ten states, then there are only 22 on record and twelve more state calls would be required to have a con-con.

Just to be on the safe side, let's work as if Virginia could become one of only two more states required for a con-con. If you are a resident of Virginia, please contact your representative and senator in Richmond and express your strong opposition to SJR315, which would apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention in accordance with Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Hillary Clinton partisan Philip Berg might be a good lawyer, but he is no student of the U.S. Constitution.  His effort to derail the pending presidency of Barack Obama with his personal lawsuit is a dead end.