Posts Tagged '10th amendment'

10-10-10 in Support of the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Tea Party!

Grassroots in Michigan’s
10-10-10 in Support of the 10th Amendment Tea Party!
Our State Capitol
Sunday, Oct. 10th
Lansing
1pm-3pm

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by it to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Join your fellow Michigan patriots as we support our 10th Amendment
Sovereignty rights against Unconstitutional Federal over reach such as Obama Care, a prime example of national law that oversteps state jurisdiction and results in the loss of rights of Michigan’s citizens.

Sign Contest
We love your Signs!
Prizes given for the top three best original creative signs in our Sign Contest!

Concessions by Clint’s Hot Dogs
All American Food and Drink

Speakers Include

Mark Lerner co-Founded two national organizations; the Constitutional Alliance and Stop Real ID Coalition and is the author of the new book and DVD, “Your Body is Your ID” available online and at the event.
Mark has spent the last six years openly speaking out against the same industry he once supported. He has testified before many state legislatures, including Michigan on the RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) and national/international identification cards.

Rep. Paul Opsommer has been on the forefront in Michigan introducing sovereignty legislation including HJR YY , HB6414 and in the fight against the RFID “enhanced” drivers license in Michigan

Ruth Johnson, GOP candidate for Secretary of State, former Michigan House Rep currently Clerk and Registry of Deeds for Oakland County, second’s second largest County. Ruth’s investigation helped to expose the “fake” Tea Party and keep them off the November general election ballot.

Justice Robert P. Young, Jr., candidate for Michigan Superme Court. Justice Young has been a member of the Michigan Supreme Court for 11 years. Before joining the Supreme Court, Justice Young served as a judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Mary Beth Kelly, candidate for Michigan Supreme Court. Mary Beth Kelly has served on the Wayne County Circuit Court for eleven years. In 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court appointed her the Chief Judge of the Court, making her the first woman in history to lead that bench.

Bill Schuette, GOP candidate for Attorney General is a former Congressman, Michigan Senator and Michigan Appeals Court judge and currently an attorney.

Tony Demott, Michigan State Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, Gulf War Veteran, Chairman of the Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers, and Grassroots Activist.

The DRIC Bridge & HB HB 4961- A Conversation with Rep. Paul Opsommer

Recently I had an opportunity to converse with Rep. Paul Opsommer about the hotly debated DRIC bridge and HB 4961.

Below is the results:

Joan: Rep. Opsommer, thank you for your time. As Vice Chair of the House Transportation Committee I appreciate the information you have to share today.

Rep. Opsommer: Thank you, it is my pleasure.

Joan: I have to tell you, HB 4961 is a very confusing bill. I know it is supposed to relate to the DRIC (Detroit International River Crossing) bridge debate, but you would never know that by reading the bill.

Rep. Opsommer: You’re absolutely right, it is confusing. What HB 4961 does is give MDOT new powers to enter into a variety of tolling contracts on their own, without legislative approval. If you’re on the inside you know that one of the projects they would like to do is the DRIC, so that is why the mainstream media is calling it the DRIC bill. But the word DRIC or any of its details aren’t actually in it.

Joan: So why write the bill like that? Wouldn’t it be normal to just write a bill specific for that bridge?

Rep. Opsommer: MDOT absolutely could, and in fact if you look at all the rest of the toll projects we have here in MI they have been authorized only after the legislature has voted to specifically allow for tolling to take place. I have a letter from the Attorney General’s office that confirms that currently MDOT can’t toll bridges, roads, or other projects on their own; they have to get permission from the legislature first.

Joan: And that would go away then if HB 4961 is passed?

Rep. Opsommer:
Yes, it would. MDOT would be able to create and enter into these tolling projects on their own, and the legislature would have no say in it. And that would apply not just to the DRIC, but to any project anywhere in Michigan that MDOT would like to toll.

The jury is still out in Michigan on how much people want to see tolling get used; I hear arguments on both sides. But when I talk to taxpayers there is wide agreement that decisions on where to toll, and how high the toll rates can go, should stay with someone who is elected. Otherwise you have unelected bureaucrats making those decisions, and whether you want to call it a toll, a user fee, or a tax, I think we should make sure it is still the legislature who approves the use of toll roads in particular. This is even more important when I hear that toll road rates would be used not just to break even on a project, but as a source of revenue for mass transit and other projects. If you are going to set toll rates not based on breaking even but to generate revenue for other purposes, it is no longer a user fee, it is a tax.

Joan: The Governor has control over MDOT, correct?

Rep. Opsommer: Yes, it is her department, but if you cut out the legislature you lose an important check and balance. The Governor would be able to enter into tolling contracts on her own. In my mind whether you want to look at it as the administration having that power or MDOT, it is very similar either way. Otherwise, you might find that some of the roads in your backyard have been turned into carpool lanes, or toll roads, and there won’t be anything your State Representative or Senator can do about that.

Joan: So they can’t just change the law?

Rep. Opsommer: Maybe going forward, but not after the fact. There is for example a moratorium on these kinds of projects now in Texas, called “Public Private Partnerships”, because people got upset after the law was passed and projects were underway. But the projects that were already started had to be allowed to go forward because the contracts had already been entered into. These agreements can be worth billions of dollars over the life of the contract. They can last 50, 75, even 99 years or more, and the lawsuits that would arise out of trying to break them would be monumental. You remember what happened here in Michigan with the contract for the State Police HQ. That contract would be small peanuts by comparison.

Joan : The term used to describe these projects in HB 4961 is called “Public Private Partnerships” Can you define for me Public Private Partnerships?

Rep. Opsommer: Well, these are generically referred to as “P3s”. I think everyone knows what a public road is, and everyone knows what a private road is. A P3 is kind of like a blend of the two, that depending on who you talk to can either bring the best or the worst of big government and big business together.

Joan: How would you answer that question?

Rep. Opsommer: To me, it all comes down to how much taxpayers can be on the short end of the stick if a toll operator doesn’t get enough revenue. Let me explain how these work. In some cases, what will happen is the state will lease a piece of its infrastructure over to a third party. The state gets a big chunk of money upfront, and in exchange the private operator is allowed to use tolls or charge the state rent on those roads for several decades to both recoup that money and also make a profit. In other cases they will build a new road and essentially do the same thing.

Most people who have called my office are more concerned when existing infrastructure is leased out than they are over when something new is being built. They don’t like the idea that something that they have already paid for and already owned is being handed over. In the case of the DRIC bridge, we would be looking at them building something new. The main concern for me there is whether the state would have to come up with “availability payments” if toll revenue isn’t adequate to cover the cost of maintaining the bridge. Because if the state has to pay, we all know that really means taxpayers.

Joan: What is an availability payment?

Rep. Opsommer: I guess you could best describe it as a form of rent, kind of like a financial guarantee. Basically, MDOT could enter into one of these tolling agreements and structure it in a way where the private operator would be guaranteed a certain amount of money every month. It would be set up so that they would get that money primarily through tolls, but in months when not enough people drove, the state would step in and make up the difference. So that is one way taxpayers could end up on the hook if you do these wrong, because we would have to take that money somehow out of our general fund or gas tax revenue.

Joan:
So why would the state make that guarantee? The way I have heard the DRIC bridge described it would be private companies taking on all the risk.

Rep. Opsommer: Well, that is kind of the rub, and the debate, and that is why people realize that a public-private partnership is not the same as a truly private project. In a truly private project, a private operator does assume all of the risk. If they have a month where ridership is down, they eat that. There are no guarantees for them, there are no noncompete clauses to protect them, and they can’t rely on eminent domain to secure property for them. Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answered before you can determine if a P3 is prudent or if it is just a government sanctioned monopoly.

Joan:
What is a noncompete clause?

Rep. Opsommer: They can mean a lot of different things, but in general they are parts of these contracts that help to give the private operator certainty that they will be able to make a higher rate of return on their investment. In some past cases, they actually prohibited the public from building for example any new roads that were close enough to the toll road where they might be considered as competition. It is my understanding that type of clause is not used much anymore, in favor of what they call “compete penalties”. This is where the public could still build its own roads, but would first have to pay the operator compensation to retain that right.

So that is another way that tax dollars come into play on these deals. In some cases the contracts are written so that you can minimize the amount of compensation that would have to be owed by intentionally slowing down some other roads to make the toll road look more attractive. There was a case of this in Colorado I was reading about where they lowered the speed limit and added traffic lights on a parallel public road in an effort to get more people to use the toll road instead.

Joan:
Really. Is that legal?

Rep. Opsommer: I’m not sure if there have ever been any decided court cases over that, but that is what is in some of these contracts and how they get enforced. These contracts get relied on and when people complain everyone shrugs their shoulders and says I didn’t vote for it, it’s part of the contract and out of my control. That is one reason why I think you still want the legislature to vote on where these contracts can be entered into, so we can put some qualifications on them to make sure they don’t run counter to legislative intent. I’m a free market advocate, but I’m not an advocate for a fixed market based on collusion and public manipulation.

Joan:
Rep. Opsommer, you also mentioned eminent domain. Didn’t we change law so that you can’t take private property from one person if you are just doing that for another private entities business purposes or profit? There was a big reaction to the Supreme Court case.

Rep Opsommer: Well, it is my understanding that eminent domain concerns were one of the reasons for the moratorium on these in Texas. Depending on who you listen to they wanted to construct parts of the so called NAFTA superhighway, which was going to be a big project and was going to take a lot of land that some people didn’t want to sell.

I wasn’t there so I don’t know the ins and outs of all that, but I do have a question about eminent domain and how it would work under HB 4961 because of some clauses about additional commercial activities and also how they define an instrumentality of government. So you may not be talking about property just for roads and bridges, but also for gas stations, fast food restaurants, or things like hotels if they are part of the project. And even if eminent domain remains with a public body, it needs to be in a public body wholly from this state, not in a non-domestic instrumentality of government.

Joan: Rep. Opsommer would you please explain what an “instrumentality of government is?”

Rep. Opsommer: That is a good question, I’m not sure if it is entirely clear in HB 4961 as written. My first take on it is that it is a kind of “government authority”. Authorities are new governmental bodies that get made by other governments in order to do things jointly. For example, you may have several fire departments in different communities that come together and form a fire authority that somewhat merges the departments.

In the case of HB 4961, MDOT gets to create new authorities between them and other governmental units to form a new instrumentality of government that would govern a certain project. It would have the powers of MDOT, but other members in the authority would also get to help make decisions. When you look at how HB 4961 defines an instrumentality of government it includes governments from other countries and other states. So if a project gets governed by a mixed authority, you could have people from outside of Michigan having a vote on what happens regarding toll rates or eminent domain on the Michigan side of the border.

Joan:
Well I find that alarming! Can you give me an example?

Rep. Opsommer:
Well, let’s use the DRIC as an example. You could set it up so that Michigan owns its half of the bridge, and Canada the other half. Michigan then sets the toll rates on its side. That is how the Bluewater Bridge works for example. But if they want to create a new instrumentality of government to be the authority that governs the entire bridge and sets those rates, they need to find a way to bring Canada in. Some other bridges are set up that way.

I think it should be up to the legislature to be part of that process, determining how it would work, rather than just letting MDOT be able to approve it. I mean, Canada is supposedly loaning us $550 million dollars to help build this. I want to make sure there are no strings attached to that money. I don’t want a situation where as a result of that money we only end up owning 40% of the bridge. I don’t want to see a situation where eminent domain decisions are getting made on property holdouts on the Michigan side in way we can be outvoted.

Joan:
And that hasn’t that all been decided?

Rep. Opsommer: No, not at all. You will read a lot in the main stream media that would make you think that. But there is nothing official. Remember, as you said, DRIC is not even mentioned in the bill. In fact, Canada or Canadian corporations being an instrumentality of government isn’t limited to just the DRIC. Like most of HB 4961, it is very open ended, and since they want to include governments from even other states, you have to assume that there are other mixed-governance projects like this that they have in mind.

Joan:
Is it just Canada, or Canadian Corporations also?

Rep. Opsommer:
The bill says both. I am looking into that, and they appear to be corporations that could best be described quickly as similar to not for profit corporations. I wanted to find out if the Ontario pension fund OMERS could be one of those corporations, but if they could I think it would have to be as a sister company.

Joan:
Both? That’s another cause for alarm. Who is OMERS?

Rep. Opsommer: They are one of the likely bidders on a P3 for the DRIC. They were recently granted new investment powers by the Canadian government, and as we see more instability in stocks and bonds there is this push to find ways to turn transportation projects into a reliable stream of revenue. I think it is one of the reasons Canada is so interested in doing all of this. They have fought with the Ambassador Bridge on some issues, and if the DRIC would allow them to bypass that and also earn their pension funds profit at the same time, I see how this would be a big win for them.

Joan:
So, what are your thoughts? Is the DRIC going to be built?

Rep. Opsommer:
I honestly have no idea. It has passed out of the House, and could be voted on in the Senate any day. It’s obviously an important issue I have been involved with, but until I get answers to all of these questions its hard to say with any degree of certainty what it is you are even being asked to vote on. But as long as they are wrapping the DRIC bridge up into the P3 bill HB 4961 it will certainly be a highly controversial issue. I don’t want to see tolling take place in the counties I represent just because of a bridge debate on the other side of the state, especially when HB 4961 would strip me of being able to vote on it.

Joan:
Are these laws allowing for that right to be stripped away in other states, or is this just being proposed in Michigan?

Rep. Opsommer:
In some they only allow these with legislative approval, but in other cases they are indeed taking that power away. California is an example where their DOT doesn’t have as broad of power as what is being proposed in MI, but they recently changed the law there and stripped away the power from the legislature. So in some ways what MDOT is proposing is less than what they now have in California, but in other ways they want to mirror what Schwarzenegger has done and even go beyond that.

In Chicago they have done a lot of P3 projects, they recently turned their parking meters into a P3 project, and they almost did the same thing with the airport. Things have slowed down there a little because of the scandal with Governor Blagojevich that was in part due to him allegedly trying to raise cash with his unilateral ability to enter into projects like these. That case is now being heard, so we’ll have to see what the facts are in the end.

But Chicago has in general been raked over the coals for these deals because they have almost entirely spent all the money they received on these deals less than 5 years into them when most of the contracts last for 75-99 years. This is how they balanced their budget to a certain degree, but I think eventually they are going to run out of public infrastructure to put on the market, and they’ll end up at the exact same place they started.

Joan: Rep. Opsommer, thank you for your time. I appreciate your updating us on this important issue.

Rep. Opsommer: Thank-you.

Tea Party News and Pictures


34% Say They Or Someone Close To Them Part of Tea Party Movement

Twenty-four percent (24%) of U.S. voters now say they consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s an eight-point increase from 16% a month ago. …..TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE CLICK HERE

Sights and Sounds of a Lansing Tea Party Video

TAX DAY TEA PARTY AT YOUR STATE CAPITOL!

When:April 15, 2010 Noon-2:00pm
Where:State Capital Building 100 N.Capitol Ave,Lansing, MI

April 15th marks the day when many Americans pay more than their fair share in taxes. Grass roots patriots in Michigan will join thousands across the state of Michigan and the nation to voice our opposition to big government and spending that has pushed the federal deficit to record levels as part of the continuing movement of nationwide “Tea Parties.”

The protest is one of hundreds to be held at the same time in cities and towns all across Michigan and the United States. Tea parties will also be held in Chicago, Washington, Atlanta, Anchorage, Honolulu, Phoenix, Sacramento, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, San Diego, Portland, Ore., and at hundreds of other locations.

Joan Fabiano of Grassroots in Michigan says, “As Michiganders we have seen the results of progressive tax and spend policies. After eight years Michigan is in shambles. Unemployment is at almost 15%, the Car Capitol of the World has seen a government take over of GM, jobs evaporate, foreclosures rise and families leave.”

Fabiano, goes on to say,” 2010 is the year that We the People will “Take Michigan Back” from the politicians and progressive policies that have brought Michigan down a road towards ruin and economic destruction.”

BE THERE!
BRING YOUR STATE OF MICHIGAN FLAG

Just in..Bernanke Warns of Dangers Posed by Deficit

Bernanke on the topic of deficits and government spending: “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above”. Republicans are opposed to raising taxes, and democrats are loathe cut cut entitlement programs, the combination of which help to explain why our country has such massive debt problems……

MAKE A CALL FOR MICHIGAN SOVEREIGNTY TODAY!


I spoke with Rep. Opssommer yesterday and he informed that he would be having a meeting with Mark Meadows THIS WEDNESDAY about HJR YY

As you recall HJR YY would amend Michigan’s Constitution by creating a Federalism Commission to charged with monitoring and reviewing federal laws and mandates to determine if they violate the Michigan Constitution or if they violate such areas as the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution. If any law is considered unconstitutional then legislation is introduced to nullify it. HJY YY also includes Memorandums of Understanding which have created a “shadow government” by contacts that often exceed authority.

HJR YY is in House Judiciary Committee now.
Committees can be where bills go to die.
We need to get it out and on the committee calendar!

YOU CAN HELP BY CALLING OR E-MAIL TODAY

Tell Rep Meadows you want HJR YY to be put on the Committee Calendar for a hearing

Rep. Mark Meadows, (Chair)
Phone: (517) 373-1786
Fax: (517) 373-5717
Email markmeadows@house.mi.gov


Together we can Take Michigan Back!

ASSERT MICHIGAN’S SOVEREIGHTY! SUPPORT HJR YY!


Why is HJR YY so critically needed?

If enacted into law and formally approved by voters, HJR YY would:

Amend the state Constitution to Create a Federalism Commission bicameral and bipartisan commission
charged with monitoring and reviewing federal laws and mandates to determine if they violate the Michigan Constitution or if they violate such areas as the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution

The “why” behind HJR YY is two-fold:
Firstly, in cases where the Joint Federalism Commission determines a violation exists, the law will provide for an expedited process for the commission to then push appropriate legislation to nullify to the floor for voting by all members within 10 session days.
The second “why” that makes this legislation necessary is:

Because of the increasing role of so called “Memorandums of Understanding,” “Compacts,” and other agreements between Michigan and other governments, most notably at the federal level.

Most voters are not aware of what a “Memorandum of Understanding” is, or that they can carry the formal force of law.

In many cases such memorandums are created under dubious authority. In other cases, the legislature does vote to grant authority for a memorandum to be entered into, but then what the memorandum actually does often exceeds that authority, or delves into areas that are beyond the scope of the authorizing legislation.

HJR YY has been Referred to Judiciary Committee

IMMEDIATE ACTION TO TAKE:
Call the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to have HJR YY placed on the calendar for a meeting

Rep. Mark Meadows, (Chair)
Phone: (517) 373-1786Fax: (517) 373-5717
Email markmeadows@house.mi.gov

Request that legislation to put on calendar
BE COURTEOUS WHEN CONTACTING THE OFFICES

We will monitor the Judiciary Committee Calendar when HJR YY is placed on the Committee Calendar to implement the rest of the ACTION PLAN.
CHECK BACK FOR A UPDATE

ACTION PLAN WITH LINK TO HJR YY CAN BE PRINTED OUT AND DOWN-LOADED

We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight

Understanding the Supremacy Clause

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But heres something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

The Constitutions supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The supremacy clause does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even ordinarily as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by We the People. in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monicas version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the Virginia Plan. A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by We the People. And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so theyre easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York

AFTER ACTION REPORT: Committee Hearings on SCR 4, SR 17, HCR 6 and SR 73

It was a packed room Tuesday for a Judiciary Committee hearing on SR17, SCR 4, and SR 73

A resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

SCR 4 (Patterson) A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Patriots from Campaign for Liberty of Wayne and Livingston County were there as well as yours truly representing Grassroots in Michigan, representatives from Tea Party of West Michigan as well as others from across the state came to give testimony and support of the resolutions.

In addition Congressman Pete Hoekstra gave testimony for SR 73 “a resolution to memorialize the United States Congress to make certain intelligence information regarding Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees available to the Governor and Michigan State Legislature.”

In regards to with whether the Standish maximum security prison should house Guantanamo Bay prisoners. and Senator Tom George submitted written testimony and implored Governor Granholm to keep discussions open with the federal government.

Both Hoekstra and George are Republican candidates for governor. Congressman Pete Hoekstra the ranking Republican on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, says the state doesn’t know enough about Guantanamo prisoners to make an informed decision and the danger they would impose on not just Standish but to the state. Additionally, the promise of jobs for Standish may be a moot point as the prison would be a Federal facility with Federal employees already employed by the Federal government. Senator Bruce Patterson (a Republican candidate for Attorney General) made the wry observation that Michigan has spend millions on its “Pure Michigan” campaign to bring others to the state and a prison for terrorists hardly fits the criteria for enticing people to Michigan. Here, here Senator!

The “unusual Liberal suspects” voiced their usual Liberal mantra of obfuscation and lack of knowledge.

Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, the committee’s minority vice chair, took a more neutral stance saying state officials need all the facts and realize while Hoekstra’s views are based on experience they are only opinions.
“I would hope that before we say yes or no we would have a full understanding of what to expect,” Whitmer said.

Hmmm let’s see Pete Hoekstra, the ranking GOP member of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, “opinions” are pretty solid Ms Whitmer since he is privy to information that you are not and THAT is what SR 73 was about, obtaining more information.

Meanwhile downstairs, the Transportation Committee was hearing testimony on passage of House Concurrent Resolution No. 6.(Opsommer)

A concurrent resolution to memorialize the President, the Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security of the United States to change requirements, agreements, and memorandums of understanding relating to the creation of Enhanced Drivers Licenses.

Whereas, The Department of Homeland Security is currently requiring that any state that wishes to create an Enhanced Drivers License (EDL) as a result of passage of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) must create an EDL that incorporates what the federal government refers to as “facilitative technology.” This ambiguous term has been defined in practice to mean the incorporation of unencrypted, long-range, radio-wave computer chip technology that allows for a unique citizen identification number that can be passively read through wallets, purses, doors, and cars without the owner’s knowledge; and

Whereas, After Michigan made several attempts to create an EDL that would not need this technology, it became clear that the Department of Homeland Security would only allow Michigan the option to voluntarily abandon the entire EDL program, jeopardizing the state’s economy. The WHTI’s only true mandate was that Americans needed to prove their citizenship in order to reenter into the United States. Facilitative technology was never required by Congress, places technology contracts over security, and is an example of departmental overreach and encroachment onto states’ rights; and

Whereas, The driver license information of Michigan citizens would be shared with the governments of Canada and Mexico via the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and EDL agreements. However, how it would be shared is ambiguous and needs to be defined so that we can ensure that potential corruption in foreign bureaucracies does not result in identity theft or other security concerns for U.S. citizens. There is currently little congressional oversight of the SPP, again placing a single department’s bureaucracy largely in charge of rules and regulations that significantly impact the states and their citizens; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we memorialize the President, the Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security of the United States to change requirements, agreements, and memorandums of understanding relating to the creation of Enhanced Drivers Licenses to help address these concerns. We formally call for the Department of Homeland Security to change its rules so that EDLs can be created that do not need to contain what it characterizes as “facilitative technology”; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Department of Homeland Security, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

As many folks didn’t know about the Committee Meeting on HCR 6, I was busy handing out comment cards for passage of HCR 6 and running the filled out cards down to the Transportation Committee room.

After testimony and a vote, SR17, SCR 4, HCR 6 and SR 73 were all voted out of committee!

The testimony about Gitmo prisoners and HCR 6 dovetailed with the need for Michigan to assert her 10th Amendment sovereignty and as a means of breaking unconstitutional federal control over the States by basically bribing with money or the withholding of Federal money, which as one gentlemen from Campaign form Liberty pointed out the Federal government took from the states, to go in a direction that we can not or should not properly go. We Michiganders, the citizens who live here, work here, raise our families here and love Michigan are the best arbitrators to decide what is best for us and our state, not people in a far-away city called Washington D.C. and we are Constitutionally entitled to do so!

A good day for Michigan…onward…just in as of today SR 73 was ADOPTED AS SUBSTITUTED S-1 in the Senate

*ACTION ALERT* ATTEND THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY BILLS COMMITTEE MEETING

WE WANT THIS BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE AND PASSED!

This Event is listed on Grassroots in Michigan

Here is what we need to do:

ATTEND the Committee (Judiciary) Meeting for the two 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Bills to show support. This is a public meeting so we need as many to attend as possible. Event is listed on Grassroots in Michigan, This TUESDAY Aug. 18th 1:00pm Room 210 Farum Bldg. 125 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: Clerk Phone 373-6920

You can also speak by filing out a card when arriving. Be polite and articulate

SR 17 (Patterson) A resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

SCR 4 (Patterson) A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Here are links to the bills:

SR0017
SCR-0004

If you CANNOT ATTEND:

CALL OR FAX COMMITTEE MEMBERS letting them know you support the resolutions:

SAMPLE FAX HERE

Judicary Committee Members:

Senators:

Wayne Kuipers (R) (Chairman) Phone: Toll-Free 877-584-7377 Fax: 517-373-2751
E-Mail: senkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

Alan Cropsey (R) (ViceChair) Phone: Toll-Free 866-305-2133 Fax: 517-373-8661
E-Mail senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov

Alan Sanborn (R) Phone: Toll Free 888-353-2526 Fax: 517-373-5958
E-Mail senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov

Bruce Patterson (R) (Bill Sponser) Phone Toll Free 866-262-7307 Fax: 517-373-9228
E-Mail senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov

Tony Stamas (R) Phone Toll Free 866-305-2136 Fax: 517-373-2678
E-Mail ofcstamas@senate.michigan.gov

Gretchen Whitmer (D) (M-VC) Phone: 517-373-1734 Fax: 517-373-5397
E-Mail: sengwhitmer@senate.michigan.gov

Hansen Clarke (D) Phone: Toll Free 877-252-7537 Fax: 517-373-9320
E-Mail senclarke@senate.michigan.gov

Raymond Basham (D) Phone: 517-373-7800 Fax: 517-9310
E-Mail senrbasham@senate.michigan.gov

We have three Republican Senator running for office that should be contacted Bruce Patterson who sponsored the resolutions running for Attorney General, Michelle McMannus and Cameron Brown both running for Secretary of State. Their information including information for both House and Senate to CALL OR FAX letting them know you support the resolutions, can be found HERE http://michiganvotes.org/Find.aspx

Write letters to the editors of all the Michigan media outlets. You can find contact info here or

37 states have created or are creating 54 legislative bills/resolutions that re-assert States’ Rights in an attempt to stop the Federal Government’s power grab and to return to the principles of Freedom as defined in the Constitution.


Click the Picture to help “TAKE MICHIGAN BACK”

TAKE MICHIGAN BACK LOGO4

Household Cap-and-Trade Burden Calculator

Tea Party Tweets


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.