CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 06, 2009 10:42 PM UTC

Oklahoma Expresses Desire to Leave USA With Meaningless "Sovereignty" Resolution

  • by: redstateblues

As if Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s comments a few weeks ago that Texas should leave the union weren’t enough, the Oklahoma House of Representatives has now voted to approve a resolution expressing their displeasure with the policies that President Barack Obama has instituted since his inauguration.


A Concurrent 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federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.

You’d think that through all of this posturing and, if you ask me, downright unpatriotic rhetoric that all of these states who are so displeased with the President would decide to forgo all Federal funding. You know, kind of like what actual sovereignty would entail.

To their credit, the Oklahoma state legislature was willing to do that. Fortunately for the people of Oklahoma, they have a Governor who actually wants them to continue to receive funding for critical services. He vetoed the bill that had teeth, and so the Republicans in the House came up with this non-binding resolution that doesn’t need the Governor’s signature, but won’t actually do anything either.

I’m all for states rights, but this is beyond ridiculous. Maybe Oklahoma and Texas can form their own little country and call it Panhandleland.


86 thoughts on “Oklahoma Expresses Desire to Leave USA With Meaningless “Sovereignty” Resolution

  1. I think we all agree that Bush was a poor president – for different reasons.  But, I don’t recall any states wanting to leave the union when Bush was president.

    Now we are up to two out of 50.  Or if you are Obama 2 of the 58 states want to leave.

    How many more will join the succession movement.

    1. if you count the husband of the GOP’s vice presidential nominee and his merry band of rebels.

      How many will join the succession movement? Well, Obama has always compared himself with Lincoln. Maybe he’ll get the chance to whup some successionist butt too.

        1. I’d say that idea worked out pretty well for LIncoln.

          The fact some crackpot took offense — well, Obama is no stranger to that risk, regardless whether Alaska tries to strike out on its own.

    2. “America…love it or leave it.” and shows how deeply phony the patriotism of the far right really is.

      President Obama and every member of congress have been duly and legitimately elected by the people.  They comprise the legitimate government as determined in free, democratic elections.  President Obama won both the electoral and popular vote by large margins. Patriots accept that.

      Maybe you didn’t hear talk of secession by blue states while Bush was in office, even during his first term after his highly questionable appointment by a partisan Supreme Court along partisan lines accompanied by a popular vote loss, because the majority of citizens of those blue states are true patriots.  

      Clearly the Governor of Texas and the majority of the legislators of Oklahoma are not.  If Texas and Oklahoma wish to secede, at this point few patriots would miss them. Why don’t you move to Texas, MD?  

    3. You dork. Hope you’re a better doctor than a speller.

      “Secede” is what these Oklahoma and Texas posturers CLAIM they want to do – except they don’t have the balls to really do anything of the sort.

      “Succeed” is what our UNITED States under President Obama IS doing.

      1. I thought he was a Muslim. Get your slurs straight.

        And drop the pretentious “MD.” Is that somehow supposed to give your bizarre political views more weight? Even Ron Paul doesn’t stoop that low.

    1. When you lose an election, you claim you’re being “bullied” by the winners. When you win an election, you claim that anyone disagreeing with your views is “unpatriotic.” Geez louise, you guys are such CRYBABIES!

  2. These people are obviously very, very stupid. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of the historical context from which they are operating.

    If you know your early 19th Century American history you’ll know that this sort of “logic” was driven by John Calhoun and was the precursor to secession.

    I question whether or not most of the legislators involved in these little exercises have the first clue about what they are really advocating.  

    1. About the Oklahoma-Texas Dust Bowl in the ’30s. The attitude of the Oklahoma Republicans now is almost exactly what the attitude of the Oklahoma governing party was then: know-nothingness and provincial isolationism.

      These Oklahoman Republicans now are just like the Hoover Republicans in the ’30s who claimed that there shouldn’t be any government stimulus, and that everything should just be left to market forces to sort out.

      Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

  3. With a quick history lesson of our founding, you might realize that Obama and those who founded this country are diametrically opposed on Constitutional issues.

    Oklahomans love America…not so much **the new** America.  They, along with Texans, are among the most patriotic people in this country.  They’d like to see personal liberties protected, rather than trampled over.  If they can do nothing to stop it, the only option is claiming sovereignty.

    You mentioned that they would be stuck without federal funding if they happened to secede, which I don’t think any of them actually want, but that’s one of the key problems with Democrats…they don’t understand that that money comes from the people.  Oklahoma doesn’t get its fair share from bills like the stimulus package.  Their taxes are collected, then bureaucrats are paid to distribute that money unequally to the states with the most serious financial troubles (i.e. California, etc…).

    Also, Gov. Perry (a great and true American) never said that he wanted to secede, only proposed it as a last resort, finishing his statement with something along the lines of “I don’t foresee any reason to do that.”

    Check the facts, make logical arguments, and eventually you’ll come to a legitimate conclusion.

    1. this is the one where people are not owned as chattel property, the government enforces the law and doesn’t allow corporations run roughshod over individuals.

      Texans and Oklahomons long to return to the good ‘ole days where people owned people and strung up the natives just on a lark and land disputes were solved by large cattle or mining companies hiring mercenaries instead of taking their chances in court.

      Sounds about right.

      1. …where we apologize to every European nation on the planet for being “arrogant,” where we ignore the 10th amendment and shove the stimulus package down the throats of unwilling states, where we appoint people to important positions who believe that America is a “nation of cowards” (see:  Eric Holder, Jr.) or that we should recognize transnational laws (Harold Koh), where we demonize capitalism, where we allow terrorists to be treated better than your average frat pledge rather than secure important national security information, where anybody who doesn’t support our President is labeled ‘racist,’ where we nationalize companies and industries at will, where politicians earn votes by ignoring property rights and promising one group of people benefits paid for by another group of people, where our own government labels veterans as high risks for violent extremism, where the media plays government lap dog, where different people are unequally protected by the law via hate crime legislation, where a beauty pageant contestant is brutally hung in effigy by anybody in Hollywood, the media, or the Democrat party for speaking her beliefs in an unoffensive manner, where the President is unaware of gatherings attended by over 300,000 U.S. citizens, where our elected and unelected officials alike blame America for the world’s problems, where judges are appointed for their “empathy” rather than their interpretation of the law…

        I could go on for years, but I’ll leave it there.

        1. I apologize, I do not believe in picking on the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped and I had no idea how much you suffered.

          1. Congratulations on officially coming up with the worst rebuttal I could have imagined.  I never made any personal attacks, I simply outlined my beliefs.  I can’t say personal attacks have been an atypical response when posting here at ColoradoPols, but every time I hope it’s the last.  Why can’t we just talk and have honest disagreements?  Why do I have to be mentally ill?

            1. It is simply that what you wrote was so paranoid and disconnected from reality that I assumed that you have a medical condition.

              1. I wrote something “so paranoid and disconnected from reality” that you “assumed I have a medical condition.”  According to you I am “mentally ill” and “mentally handicapped.”

                Those all sound like personal attacks to me.  And I’m not exactly sure where my arguments become paranoid and disconnected from reality, but if you had a genuine point in that regard I can only assume you would’ve made it by now.

        2. where the Democratic candidate won 375 electoral votes and won states like Indiana and North Carolina.  It seems that the “NEW” America you speak of is really the “OLD” America where the people elect their leaders and then the losers scream they are victims because they are no longer in control.  Boo Hoo loser.

          You phony patriots are some of the weakest pussies in the country.  Instead of coming up with workable solutions that will help all Americans all you can do is whine about how the country has changed.  Grow up dude and come up with something more creative than “TAX CUTS” and maybe your party will start to win elections again.  Loser.  

          1. For starters, let me say this:  George Bush did a few good things, most notably keeping our country safe, but was far from what Republicans consider a conservative.  He spent money we don’t have, he ignored the constitution on multiple occasions, and further nationalized education.  Barack Obama is like all the bad of George Bush…times ten…without any of the positives.  All those African Americans who voted for him in the District of Columbia were so happy with his first 100 days that they marched in the streets today to protest the bill he signed that effectively killed the D.C. voucher program that allowed underprivileged children attend decent schools.  Tax cuts have proven in the past to increase tax revenue and GDP, and Republicans in Congress (no matter how liberal and inept most of them are) have offered alternatives to major legislation such as the stimulus package and omnibus bill, but have been altogether ignored.

            I resent being called a “phony patriot,” and a “weak pussy.”  Simply believing in less government interference, the rule of law, and taking responsibility for yourself doesn’t make me either of those things.

              1. …although it had been in the planning stages for many years (i.e. the Clinton administration).  It wasn’t his responsibility to gather intelligence, only respond to what Al Qaeda proved could happen and make sure nothing like it would happen again.  Like, say, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh-Muhammad and preventing a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.  Oh wait, that did happen…

                1. But only acted upon once Bush came into office. Isn’t that a sign of perceived weakness? It’s just like Cheney says: people only attack the nation when they perceive us as weak.

                  And I love this:

                  It wasn’t his responsibility to gather intelligence

                  Just because you’re bad at something doesn’t mean it’s not your responsibility. Further, as Ms. Rice said during hearings on the subject, they HAD the intel stating that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the eastern seaboard. They didn’t act.

                  waterboarding Khalid Sheikh-Muhammad and preventing a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.  Oh wait, that did happen..

                  Yes, a popular argument. They waterboarded KSM in March 2003, after the purported attack already was foiled. Apparently, waterboarding told them something that had already happened. Dennis Blair, current national intelligence director, also notes that this information COULD HAVE been gotten by normal means of interrogation that weren’t waterboarding.

                  So, under your rationale, Republicans should not be blamed for NOT acting on intelligence they acknowledge they had (regarding Sept. 11), but should receive credit for acting on intelligence BEFORE they even received it (re: Los Angeles).

                  Good work, torture. New and improved! Now with reverse-predictive qualities!

                  Your lack of logic is astounding.

            1. for questioning the need to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

              It is obvious that you voted for George Bush twice and still have no sense of shame about what you did.  You didn’t protest when he ran up the deficit and gave tax breaks to his rich buddies or started a unnecessary war that did nothing (NOTHING) to resolve the underlying issues regarding Western societies and Muslim extremism.

              We all believe in less government interference but I’ll peg you as an ultra anti-abortionist who also voted to define marriage as a hetero-sexual relationship.  Your hypocrisy about government interference in personal lives is only surpassed your drivel arguments that now you are concerned about the deficits.  Where was your outrage for the last eight years Republican?

        3. Ok, let’s accept your figure of 300,000 (I assume you are talking about the “tea party” publicity stunts)–if it is in fact verifiable.

          That would be 0.1% of Americans, meaning what…that 99.9% did not attend. Is 0.1% some sort of mass movement that proves Something Big is happening? That the president is hunkered behind his 61% approval ratings? Or is it, in fact, a figure that suggests just the opposite?

          I have no idea what you’re talking about when you refer to a beauty queen being hung in effigy, but… were there 300,000 people involved in that too? Was that event–assuming there was such an event–indicative of something Big, Momentous, and Meaningful? And by citing in in your limited list, are you not showing just how ridiculous your entire case is? In any case, trust you are not watching the movies any more.

          Oh, yes, “shoving the stimulus down the throats” of whom exactly? South Carolina? Or was that the state where the elected legislature insisted that the governor accept the funds? Alaska? Well, no…. Where then?

          If Ignorance were Bliss, you must be in Paradise. All them virgins and unable to do anything about it! No wonder you’re frustrated! (BTW, why would you want to live in Boulder? Manifestly it’s driving you nuts. Isn’t Colorado Springs…or, say, Edid, OK… more your speed, politically? Why torture yourself … and I daresay your living companion, if you have one? “Yes, dear… More Pepsid, dear? Time to change your diaper, dear? Lovely sunset, isn’t it dear?”)

          1. We know that Republicans lie all the time so why would you consider his moniker true?

            He was perfectly OK with Bush’s signing statements but is wildly offended to the point of cheering attempts by the racist South to succeed from the Union because an ex-Constitutional Law professor is now calling the shots.

            I’m personally offended that these phony patriots pretend to love our country when in reality all they love is their party.  Real patriots would recognize their past failures and obsolete philosophies and work to find new solutions and new leaders.  Reagan was wrong about deregulation.  So was Phil Gramm and Newt Ginrich.  These phony Americans need to get over it and make this a better country by doing something more than belly ache about Obama.  They could volunteer at a Food Bank or work on a trail crew.  There are a lot of ways to do something good for this country.  Oh that’s right they no longer believe that we are united.  They’re ones who have betrayed their loyalty to their fellow Americans.  Everyone single one of them who believes in succession is a cowardly traitor.  They don’t have the guts to come up with better leaders or ideas to move this country forward.  

            1. Somehow, I think the physiological problem–and I grant you, that is a major element of the problem here–is situated rather higher than the guts … more like in the area between the ears. The pressure on the cranium caused by outside pressure–even at high altitude– trying to fill a vacuum must be painful indeed.

            2. Unpatriotic traitors.

              There’s such a thing as the “loyal opposition.” There’s such a thing as trying to make logical arguments to influence voters.

              These people like Rick Perry, etc. just don’t realize how horrible they come across to average, patriotic Americans.

        4.    They could always return the money if they don’t want it.  

            In fact, a grand total of ONE principled wingnut, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, tried to do so with some (but not all) of the stimulus package money.  IIRC, the GOP-controlled state legislature went around him and accepted the money.

            As for the rest, like Rush Limpbaugh, they’re a bunch of blowhard hypocrites.  Piyush Jindahl and Sarah “Caribou Barbie” Palin made some noise to try to energize the base, then took the money.

        5. Wow. What part of this can you not understand, BoulderRepublican:

          Under the Bush-Cheney administration, our country – in one of its most shameful episodes ever – LEGITIMIZED TORTURE.

          Do you deny that after World War II, the United States EXECUTED Japanese who had waterboarded our troops?

          Do you deny that good patriotic MILITARY MEN, over and over again in the 1940s and 1950s and afterward, carefully reviewed and concluded without a doubt that waterboarding was TORTURE?

          And your bizarre statement that waterboarding “secured important national security information” is nothing more than outright FANTASY – exactly like Cheney’s fevered attempts to link Saddam and Osama. Not only was waterboarding immoral and illegal TORTURE – going against everything our country stands for! – it didn’t even f*cking WORK. One of these terrorists was waterboarded ONE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT times in a SINGLE MONTH. Sadistic, was what it was.

          And if you think waterboarding is like frat hazing, you obviously have never seen any of the demonstrations by people who actually did it. It is simulated drowning. It is no different than electrocuting people’s testicles. But I suppose you support that as well, you swine.

          “Judges are appointed for their empathy rather than their interpretation of the law.” What a load of CRAP. You either didn’t listen to or, more likely, are consciously trying to misrepresent to your dwindling band of gullible teabaggers what Obama actually said.

          “We demonize capitalism.” BULLSH*T. We simply realize that we need to have EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS in place so that we’re not robbed blind by thieves.

          “America is a nation of cowards.” Again, a lie as to what Holder said. Just a flat-out lie.

          “Shove the stimulus package…” Nope. Any state is free to reject it. But there are consequences to that rejection. Just like there are consequences to secession.

          “We apologize to every … nation for being ‘arrogant.'” More bullsh*t. Obama has spoken strongly, courageously and honestly that America has made mistakes. Only fools like you think that acknowledging mistakes somehow makes America weaker. You’re no better than the STALINISTS in RUSSIA, or Kim Jong Il’s North Korea, where they have to pretend that their satellite reached orbit or else somehow they’ve lost face. Of course, you ignore the other half of what Obama has been saying: decrying mindless anti-Americanism. I for one am proud of a country that can admit its mistakes, including the mindless arrogance of the Bush-Cheney Administration.

          “Anybody who doesn’t support our President is labeled ‘racist.'” Wrong again. There are plenty of DEMOCRATS who don’t support our President on everything he’s doing. That’s okay. Grown-ups are willing to disagree now and then. Only the Republican Party is engaging in vicious purification rituals to the point where Arlen Specter feels he has to leave the party.

          “Our own government labels veterans as high risks for violent extremism.” Yet another TOTAL FALSEHOOD. Absolute total and utter falsehood. Once again, you’re counting on fooling the people – but you know what, it doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Sarah Palin, or Joe the Plumber, and it won’t work for you.

          “The media plays government lap dog.” Oh puh-leeze. Can you say FOX NEWS??? Can you say CLEAR CHANNEL? Can you say HANNITY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. You guys are such crybabies that it’s just plain funny. You don’t realize how ridiculous you are to the average American.

          You take issue with “hate crime legislation” as if it’s something new Obama has concocted. Many, MANY Republicans in the past – when the party was sane – have supported and many still do support hate crime legislation. It should be relatively noncontroversial, except to a few like you who believe that Matthew Shepard’s killing for being gay was a “hoax.”

          “A beauty pageant contestant is brutally hung in effigy.” Again, puh-LEEZE, you’re killing us with your over-the-top sensationalism. She gets asked a question by an openly GAY judge as to whether she supports gay marriage? Look, that’s the point where good, SMART beauty pageant contestants mumble something bland about world peace and whatnot. Instead, this contestant – who, it turns out, previously posed with bare breasts and failed to disclose it – utters some inanity about how “in my country” (what country does she live in: the Sovereign Nation of Texahoma? – they don’t have gay marriage, and gets dinged a bit for it (she still was FIRST RUNNER UP, for Chrissake: that’s being “brutally hung”?), and once again you guys are such freaking crybabies. Waaah waaah waaah.

          “The President is unaware of gatherings…” Oh, you’re talking about those miserable little teabagging parties relentlessly promoted by Fox News yet which had embarrassingly small turnouts even with glorious weather? What, did you want Obama to turn up and give you a medal? Grow a pair.

          Please, do “go on for years.” The more years you go on like that, the more years you’ll condemn the once-proud Republican Party to irrelevance to the point where barely ONE FIFTH of Americans now think of themselves as Republicans. To the point where nimrods like Joe the Plumber, and that imbecile Michelle Bachman, and the guy who sent out the postcard of watermelons on the White House lawn, are considered the face of the Republican Party.

          I used to feel sorry for Boulder Republicans. Now – not so much.

          1. We haven’t had this much fun since Laughing Boy was the foil.

            Actually I agreed with Laughing Boy from time to time and he had some creative writing now and then.  Ahh for the days when Republicans made sense and offered a novel perspective on the issues.  This clown just regurgitates whatever he hears from dittohead land.

          2. Most of the “selective” quotes BoulderRepublican relied on in his post are shown to be the result of Fox News editing in this great side-by-side comparison:

    2. The Bush administration was going against what many states wanted, and they never talked about leaving the union. People protested, and they called him names, and some states even did little meaningless resolutions talking about how much they were displeased with current US policy.

      If that’s all that Oklahoma and Texas were talking about, that would be fine. It would be dissent.

      Did you ever see Massachusetts talk about becoming “independent” because of the Bush economic policies? No. They have more class than that.

      This isn’t “don’t tread on me”, this is “we don’t give a crap about the electoral process, and if it doesn’t go our way, we’re out of here”.

    3. Wrong.

      The only options are to elect new leadership, protest the current leadership or emigrate.

      Secession is not an option- the US Supreme Court settled that issue more than 100 years ago.

      See White v. Texas, 1879

    4. and so I’m going to skip over all the other comments and take a chance that no one’s made this point already.

      Our rights were trampled under the just-departed 43rd President, and these “patriots” didn’t say a goddamn word about it. Warrantless wiretaps? Habeas Corpas? Those rights are at the very heart of what America stands for, and Bush shat all over them. He also deliberately blurred the separation of powers with his signing statements, which went much further than any signed by previous Presidents. And the fine citizens of Texas and Oklahoma, as represented both by their votes and their legislatures, had nothing to say.

      Patriotic? Spare me.

  4. Because I just read it, and it says nothing about secession or leaving the United States. So the post title is misleading.

    We do have a dual system of sovereignty in the United States, which is why we are citizens of both the United States and of an individual state. It is the root of a “federal” form of government.

    Simply re-stating the 10th Amendment’s “Reserved Powers” clause and giving some garbled verbiage about state sovereignty hardly means “secession.”

    Federal legislation has long come with mandates, and that has long been a source of tension in the federal system because of the “usurpation” that comes along with such mandates. This is a long-standing political debate in American politics that is much different from secession.  

    1. but if you read the article it’s clear what their intent is. Many of the Republican legislators were talking about how this would make Oklahoma “independent”. I read that as them saying they don’t want to be part of this country anymore.

      1. It’s a fact. Read the text of the resolution.

        I read the accompanying article you linked to, and I didn’t see any secessionist sentiment expressed — just the usual bitching about mandates.

        Considering DC Republicans at the moment are an awkward curiosity playing no real role in our national government, it makes sense that state legislatures will become an outlet for “official” expression of GOP partisanship.

        All I’m saying is, I don’t think we need to wet ourselves every time a state leg somewhere (not in Colorado) does something kooky. It’s all they have.  

    2. but we are not “citizens of both the United States and of an individual state,” we are U.S. citizens and legal residents of whatever state. It’s like the difference between marriage and civil unions, sort of.

  5. All of you saying “well the Democrats didn’t talk about secession when the Republicans did X, Y, & Z,” remember that they’re not talking about disagreements on ideology, they’re talking about ignoring the Constitution (done–albeit to a lesser degree–by Bush as well) but  ESPECIALLY states’ rights.

    A moron of a supreme court nominee is one thing.  Forcing a state to take money (that will have to be recouped with taxes down the line somewhere…) with strings attached is strictly unconstitutional.  That’s the real beef.

    1. I will admit that Obama is dangerously close to violating the law by refusing (so far) to investigate allegations of Bush era torture of suspects, but I challenge you to provide any link to a single constitutional scholar (talking heads don’t count) who says that Obama has done anything unconstitutional. On the other hand, while Bush was in power the GOPers were perfectly happy to ignore article one, section nine:

      The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

      as well as amendments four:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


      No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      and six:

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

      The American Bar Association said this about Bush:

      Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers…

      And finally, regarding the principle of nullification, Andrew Jackson said it best 180 years ago:

      “I consider … the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

      I eagerly await your measured and thoughtful response.

      1. I have heard all of these points before, and he definitely did violate the Constitution.  In your first example, I would argue that “invasion” is open to interpretation and that the attacks in 2001 could constitute an invasion given the lack of a definition.  In any case I wouldn’t support suspending the writ of habeas corpus even after making that interpretation.  Ever since Roosevelt decided that if a given action weren’t explicitly against the Constitution, then it was OK, every president other than Reagan has expanded presidential power and trampled over the law.

        Now to Obama’s unconstitutional practices:

        -He has also issued signing statements

        His appointment of Harold Koh, who supports “transnational jurisprudence,” as America’s number one attorney-a clear violation of the constitution whenever he relies on any international law to interpret one of our own

        Defending Abortion and infanticide by claiming that determining when life begins is “above his pay grade”-another clear violation of human rights because he refuses to define what constitutes a human

        -Agreeing at the G20 summit to create an international board that would have authority over American corporations

        -Promoting unequal protection of the law by searching for a supreme court justice who has a lot of “empathy” when interpreting the law

        -Attempting to move oversight of the census to the White House

        -Every power grab into the auto and banking industries

        These are all serious violations of rights guaranteed in the Constitution.  Not prosecuting U.S. officials for simply advising on the legality of waterboarding and walling is not unconstitutional.  In any case, these things can hardly be considered torture.  As the terrorists are not United States citizens, they have no rights, and as they were picked up on the battle field, they are prisoners of war.  But as I said, worse has been done on Fear Factor…

          1. Domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system.

            -Harold Koh

            1. ….attaching someone’s name to some quote means nothing.

              second, even if the quote were authentic, it doesn’t support your ridiculous description of his view.  

            2. While Koh does believe that US Courts should be able to view international precedent as use that to shape American law (but not bind America to any international jurisprudence), his argument is that US Courts won’t be able to export American judicial thought if we are completely out of the international mainstream.

              He’s right, too. The Canadian Supreme Court is now more widely quoted in international courts than the US Supreme Court is. If America wants to be seen as a leader in international justice, domestic courts should be unafraid to juxtapose American legal thought with international decisions.

              Using international law to better contextualize American law isn’t a violation of the Constitution. It’s solid legal reasoning. We should be applauding Koh, not demonizing him.

            3. the opinions and jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and US caselaw was studied throughout the world as a model. It was an important way for American values to be exported to societies around the world.

              Not so much anymore….

        1. In any case, these things can hardly be considered torture.  As the terrorists are not United States citizens, they have no rights, and as they were picked up on the battle field, they are prisoners of war.  But as I said, worse has been done on Fear Factor…

          If they’re prisoners of war (and not enemy combatants as your former leader claims) then yes, they do have rights, as per the myriad conventions the United States has signed, within which POW is an important distinction.

          Worse has been done on Fear Factor

          REALLY? Or in German, WIRKLICH? Even Hannity is smart enough not to spout that bullshit.  

          1. The difference is that in “Fear Factor” and “Jackass,” people willingly – for MONEY and FAME – eat bugs, break their bones, electrocute themselves, etc. etc.

            But when it’s done forcibly to people, that’s torture. Plain and simple. Except to an unabashed Cheney apologist like you who claims – without a shred of support – that all that sadistic torture even made us one iota safer.  

        2. Um, excuse me, but we EXECUTED Japanese for waterboarding in World War II.

          “These things.” You and Rush and Hannity make me sick. Simulated drowning is torture.

          1. has been considered torture for 500 years. There’s no way around it. BoulderRepublican is either lying or deluded.

            Good roundup of the history of water torture here:


            From the article:

            In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan’s defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

            “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

            On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

            Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

            That’s right, the Reagan Justice Department had no trouble calling water torture exactly what it was, and certainly didn’t dither about prosecuting it as a crime.

        3. for a quote from an actual constitutional scholar, as opposed to your recitation of comedian Rush Limbaugh’s standard talking points. If that’s the best you can do, then I will just move on. In the words of the immortal Danny Partridge, “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”

    2. Yeah, please go with that as a campaign theme, Boulder Republican.

      Look, if it were so “strictly unconstitutional,” then Jindal et al would file suit with the U.S. Supreme Court and get AT LEAST four votes saying so. They haven’t, because there’s nothing at all unconstitutional about it.

      “Forcing a state to take money with strings attached is strictly unconstitutional.” Just listen to what a stupid sentence that is.

    1. they want to be independent from the Federal government. This is because they don’t like who is in the White House. It’s that simple.

      It’s political grandstanding and nothing more.

      Do we really need to keep reminding each other that George Bush’s Administration were the ones behind the initial TARP bailout plan? I didn’t hear Oklahoma et al. complaining about state sovereignty then.

      1. Spot on. “This is because they don’t like who is in the White House. It’s that simple.”

        Just like the state political establishment in Oklahoma detested FDR in the 1930s. Called him a closet Jew, even – just like they call Obama a Muslim.

        And what about the Oklahoma citizens? They voted over 70% in favor of FDR in 1936, repudiating their state leaders.

  6. You know why this is a big deal on this blog?  Because left-wingers know they’d be fucked if red states seceded.

    If the red states left, who would work?  Who would you tax? Who would get things done while bloggers whine like little girls all day long?

    It would be one starving to death committee meeting.

    1. (Cuz I’m from near Trenton, see.)

      Everyone who’s not just pulled things out of their asses knows this.

      And actually, a lot of us would be thrilled if the red states left. As long as we could kick out all the traitors with them from other states.

    2. If the red states left, who would work?  Who would you tax?

      You mean like the Alaskans, who get an annual check from the gub’ment just for being Alaskans? And everyone knows Okies are lazy.

      We’d get by just fine with the hard-working, tax-generating states of California, Illinois, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Hawaii — oh, and Colorado. We’ll have to carry Delaware, but I think we can manage.

    3. Is a main premise behind the Constitution, that revered document and supposed foundation that GOP pay lip service to:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      The Pledge of Allegiance, which the GOP line up to defend as if mouthing the words is some test of loyalty, gives fealty to “one nation.”

      The <20% of voters that the GOP now represents is showing their true–These Colors Do Run–nature and generally unstable demeanor (reflected in the paranoid fantasies about FEMA re-education camps, an Obama dictatorship, a Islamist Caliphate, a Green Tyranny, and seizure of that most precious and holy possession–the assault rifle).  

      The Republican race to extinction–the plight of the GOPasaur–goes faster and faster, while adults work to meet our nation’s challenges.    

  7. A dinner toast by Andy Jackson on April 13, 1830 while there was great talk of South Carolina leaving over some tariff legislation.  For a less bummer sticker (buggy sticker?) statement from him take a look at:

    A section that addresses this “sovereignty” stuff says:

    The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation /blockquote>

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

71 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!