Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton
Path: teetot.acusd.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!decwrl!pa.dec.com!uiboise.idbsu.edu!blh
From: [b l h] at [uiboise.idbsu.edu] (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: Colorado's 10th Amendment Resolution...
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 13:46:01 MDT
Lines: 105


    This and other Secession documents are available on-line at:

    World Wide Web:

	http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/karl/www/karl.html
	http://cnn.acsys.com:5050/dave.html
  
    On unix machines with 'gopher, they may be retrieved using the command

                gopher windoze.widener.edu 70

    When using Lynx or Mosaic (or other WWW-browsing tool) here is the URL:

                gopher://windoze.widener.edu:70/

      -------------------------------------------------------------

From _The New American_, May 16, 1994, pg 17

On September 17,1787, the delegates to our nation's founding convention
adjourned and sent their finished work, the Constitution, to the
Congress. On September 28th, Congress submitted the Constitution to the
states for ratification. It had been a long and contentious labor, and
one of the most heated issues remained unresolved:  a bill of rights. 

George Mason and Patrick Henry were among those who held that a bill of
rights was absolutely essential.  Henry argued that history showed that
"every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some
express provision or compact, is within the king's prerogative."
Alexander Hamilton contended on the contrary that a bill of rights would
be redundant since the Constitution granted the national government only
specific, enumerated powers;  any power not enumerated could not be
exercised by the national government.  Moreover, he asserted, bills of
rights "are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would
even be dangerous.  They would contain various exceptions to power which
are not granted;  and, on this very account, would afford a ... pretext
to claim more than were granted.  For why declare that things shall not
be done which there is no power to do?"

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, called our Bill of Rights,
were ratified on December 15, 1791, and represent a compromise of sorts
between the Mason-Henry and Hamilton positions.  The first eight
amendments enumerated some of the most important rights:  freedom of
worship, expression, and assembly;  the right to keep and bear arms, to
trial by jury, and to due process;  freedom from unwarranted search,
double jeopardy, excessive fines, etc.  To obviate the concerns expressed
by Hamilton, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted.  The Ninth
states:

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

And a corollary to that, the Tenth, declares:

            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.

Charles Duke, a member of the Colorado State House of Representatives,
believes it is high time that the states and the people exercise their
reserved powers and retained rights to curtail and reverse a long train
of usurpations of power by the federal government in Washington.  Unlike
many other state and local officials who are complaining about unfunded
federal mandates and begging Uncle Sam to provide the funding necessary
to implement the federal marching orders, Duke is challenging the
constitutionality of the mandates themselves.

Colorado's House Joint Resolution 94-1035, sponsored by Duke, could be a
spark that ignites fires of freedom in other state legislatures.  The
resolution states, in part:

         << Please see updated version of the 
	    bill, e-mailed in by [Robert Mesenbrink] at [ATT.Com],
	    I think it is more ...  interesting. :) >>

Following a few more "whereases," H.J. Res. 94-1035 resolves:

(1) That the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not
otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United
States Constitution.

(2) That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as
our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are
beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

The resolution passed with a lopsided vote of 51 to 13 in the state House
of Representatives on April 7th.  On April 21st, the measure won just as
easily by a vote of 25 to 7 in the state Senate.  The resolution
instructs that copies of the resolution be sent to President Clinton,
President of the U.S. Senate Al Gore, Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives Tom Foley, Colorado's congressional delegation, and the
Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of each state's
legislature.

So what will that accomplish?  Won't Slick Willie, Al, Tom, and the gang
simply ignore it like they do all other resolutions?  "It won't be so
easy for them to ignore when we begin passing legislation to put teeth in
the resolution, and when dozens more states follow suit, Duke told THE
NEW AMERICAN. --

-- WILLIAM F. JASPER