This coming in from Newsok.com:
Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.
Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.
The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.
"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City.
"I think our governor is out of step.”
House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action.
Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.
Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.
Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.
The Governor is right. If they want to complain about the federal government, then they should give up any money they get from the federal government that is not directly specified in the Constitution as an area of regulation for the Federal Government. Let's see if that happens?
2 comments:
"they should give up any money they get from the federal government that is not directly specified in the Constitution as an area of regulation for the Federal Government."
I disagree. You're blaming the victim.
This would be similar to telling old people not to accept Social Security checks because Social Security is un-Constitutional. Would it be ideal? Yes. Is it sensible and fair? No.
Because Oklahoma is tied to the Union, the people of Oklahoma have been forced against their will to contribute to the federal leviathan. There are three ways to respond:
1) Try to get as much back as possible to make up for what was taken from Oklahoma. This is by far the most common approach of the three.
2) Just let it go. Begging for scraps from Uncle Sam is not worth the shameful actions that it would to take to try to get some of the money back.
3) What I described in #2 plus secession so that Oklahoma will never again have to endure such a situation.
Option #3 is what I would recommend. But since Oklahoma is not likely to secede any time soon, #2 is appealing, but politicians will opt for #1 because it's more practical.
The system should be abolished, but while it exists, I don't blame its victims for doing the best they can to minimize their victimization. It's a shame that they're put into this situation to begin with, though, and they should escape if possible.
Why not just not secede or threaten to secede? It's not that bad to be a state in the US. If Oklahoma or Texas or any of these states seceded they'd turn into little impoverished theocracies probably.
Post a Comment