HB 2810-The Oklahoma Sovereignty Act stuck in Rep. Liebmann’s Craw

2/23/2010This morning I joined with other supporters of HB 2810, The Oklahoma Sovereignty Act this morning tomeet with Oklahoma Rep. Guy Liebmann in order to try to resolve whatever concerns he has with the billso that he might allow it a hearing in his committee. This was my first meeting with this legislator and Iwon’t be in a hurry to meet with him again.It was a very odd and uncomfortable encounter. Seconds after I shook hands with the representative helooked straight at me and shoved a newspaper in my direction, asking; "Have you read the paper today?"His tone was unmistakably superior and sarcastic but I looked at the article that he was tapping with hisfinger; Skimming, I read; Rep Charles Key. . .anti-government…. HB 2810 ......state's rights extremists.

What?!

HB 2810 is in a subcommittee whose chairman, Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City,has refused to consider it.

This has riled the states’ rights extremists,

who are criticizing Liebmann and Rep. KenMiller, R-Edmond,who heads the Appropriations and Budget Committee. They wantMiller to remove the bill from the subcommittee. If that happened, we have no doubtMiller would immediately spike it himself, and for good reason.Both of these bills are a waste of time and should be deep-sixed. Voters in District 90,who sent Key to an easy re-election victory in 2008, can be excused if they’re havingsecond thoughts about that.Read more:http://newsok.com/off-key-lawmaker-wishes-state-stood-alone/article/3441431?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0gO3NiYZ6I don’t know who wrote it but judging from the proud air demonstrated by Rep. Liebmann when heshoved the article under my nose and the giddy schoolgirl-like antics of both he and Rep Miller over it inthe halls of the Oklahoma Statehouse one would easily get the impression that they wrote the trash piecethemselves. Don’t these two make Oklahoma proud!Do Ken Miller and Guy Liebmann really think that I'm an extremist for wanting our state government todefend our sovereignty? It is their sworn duty to do so.I recoil from the terminology not just because it is undeserved but also because of the politicalenvironment that we are presently in. This sort of rhetoric is nothing less than pure old fashioned politicalintimidation and I thoroughly resent Representative Liebmann’s insinuation that Tenth Amendmentsupporters are “extremists”

The “extremists”, in any event, are also the majority. From a February, 2010Rasmussen ReportRasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say statesshould have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with.Furthermore, these so called “state’s rights extremists” do not advocate extreme measures;. . .despite the rise of so-called “Tea Party” anti-federal government sentiment around thecountry, there’s no second Civil War at hand. Only 14% of voters think individual stateshave the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Seventy-two percent (72%) do not believe states have this right, and 13% more are undecided

I see this for exactly for what it is and want the big government extremists at the Capitol to know that itisn’t going to work. I am already intimidated by our government and that is exactly the reason that Ispend my time advocating for constitutional government. While these fellows are drawing a salary andseem to be having a fine time, political involvement for me and many other activists is neither a vocationnor a hobby but rather a necessary exercise in self-defense.What some of our elected officials might view as business as usual, these political hijinks can lead to realharm to innocent people. The infamous MIAC report is a good example of how this kind of rhetoric cango terribly wrong;

The Columbia Tribune

March 14, 2009The report’s most controversial passage states that militia “most commonly associatewith third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul,former Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertariancandidate last year.[. . .] At a “Tea Party” to protest wasteful government spending Thursday in Flat BranchPark, several people displaying the Revolutionary War-replica “Don’t Tread On Me” flagwere upset to learn the MIAC report lists the banner as a “militia symbol.”“That’s insane,” said Doug Wendt looking at the MIAC document. “That is not a militiasymbol. That is American history. This is historic. The only animosity” Americancolonists “ever directed with this was towards England.”[. . ]Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulledover by a police officer, he won’t know whether it’s because he was speeding or becauseof his political views.“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist wouldhave in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinkingin a rational manner,” Neal said. “And this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.”http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/View the actualMIAC Report

Is this how we expect our legislators react when they find themselves at odds with the people of thisstate? What is it about interacting with genuinely concerned citizens of Oklahoma that inspiresLiebmann to a nostril flaring fit of temper? I met the gentleman with genuine respect and warmth andwonder what he feels justifies this sort of reception.Rep Liebmann said that the bill was against the constitution and he would not hear it. Section 1 Article 8,the federal government has the right to collect taxes. One of the bill’s advocates replied that this billwould in no way interfere with the collecting of taxes for any legitimate, constitutional purpose.We wanted to know if adjustments were made to the language would there a chance for the bill to beheard. Liebmann said "Not in my committee, it won't"I told him that people were worried about the federal government overstepping and the reason that this bill is a popular one is that it would provide some definite means to protect our state from egregiousfederal mandates.The point was raised that the procedure that is required by this bill to arrive at the point where our taxeswould actually be held in escrow would be quite involved and require the majority of the state legislaturevotes in order to even begin the process.I asked the Representative if he thought it would have to be a very obvious overstepping on the part of thefederal government in order for such a consensus to even be possible and in that event wouldn't we wishwe had such a law to protect us? He didn’t seem to disagree on this point and added that the measurewould also require the signature of the Governor. Suffice it to say, no trivial matter would trigger this process of placing our tax monies in escrow, withheld against unconstitutional demands by D.C.The debate about the constitutionality of HB 2810 went back and forth for a bit longer with Liebmanninterjecting what appeared at first to be a non sequitur, but in truth, went straight to the heart of thematter;

“Do you know how many dollars we get for every one we give to the National Guard?

I confessed that Idid not know the answer.

“FOUR! Four dollars for every ONE we put in”

So, is HB 2810 unconstitutional or is it that he fears, and not irrationally so, that by passing such a bill our state might expect to incur the wrath of federal government in the form of withholding federal funds fromour state? This is not only a legitimate concern; it illustrates the catch 22 that the states are now under In 1997, Justice Scalia issued the court’s opinion on Printz v US, a case that closely examined our concept of federalism.Justice Scalia expressed;“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” andthat the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.”"Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."