In South Dakota, only one step remains for the “Cease and Desist” resolution (HCR 1013) to pass: the Governor must sign the resolution. That’s because the South Dakota Senate passed the resolution, 20-14. Only one Democrat (Ryan Maher) voted for the resolution. Republican Sens. Jim Bradford and Tom Dempster voted with the Democrats against the resolution.

In South Carolina, the House has passed its sovereignty bill, H. 3509, and it is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it is likely to be recommended favorably.

Sen. Shane Martin (R, District 13) will be attending a meeting of activists in Greenville to give an update to supporters of the measure.

Earlier in the month, the Oklahoma Senate passed that state’s resolution, SJR 10, by a vote of 25-17.

As more governors declare their opposition to the Stimulus Bill — which is now estimated to include more than $1 trillion in unfunded mandates for the states above and beyond the initial $800 billion cost — more and more state legislators across the nation have been introducing bills to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment in an effort to assert the rights of their citizens and the authority of state governments against unwarranted interference by the federal government.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Idaho Governor Butch Otter stated their support for the position against the stimulus taken by Texas Governor Rick Perry and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford this week. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has been speaking publicly against the bill and when it passed her office issued a statement praising Alaska’s congressional delegation for voting against it:

“Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski did their best to achieve the right balance in the bill, but in the end the majority allowed the spending to balloon and encompass support for programs that don’t respond to the problem at hand.”

Meanwhile, Governor Palin made the bizarrely optimistic suggestion that President Obama should Veto the bill to five lawmakers a chance to at least read the bill and specifically citing the problem for the states in the huge amount of unfunded mandates in the bill.

The push for state sovereignty laws has really gone nationwide. Texas has gotten on board with a bill submitted this week with six sponsors. It is basically the same as the Oklahoma resolution rather than the more radical New Hampshire resolution, which gives it a better chance of passage. Texas is a big state, and having it in the fight adds a lot of serious weight.

Although it is not yet confirmed on their legislature’s website, the story is circulating that Tennessee is the first state to pass a sovereignty resolution through both of its legislative houses, in only 2 days from its introduction on Wednesday. Their version is a non-binding resolution which doesn’t require the governor’s signature or have the force of law, but it is a significant statement nonetheless.

In Pennsylvania, State Representative Sam Rohrer is leading the charge, and has made a very impassioned video statement which lays out exactly what the problem is and urges other states to join him in reasserting their sovereignty and rejecting federal mandates, stressing the very real concern that the spendthrift federal government will take the fiscally responsible states down with them.

There’s also news from Oklahoma, where a quick phonecall to State Representative Charles Key confirms that the sovereignty resolution which he got through the house last year was approved unanimously by the rules committee and on Wednesday was passed by the Oklahoma House by a 83-13 majority and may be voted on by the state Senate as early as next week, with high hopes of passage.

Missouri, as always, is marching to its own radically conservative drummer, with a state sovereignty bill up for consideration which is unique in that it specifically takes exception to the pro-abortion proposed federal Freedom of Choice law. This is conceptually similar to the bills being considered in Indiana, Wyoming and Oregon which reassert state sovereignty with a special emphasis on gun owners rights in response to a bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives to require licensing of all firearms nationwide.

Because of these articles a lot of concerned citizens are contacting me from various different states about what their states are doing. Sources in Maine inform me that they have also had a sovereignty bill proposed, but because of the structure of their legislative session it likely won’t even be looked at for months. A sovereignty bill was introduced in Minnesota on Thursday as HF997. Arkansas joined in with a bill in its state House of Representatives on Friday morning as well.

Some states have yet to get state legislators on board and are trying alternative methods. In Florida there is a pettition which will be submitted to the state legislature, which may not sit terribly well will stimulus-embracing Governor Charlie Crist. In Massachusets under a provision of their state constitution any citizen can request that a legislator submit a bill on their behalf. Ron Bokleman is struggling to get his bill, which is a version of the New Hampshire bill, past bureaucratic red tape so that it will actually be considered by the legislature. One correspondent also pointed out that a number of states passed or at least considered sovereignty bills in the past, starting with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Madison and Jefferson back in 1799, but with some much more recent, like Utah’s 1995 bill which passed their House, a reminder that concern over unfunded mandates isn’t new, though it’s growing ever more critical.

It now looks as if at least half the states will have some sort of sovereignty bill up for consideration this year. Combine that with governors and legislators who are worried about how they’ll ever be able to pay for the massive unfunded mandates included in the so-called stimulus bill, and you have a volatile rift developing between the relatively fiscally responsible and citizen-friendly state governments and the incredibly fiscally irresponsible and increasingly autocratic government in Washington, DC. If we stand together and make our voices heard, we can stop further federal stimulus and bailout spending. If we can reassert control by 2010 we can stop at least two thirds of the current stimulus money from ever being spent. It’s time to storm the gates of power and let our elected leaders know that we do not want to see our country bankrupted and driven into socialism out of desperation and expediency.

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are currently considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions to reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:

“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

The Founders believed in a balance between state and federal power. The state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough” to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There’s a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is.

Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma’s bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government.

Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.

The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:

“That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

and

“That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri’s bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right of the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire’s bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullification which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii’s proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

As things stand right now, it looks like Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, and Pennsylvania — where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills.

Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through.

As the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.

According to The Associated Press, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was elected the new Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Haley Barbour, who once stated a favorable comment about the RLC, was elected Vice-Chair. Sanford, 48, is a former member of Congress and will be term limited in 2011.

A new website, Draft Sanford 2012, has been created in to enlist supporters for a prospective Mark Sanford bid for President. The site features interesting links, such as “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Mark Sanford.” Among the things I didn’t know are that Sanford rejected the Congressional housing allowance in favor of sleeping in his DC office and kept his term limits pledge.

Like another prospective 2012 libertarian favorite, Sanford enjoys running. The other runner, of course, is former New Mexico Governor and RLC Adviser Gary Johnson, who may run in 2012 for President as either a Libertarian or a Republican.

According to Tyler Whitney, there are reports that SC Governor Mark Sanford may become chairman of the Republican Governors Association. The RGA is meeting this week in Miami to elect its new chairman. Governor Sanford has also been mentioned as a potential candidate for President in 2012.

I couldn’t think of a better choice.

Columnist Jack Hunter of The Charleston City Paper has an interesting column on Governor Mark Sanford’s honesty and integrity. Governor Sanford is a hero to libertarian Republicans for his ability to stick to principle and to resist the temptation of governing with an iron fist. Check out the article.

Although it looks like it will be a bad year for Republicans as a whole, GOP candidates advocating for limited government (and meaning it!) are going to do well in 2008, just as they did in 2006. (The only RLC-friendly member of Congress who lost in 2006 was Arizona’s J.D. Hayworth.)

In Virginia, the state RLC’s favorite legislator, Ken Cuccinelli, is running for Attorney General in 2009. He will face another Republican in the state primary, but he is the favorite to win both the primary and general election. Senator Cuccinelli addressed the newly chartered Virginia RLC earlier this year:

In Georgia, things are looking good for 2010. If Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, who the RLC has supported for years, jumps into the race for Governor, then the RLC’s leader in the State Senate, David Shafer, has a real opportunity to become Lt. Governor.

Georgia Senator David Shafer.

In Missouri, State Treasurer Sarah Steelman is facing an uphill fight against establishment Congressman Kenny Hulshof in the open gubernatorial race. Steelman is favored by RLC members for her no-nonsense, common sense approach to the issues. Ron Paul supporters are even planning a Money Bomb for Steelman. Treasurer Steelman also attended the Ron Paul Freedom Rally in Branson earlier this year. Roy Blunt, predictably, has endorsed her opponent, Kenny Hulshof.

Sarah Steelman

Finally, the RLC is thankful for its current incumbent Governors, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Sarah Palin of Alaska. Although not perfect, these state leaders have shown independence from the GOP establishment and have the chutzpah to make real inroads toward returning the GOP to its small government heritage.

Sarah Palin

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn’t mention our heroes of past, namely former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld.

While Governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld ended the state’s borrowing, controlled Medicaid spending, reduced property taxes and balanced seven budgets in a row while passing 19 tax cuts and never raising taxes. He was elected during a tumultuous time when the state’s bond rating was near junk status, unemployment was nearly 10%, and the state had continuously borrowed money to close large operating deficits.