Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Government

Representative Jack Landon, no friend of state sovereignty

I recently contacted Representative Jack Landon (R) Sheridan - concerning state sovereignty legislation proposing an amendment to the Wyoming Constitution as follows:

97-1-037.  Wyoming is a Sovereign State.
The Sovereign State of Wyoming, being a part of the federal union, recognizes the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land within the limits of those powers exclusively delegated to the United States by the Constitution. All other powers, including jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the State of Wyoming, or to its citizens.

 
Landon was firmly in opposition of an amendment to our state constitution, as if it would be better to do nothing.

Currently sovereignty legislation being proposed are only “House Joint Resolutions” and Landon agrees these resolutions will do nothing, on the other hand he stated anything more than this means waging war against the federal government. So, what's Landon's plan? he said “we need to repeal the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution” as if he can somehow exert power over congress to do so.

What exactly would this do? “NOTHING”, you see the 17th amendment defines how we elect U.S. Senators and the thinking is - it would be better if our state legislators selected U.S. Senators. I don't think so, at the present time it would be prudent that the voters continue to make this selection and not the politicians!

Landon's real plan, to do nothing and wait. Maybe because of incompetence - Landon recently stated publicly that “he was not versed in constitutional law”. Not surprising, since he was first elected into office in 1999 Landon has failed to introduce any groundbreaking legislation that protects liberty in Wyoming.

Another thing we should remember is Landon is a staunch supporter of Real I.D. or what I call Dangerous I.D.. This new central I.D. of you and your loved ones only means yielding to a strong central government, you know the same one that is ramming health-care down your throat. Do we really need a Wolf in the hen house?

Since the polls indicate that candidates supporting strong tenth amendment protections are more likely to be elected, by his actions or better said in-action, Landon must be choosing not to be re-elected. In my opinion his inability on this issue is the call for someone to step up and replace him. 
 
After ten years in office, it's time for some "new blood" that will take the oath to uphold the constitution seriously.

sign the petition

Comments

  • Tom in Sheridan 4 years ago

    What a snake in the grass, I say he has to go!

  • MamaLiberty 4 years ago

    [quote]
    not prohibited by the Constitution to the states,
    [/quote]

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits anything to the states. Its only purpose is to outline the specific things the federal government was to do, and a specific list of things it was NEVER supposed to touch.

    Of course, all the provisions have been discarded, and they now do as they wish - increasingly without even bothering to give lip service to any of the limits supposedly placed on them.

    But I agree. Anyone who wants to give increased power to the feds needs to be fired.

  • Wyoming Patriot Alliance 4 years ago

    Great article Anthony. Time to expose these people for who they really are. Glad to work with ya in future endeavors!

  • Patrick Sperry 4 years ago

    Being new to Wyoming this came as a surprise to me. Why wouldn't any person with a brain not be for this type of legislation?

    Thanks for the heads up Anthony, and keep me posted about the meeting in January please.

  • Former Landon Supporter 4 years ago

    I won't vote for him again!

  • sharpshooter79 4 years ago

    What a jackass! Jack Landon seems to be the typical politician who never does anything for your constitutional rights but is always happy to take up taxpayer money.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    Part 1. Someone recently made me aware of your article. I would like to take this opportunity to respond and share some perspectives on State’s rights and being a Wyoming Representative. First, my goal has been to represent my constituents and consider all the people in the State by keeping State government small, efficient and serving the people, keeping our taxes low, controlling spending, encouraging free enterprise and opportunities and promoting individual freedom and responsibility.
    I appreciate being able to see the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, it seems to offer no substantive change to the Wyoming Constitution or our relationship with the Federal government.
    Article 1, Section 37 of the Wyoming Constitution reads “The State of Wyoming is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.” The proposed amendment says the same.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    Part 2.The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government. We recognize that as an important part of the ‘supreme law of the land’. The proposed amendment says the same thing as the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Now it might make us feel better to write it again, but I can’t see that it carries any substantive change that would hold U.S. Representatives or Senators to behave any differently than they have been. That is too bad, because we need to re-establish State’s rights and regain the sovereignty of the individual, as the writers of the Constitution so thoughtfully established.
    Near the end of the Populist movement, after a prolonged media campaign by Hearst’s newspapers and unfortunately bribery of some State legislators (they are fallible too), two-thirds of the U.S. Senate agreed with the House to offer an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which changed the way Senators were elected.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    Part 3.Instead of being chosen by State legislatures they would be popularly elected as were U.S. Representatives. In 1913 two-thirds of the States ratified the amendment and it became part of the Constitution.
    That amendment destroyed State’s rights. No longer were state governments a part of, fused to, the federal government. Previously, any action of the federal government required the approval of state legislatures, the people’s representatives. U.S. Senators, serving at the will of the people through their state legislators, gave the states a voice and place at the national policy forum. After the passage of the 17th amendment, States became mere lobbyists, agents of execution of federal demands, many as unfunded mandates.
    That amendment decreased the sovereignty of the individual.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    Part 4.Citizens could not only appeal to their U.S. Senator but also appeal to their State Representatives and Senators about actions that were pending in Washington or initiatives that they would like to see considered. Before the 17th amendment, if the U.S. Senators were not representing people as they wanted, State representatives were in danger of losing their seats and reputations. Citizens had power to hold their representatives accountable for actions of the U.S. Senator they chose. Instead of a citizen’s approval or disagreement being one of hundreds of thousands in the State (or even several million in a large state), his voice was then one of thousands who were represented in the state electoral districts.We citizens have lost that power and States rights are being ignored. It looks to me like U.S. Senators are responsive to those who filled the power vacuum left when sovereign State governments were torn from being partners with the federal government.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    Part 5.Now the media and large moneyed contributors to Senate races hold that power.
    It seems to me that our founding fathers recognized that ambition is the best balance for ambition. They had carefully crafted how the most powerful branch of government, the legislature, should be held in check. The 17th amendment inadvertently unbalanced the scales and the result has been an increasingly, alarmingly powerful federal government.
    Would it do any good for the State of Wyoming to pass such a resolution? Not immediately, and perhaps never, but if ideas are like genes in evolution and the fittest survive and become more widespread, perhaps someday we can regain our federal government peacefully. It is the best solution I can come up with for a substantive, structural change in governance. Your ideas are welcome as well.
    It is a real honor being part of the legislature in Wyoming, considering the many proposals to improve the lives of our neighbors and friends.

  • Jack Landon, Jr. 4 years ago

    End. Our citizen legislature took me from being a ‘semi-retired petunia farmer’ to being a politician in the passing of one election. Getting used to the word politician took some time. When taking the oath of office we swear to uphold the Wyoming Constitution and U.S. Constitution. Both are written in plain English and we must hold ourselves responsible to live by them.
    Wyoming’s representative democracy reflects the composition and will of the people in the State. May we keep the discussion going to preserve and strengthen it.
    End.

  • Publius 4 years ago

    Jack,
    Nice outline of the 17th Amendment. Problem is you have taken the mindset of all the other spineless politicians who abrogate responsibility to their constituents and worry more about re-election. If any politician actually stood up for what is right for their voters, state, and country instead of trying to appease the folks who ensure re-election, this country would be back on the right track. The 10th Amendment still exists...it has not been repealed. We just need elected leaders to put some teeth back into enforcing it. Instead of a simple Resolution, how about actually passing state statutes that NULLIFY those federal laws which trample on our natural rights and gather some of your compatriots and the governor to actually oppose the Feds?

  • sharpshooter79 4 years ago

    Well sir, I can see why you would want the 17th amendment to the US constitution repealed because then you and your friends would be in charge of electing our senators. Considering the current political situation in Congress what better way to keep yourselves in power. And just what makes you think that you will somehow get our congress that doesn't listen to us at all anymore to somehow listen now and change the US Constitution? Yeah right! Until we have REAL representation back in our government can we even begin to think about your suggestion.
    I don't know what proposed amendment you have been reading sir, but the amendment proposed by the Wyoming 10a project does change this line to "The SOVEREIGN State of Wyoming, being a part of the federal union,". There is a difference between "inseparable" and "sovereign". Go look it up in your dictionary.

  • sharpshooter79 4 years ago

    You know I'm not surprised you don't think it will do any good considering your voting record on REAL ID, and the marriage defense act. Your voting record seems to indicate that you are either ignorant of both the federal and state constitutions or you are just another typical politician who only cares about forwarding your political career and being subservient to the feds.

  • voter 4 years ago

    Amazing...
    We give them our votes, we give them a platform to speak and they screw us every time.
    We even try and give them another chance to explain themselves by offering interviews, sending emails, etc... and yet when citizens get involved and show people what the results were, they want to continue spewing their views. AS IF WE WANT TO KNOW ANY MORE!
    You, Jack, have already shown us who you are by your votes (Real ID, Marriage, etc...) and you don't need to comment any longer. We're done listening, you had your chance. Move over bacon, there's something leaner.

  • Shepard Humphries 4 years ago

    I am less interested in the internal documents of governments than in philosophy, however I appreciate that government member Jack entered this discussion. While he has an embarrassing low rank of 43 on last year's WLI (Wyoming Liberty Index) he does sometimes vote for liberty as he understands it.

    Jack, please continue studying the philosophy of liberty & thanks for taking part in this discussion.

  • Wyo Patriot 4 years ago

    I'm tired of politicians only voting for liberty when it suits their political careers. Where are they when it's time to stand in the trenches and fight??? No where to be found.
    Our local legislators are supposed to work for us and carry the voice of the people instead they have mimicked Washington politics and politicians; that have gotten our country into the shape it's in. We must not allow this to happen in Wyoming. Washington is beyond reform, so it is imperative to have our state legislators on our side, if not find someone that will be!!!

  • Alphawolf(Mark MC) 4 years ago

    97-1-037. Constitution of United States supreme law of land.
    The State of Wyoming is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
    As it reads NOW
    97-1-037. Wyoming is a Sovereign State.
    The Sovereign State of Wyoming, being a part of the federal union, recognizes the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land within the limits of those powers exclusively delegated to the United States by the Constitution. All other powers, including jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the State of Wyoming, or to its citizens as the PROPOCED amending reads, there is aBIG difference and does NOT say the same thing, and where do we get the RIGHT to amend this section?

  • Alphawolf(Mark MC) 4 years ago

    97-1-001. Power inherent in the people.
    All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
    thats where we get thwe right, and elected legislators will be called on this issue come the next time they ask our (the voters) consent to govern,

  • Hank 4 years ago

    As Wrong as Jack is on this Ammendement, he is right on about needing to repeal the 17th ammendment. It was ratified in 1913 and along with the 16th ammendment, and Federal Reserve Act was a part of the "progressive" program which gave us fiat currency, perpetual debt, unending foriegn intervention, loss of national soveriegnty, massive regulatatory increases, gun controls, prohibition, previously unheard-of taxation, entitlement programs, etc, etc.
    As originally intended, the Senate was to represent the interests of the entity of the State (think abassador, with voting rights) at the federal level. We had the House as the people's representatives, and the Senate acted as the "check" on federal growth until 1913 when they became a "second House". The exponential growth of government is documentable from 1913 to present, but (relatively) slow prior to 1913.

Advertisement