PDA

View Full Version : State of Washington declares sovereignty


fisherman66
February 5, 2009, 11:01 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

I'm not sure how this affects gun rights, or if it will affect gun rights at all. I do think it worth following to see how the 10th amendment (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.) works.

fisherman66
February 5, 2009, 11:18 AM
After further reading Washington is not alone.
Looks like issues range from education to gun control. Has the Federal Government usurped more than their fair share of power? Looks like at least 9 states think so.

>New Hampshire
>http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
>
>Arizona
>http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
>
>Montana
>http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
>
>Michigan
>http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004
>
>Missouri
>http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
>
>Oklahoma
>http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/state-legislator-charles-key-wants-to-limit-federal-power
>
>California
>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
>
>Georgia
>http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

JWT
February 5, 2009, 11:23 AM
The Feds definitely want to grab all the 'power' they can and regulate just about everything. Congress seems to take the attitude more and more that they know more than their constituents as far as what is 'needed'.

Will be interesting to see if these resolutions pass in the various states and even more interesting to see what impact, if any, they actually have on reducing the impact of the Feds.

kirpi97
February 5, 2009, 11:56 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009One thing I can say about this bill and its chances of seeing the light of day. About the same chance as a snowball has in h---.

Washington is so beholding to the Federal government for handouts because its leadership has extended various programs to the point they are bankrupt. And we in Oregon seeing how it has worked for them and California, have found it imperative that we follow suit.

As a second note. Notice who sponsored the bill. They do not have the clout to even have a remote chance of getting it to the floor for a vote. My bet, it will die in committee.

fisherman66
February 5, 2009, 12:53 PM
an update.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87987




WND Exclusive
Legislators tell feds to back off
New speech, press, gun or ammunition limits 'altogether void'
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Lawmakers in New Hampshire are telling the federal government to back off because plans for a federal handgun license, "hate crimes" laws to regulate Christians' speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama's youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to "balance" talk radio are none of them constitutional.

Such plans by the bureaucrats and administrators in Washington, D.C., are "altogether void" and if mandated, "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States," the lawmakers are warning.

The terse alarm is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 6, which has been introduced for debate. It affirms states' rights "based on Jeffersonian principles."

It's not the first such move in the United States. WND reported last year when state representatives in Oklahoma, steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, approved Joint House Resolution 1089 on a 92-3 vote to reassert the state's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and serve "notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

According to DailyPaul.com, a website assembled in support of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states' rights.

The Tenth Amendment states, "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," and also is being cited in the New Hampshire plan.

It states that New Hampshire people "have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America…"

That means, the resolution states, any "Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government … and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:

* Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

* Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

* Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

* Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

* Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

* Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he wants New Hampshire to be among the states "standing up to the federal government, enforcing the Constitution."

He called the current status in the United States, with federal rules and regulations reaching into virtually every facet of a state citizen's life, "a usurpation by the federal judiciary of the people's right of self-government."

"What I see happening is a growing disregard for the rights of individuals and the rights of the states. At some point you have to draw the line," he told WND.

The resolution then, he said, is a warning.

"If you're in a marriage, and things are going rotten, it's not right just to all of a sudden hand the other party divorce papers. The right thing to do is say, 'there's a problem. Let's go to counseling.' This is in essence telling the general government if you continue down this road – you will have nullified the Constitution," he told WND.

He said New Hampshire lawmakers already have defied the federal government in approving a ban on the Real ID, a government program to stiffen identity procedures.

The New Hampshire resolution points out that New Hampshire was set up as "a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State" and when its residents ratified the U.S. Constitution they recommended: "That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised."

In a direct attack on federal authority the resolution states: "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

It cites the specific powers given the federal government in the Constitution: to deal with treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

At American Thinker, commentator Larrey Anderson wrote that the plan is pending in the legislature's State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and also is supported by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Tim Comerford, and Sen. William Denley.

"Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution took most of the language from the document commonly known as 'Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,'" he wrote. "The New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state's (and it citizen's) rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution."

He noted a concurrent resolution lacks legal authority as a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature.

"Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious principles that have been the bedrock of our republic," Anderson wrote. "Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world."

Participants in the site's forum page said they were sending information on the resolution to lawmakers in Virginia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Michigan and other states. Several other participants said they wished their own lawmakers had such fortitude.

"At least one state gets it," said one forum participant. "We must free ourselves of that which I firmly believe wants to enslave us, our own government."

Brian Pfleuger
February 5, 2009, 01:11 PM
Well good. That makes 9 states total. 41 more and we get this country back on track. (Or is it 48 more? I'll have to ask Obama.;):D)

Al Norris
February 5, 2009, 02:40 PM
I still like Montana's bill more than the others. It attacks the root problem of US Congressional expansion of Commerce Clause law to include anything they want.

A piece of steel, moving from a foundry in one State to another State, is interstate commerce. Once in that other State, whatever happens to that piece of steel is intrastate commerce, unless or until it should then move out of the State.

The feds, on the other hand, insist that once a gun moves in interstate commerce, it is forever more in commerce and they can regulate it.

BullPuckey.

405boy
February 5, 2009, 02:48 PM
Al

I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%

B-Dubbz
February 5, 2009, 02:58 PM
I wish Texas would hurry up and get on board with this.

hogdogs
February 5, 2009, 03:20 PM
Ya'll forgive me if I am off base... I understood that the fed gov has laws on the books since right after the civil war that make succession illegal and thus sovereignty a mute point and nothing more than pillow talk... I am honestly ready to be set straight so don't think any correction to my understanding will be met with rebuttal.
Brent

buzz_knox
February 5, 2009, 03:51 PM
The Civil War made succession illegal. The post-war legalities just tidied things up.

Then again, the United States was founded on illegal activity punishable by death (i.e. rebellion) so we have a long history of showing due regard for such imperial pronouncements. :D

Al Norris
February 5, 2009, 03:54 PM
Let me say, that I'm well aware of current SCOTUS interpretation of Commerce Clause law. Doesn'r mean they are right, just means we have to follow it... Unless a positive majority of States tell them to go do something anatomically impossible.

hogdogs, You are thinking of Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html). The Constitution is actually silent on this, other than the case I cited.

fisherman66
February 5, 2009, 03:59 PM
go do something anatomically impossible.

or in other terms, "get the hell off my lawn".

FALPhil
February 5, 2009, 04:00 PM
The Civil War made succession illegal. The post-war legalities just tidied things up.


You couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, technically the USA never had a civil war. We had a war of secession. It was not even technically a rebellion.

Second of all, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to force states which voluntarily joined a union to voluntarily leave that union.

Lincoln and his supporters acted in an unconstitutional manner.

Thirdly, there is no provision in the Constitution for using war as a lawmaking activity. That function is reserved to Congress alone.

That being said, the Confederacy acted in a hotheaded manner and should have pursued their actions in federal court, which, at the time, was very pro-states' rights. Of course, considering that Lincoln threatened the members of SCOTUS and their families with bodily harm if they went against him, it may have backfired and reverted to bellicosity anyway.

405boy
February 5, 2009, 05:42 PM
So are you saying the "Souths gonna do it again?", lol

Playboypenguin
February 5, 2009, 05:48 PM
These things pop up all the time and never go very far. The reason is the states that would like to do it cannot survive a week without federal funding. They would lose not only funding but trading rights with other states. That means no goods coming in or going out. The state would wither and die in a very short period of time.

FYI, if you are going to link stories from WND (a worthless, nutjob blog) people should be able to sight the voices in their head as sources too. :)

hogdogs
February 5, 2009, 06:04 PM
http://thevoicesinmyhead.com say that worldnet is worthless drivel! :D
Brent

hogdogs
February 5, 2009, 06:05 PM
Dadgum... there really is a VIMH.com...
Brent

405boy
February 5, 2009, 06:41 PM
wow playboy, lol.

gc70
February 5, 2009, 07:41 PM
The reason is the states that would like to do it cannot survive a week without federal funding. They would lose not only funding but trading rights with other states. That means no goods coming in or going out. The state would wither and die in a very short period of time.

California:
- total payments to the federal government exceed total receipts from the federal government
- has a coastline which facilitates foreign trade
- has an economy variously ranked as the 7th to 10th largest in the world; Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and India survive with smaller economies

Playboypenguin
February 5, 2009, 07:49 PM
California:
- total payments to the federal government exceed total receipts from the federal government
- has a coastline which facilitates foreign trade
- has an economy variously ranked as the 7th to 10th largest in the world; Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and India survive with smaller economies

Even your strongest argument does not work. Who holds the trade agreements that benefit the ports of California? The federal government does. Who buys that vast majority of the products imported into California through those ports? The other states of the union do...that is who. Who buys the oil that comes out of California? The federal government does. Where does California get it's natural gas from? Other states of the union. Where does the majority of California's power come from? From that natural gas it receives from outside the state. And so on and so on...

You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.

gc70
February 5, 2009, 08:46 PM
You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.

As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.

Back to the legal aspect of this thread...

There is a huge gap between war or succession and silent acquiesence to federal overreaching. The trend of states voicing their displeasure with federal dominance may be a small step, but it is a positive one.

Playboypenguin
February 5, 2009, 08:59 PM
As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.

Not really, they are super dependent on inter-continental sources for power, food, timber, etc. To import them from over-seas would further bankrupt an already failing economy.

You are also forgetting that the only reason they have more going out then coming in is taxes on extremely high income residents. If these residents agreed to succeed from the union they would have to agree to pay greatly increased state taxes for the state government to have a any real money coming into it. They would also have to realize they would then lose one of their major sources of income which is TV and films. Since they would not be exporting these products to the USA as easily profits would disappear.

trekkie951
February 5, 2009, 10:54 PM
Shelby Foote(was a living breathing encyclopedia of the Civil War) said that before the Civil War, people referred to the U.S. as "The United States are..", meaning a reference to a collection of independant states joined in a union. and after the Civil War, people said "The United States is...". "the United States are..." is a concept long gone today, and I think its the concept our Constitution was written around. The 10th amendment carried so much more meaning than it does today. i dont know food for thought i guess...

El Paso Joe
February 6, 2009, 12:04 AM
Hoo ha and off it goes... I am personally acquainted with a couple of the sponsors (before they were elected). Severe right wing rowdies. But the text of the bill is interesting. I wonder what they wish to accomplish. Don't see any of it changing...

One of the interesting points though, is that the 10th Amendment reflexively refers to the Constitution which can (and does) change. Especially with the Judicial Review (supposedly) granted by the third amendment.

For what it is worth - when I was a youngster (1950's) my Arkansas born and bred forbears believed that the term "Civil War" was reconstructionist Yankee propaganda. It was more correctly, in their eyes, called the War of Northern Aggression.

Al Norris
February 6, 2009, 12:24 AM
Especially with the Judicial Review (supposedly) granted by the third amendment.
I'm sure you meant Article III, as the 3rd amendment deals with the quartering of soldiers.

By common law, judicial review was long a power of the judiciary. It is not something granted, rather it is something that was always there. That common law authority was never codified by statute, but under case law: Marbury v. Madison.

405boy
February 6, 2009, 12:49 PM
Hey guys

I have not been on this site but a couple of months and I have noticed one very important thing, AL aka (Antipitas) is very smart. Al, you should run for office, seriously, we need to start promoting like minded people again for the people. Anyone up for game, I am considering running locally to start.

Al Norris
February 6, 2009, 01:48 PM
I ran for Mayor of my town, back in 2003. In 2007, I was working for a different company and couldn't take the pay cut (Mayor is paid as a part time job) - they said they would "accommodate" my hours, but refused to put it in writing.

Now I content myself to being a thorn in the side of the current Mayor/Council; Police Chief; Sheriff; and my State and Federal Reps.

ETA: Forgot to mention that I lost by 33 votes.

kirpi97
February 6, 2009, 02:30 PM
Al, God bless you for making a difference. Even if it is from the sidelines. But I am taken back by the brazen and bold belief that California could actually succeed as a nation if it were to secede. The arguments are compelling, but given the financial problems facing California today, it is highly unlikely Hollywood could pull this off.

First, lets pull out the Federal government completely. This would include all Military bases, the shipyards currently under contract to the federal government, the federal prison guards (you can keep the facilities and the bodies to feed), Customs Inspectors, subsidies to the universities and colleges, etc.

The National Guard itself would have to be significantly ramped up to provide the National Defense of this new country. Think of the cost to secure your border with Mexico--no US military to assist you. And the cost to monitor the entire coastline you brag about. And the inspection all the goods that come into your ports. Drug enforcement?

Now what about the need for Ambassadors and embassies. A new country would need to have visas and passports to travel. Who will regulate this. I know, Arnold would just create more government jobs. While he is creating new government jobs, maybe he could employ more prison guards to replace the Feds.

We haven't even touched the cost for education, medical, and shelter for the homeless, the migrant workers, the unemployed. Just look whose hand is out there the furthest for this so-called "stimulus" bill.

It is moot to think a state, maybe other than Texas and that is still a reach, could follow through with the threat of seceding alone. But the idea of the states banding together to limit the land grab by the federal government, that is a possibility.

El Paso Joe
February 6, 2009, 03:57 PM
Al-

You are correct - it is Article III (I KNEW that...:o). Thank you.

But I still wonder what the object of the Bill in the WA House is. If the Federal Gov't wants to exercise control, the 10th Amendment does not stop them. As I understand the meaning, it just says that the states control what the Fed Gov't hasn't already passed (or will pass) a law to control. The only hope (in our dreams) is that the Supreme Court will hear a case and overturn whatever the Feds have done (this time).

alan
February 9, 2009, 04:31 PM
http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/states-stand-firm.htm

The above link from JPFO discusses movement/actions taken in that direction. I personally have no idea as to how far this might go, though there have been significant objections raised re the Real ID Act.

In any event, it might be worth while or interesting to read the material at the above link, your choice.

DG45
February 9, 2009, 05:08 PM
I've been trying to get someone to explain to me whether these state soverignity issues, which apparently some members of this forum support, gee and haw with "incorporation" which other members support. Can you tell me? (Or maybe I need to explain "gee and haw".)

Glenn E. Meyer
February 9, 2009, 06:09 PM
Merged two similar discussions.

gusmack
February 9, 2009, 09:58 PM
If we're going to engage in a discussion, albeit a good one. . . let's at least get the words right.

"Succeed" is what Obama is going to do at tearing our rights to pieces. "Succeed" is what the "stimulus" plan is NOT going to do.

"Secede" is what the states that made up the Confederate States of America did to remove themselves from the Union, constitutionally, and legally.

"Secession" is the noun form of the word, secede (see above).

"Succession" planning is what conservatives did a poor job of in the 2008 election and the years leading up to it, which is why we're having this discussion right now.

HvyMtl
February 11, 2009, 05:20 PM
Ok, it was tried before, and, under force of arms, prevented.

Will the next series be successful? This is a long time coming, as the Federal Govt has gotten huge since Lincoln, and has effectively continue to grow ever since...
I think it will depend on the federal government's ability to stop it... A good example would be the collapse of the USSR and how its states seceded, after the effective governmental collapse...
So, if the Fed Govt is, well to over simplify, too broke to prevent it, and it is in the best interest of the State, I see little to stop it...

405boy
February 12, 2009, 02:39 PM
Al

Instead of running for mayor this time, why not try a State Rep position? It could not hurt. I assisted on a campaign several years ago for my hometown rep in District 180 as I recall in Ga. He won and served several years before retiring. Harder to campaign and get elected than it actually is to serve, we are going to have to put "Ouselves" back in office and the sooner the better, lets get rid of the "professional" red tapers and bring speed, common sense, duty, respect and pride back to our heritage.

divemedic
February 12, 2009, 10:19 PM
I would point out that Missouri, Georgia, and Washington have thousands of nuclear weapons within their borders.

USASA
February 13, 2009, 12:30 AM
"I would point out that Missouri, Georgia, and Washington have thousands of nuclear weapons within their borders."

I don't know about Missouri or Georgia...but can you cite a reference for the thousands of nuclear weapons in Washington?

divemedic
February 13, 2009, 05:33 AM
The highest concentration of nuclear warheads is at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific in Bangor, Washington, which is home to more than 2,300 warheads – probably the most nuclear weapons at any one site in the world. In fact, if Washington were to secede from the United States with this nuclear power intact, it would be the third (possibly fourth) most powerful nuclear state in the world.

Malmstrom in Montana has over 500 warheads. King's Bay, GA has over 1,300 warheads.

That is a combined total of 3,100 warheads.



Map here. (http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/images/NotebookMap.pdf)

thallub
February 13, 2009, 07:52 AM
It is a big thing about nothing. All of those states are on the federal dole. If the feds cut off funds for those states that feel good legislation would be repealed over night.

pnac
February 13, 2009, 12:17 PM
It is a big thing about nothing. All of those states are on the federal dole. If the feds cut off funds for those states that feel good legislation would be repealed over night.

The money the Feds get is generated by the states. States send the money to Washington, Feds skim off the top to fund their "departments" and redistribute the money to the various States (some get more than they paid in, most get much less than they paid).

And before you say "But what about Fed income taxes" check the Grace Commission Report. Below is what wiki says, if you want more sources, google "Grace Commission Report".

n 1982, President Ronald Reagan requested an investigation into waste and inefficiency in the Federal government. For this purpose, he initiated a Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, or PSSCC, generally known as The Grace Commission, and asked the members of that commission to: "Be bold. We want your team to work like tireless bloodhounds. Don't leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency."[1]

[edit] The report

The Grace Commission Report was presented to Congress in January 1984. The Report claimed that if its recommendations were followed, $424 billion could be saved in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. It estimated that the national debt, without these reforms, would rise to $13 trillion by the year 2000, while with the reforms they projected it would rise to only $2.5 trillion.[2] In reality, the debt reached $5.8 trillion in 2000.[3][4]

The Report said that one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government, and another one-third escapes collection due to the underground economy. "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."[2]

The Congress did not act on the recommendations.

[edit]

johnwilliamson062
February 13, 2009, 12:49 PM
The Congress did not act on the recommendations.
More importantly the people did not act on congresses inaction. All hail to the two party system combined with boomer complacency and Xer ignorance.

pnac
February 13, 2009, 01:33 PM
More importantly the people did not act on congresses inaction. All hail to the two party system combined with boomer complacency and Xer ignorance

Got to agree about the complacency and ignorance. IMHO, the boomers,Xers and whatever generations are equally guilty of not paying attention.
The media did almost no reporting on this (sound familiar?) and even the few that knew about it played hell getting their "Representatives" to do anything (again, sound familiar?).
The present sovereignty declarations coming from the states are the voices of the people finally being heard, I think. We'll know soon ... maybe.
BTW, check this out. I don't know how much is true and how much is speculation:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Print-Page.htm?EdNo=001&InfoNo=045290

Playboypenguin
February 13, 2009, 01:47 PM
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.

johnwilliamson062
February 13, 2009, 02:29 PM
I'm with PBP. Personally I would have no problem marching against the Confederate States of the West Coast if they tried to secede, especially that giant over rated one with all the problems:)

I'm not really with PBP. The transition would be very interesting, it certainly would not be smooth, even if the US in general let states or regions slide a way. The major thing would be if or how much debt those states would take with them. By the time this is over the national debt will be about 13 trillion. California, Oregon, Washington, etc. would possibly be in better shape in two years if they could walk away from the national debt. Their share of it proportionate to size of economy or populace likely exceeds 2 trillion dollars. Once they diverted all that money that was going to the fed back into their own pockets I do not see how they could be worse off.

pnac
February 13, 2009, 02:48 PM
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.

You pointin' that remark at me ,PBP? If so, enlighten me! I'm easy.

johnwilliamson062
February 13, 2009, 03:21 PM
PBP,
It would certainly cause some problems for California if they had to renegotiate all their trade agreements, build some sort of military, put embassies around the world, fill n the legislative holes left after national laws were abandoned, but it would certainly not be impossible as you seem to think. Many countries have don it. It is very normal for an area the size of the west coast to be an independent country. The transition, which I would gauge to take two years if allowed to secede peacefully, would be a bit messy but in the end the west coast could certainly stand as a viable economy without the US at large. THe midwest and western states would really be the only ones in trouble as they have no direct route to the outside world.

The Plainsman
February 13, 2009, 10:07 PM
Yesterday (Thursday) morning, Glen Beck announced on his radio talk show, that TWENTY states were now considering this same type of resolution. He didn't specify which ones, just that 20 states were now involved. :D

Inspector3711
February 14, 2009, 12:20 AM
I think the bill that the OP posted may have more to do with border patrol issues here than anything else. The BP has been shaking down regular citizens here on a regular basis and it's causing a ruckus. They set up road blocks on the US side sometimes 30 miles south of the border and check every car. Seems like they oughtta do that at the border to me but then, as I understand it, the legal border that they can cover extends 100 miles to the south.

Aunt Betsy writes her governer when she gets harassed by the feds. We aren't used to this stuff up here.

My one case of heartburn here is that they have found hundreds of illegals this way which is great. What angers me is the sorry liberals that are protesting against them being deported, many of who are aliens as well.

I don't agree with them harassing locals though.

Al Norris
February 14, 2009, 11:02 AM
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.
As we should all know, this Republic was founded upon the ideals of shared sovereignty. Certain powers were ceded to the general (national) government and certain powers were retained by the States.

We have really strayed from that ideal. Of that, there can be no question.

As I see it, the purpose of these various declarations of sovereignty is to place control back where it should have stayed in the first place. How the mechanics of that would proceed, is open to discussion.

Would the States suffer (financial) hardships? No question there. Yet, the end game could result in returning both power and fiscal responsibility to the States, as Federal involvement (and expenditures) shrank.

This would possibly be a good thing. This is not to say, it would be easy or without pitfalls. It is however, a workable idea, as long as the citizens understand that hardships would increase. At least for the time that it took to right the "Ship of State," as regards Federal involvement in State affairs.

Remember, we are not talking secession. We are merely demanding that the Feds uphold that Constitution that we all hold so dear. The entire idea of a national mandate to solve a problem, is the idea that legislative "one size fits all" solutions can work in States as diverse as what had then, and still have now. That thinking is anathema to our Republic. It is also what has brought us to the present point in our history.

The only real obstacle to returning our country to its Republican roots, is the people themselves.

pnac
February 14, 2009, 02:15 PM
Perhaps the advocates for secession, both past and present, took these words to heart?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

alan
February 14, 2009, 11:47 PM
Re the several posts on this thread, and what appears to be a somewhat heated discussion, concerning "you cannot fight city hall", city hall being a blank that the individual might fill in for themselves, from my PERSONAL experience, you, the individual not only can, but you can win. I note that the affairs, I was involved in with were SMALL matters, one with the IRS, another with the state revenue dept. Penn State Income Tax. No great amounts of money were involved, and there was nothing about sovereignty either, however sometimes, individuals or a relatively small number of individuals not only can fight "city hall", they can do it successfully, and they can win.

My personal experiences might well NOT transfer to other areas, however whenever I hear that old saw about one not being able to fight "city hall", I think back to the admittedly small matters I was involved with, and wonder about larger issues.

pnac
February 15, 2009, 02:30 AM
Does this effect the state sovereignty issue?:confused:


The case of In re Merriam’s Estate, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, lays down a solid foundation for something far more ominous that the mere fact that the United States is a corporation:
“It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, [*485] so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub. 18.) The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.”
-- In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
In Volume 19, CJS (Corpus Juris Sec.) § 968 one finds the statement that “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State.” The above case is cited as the authority. That the United States is a foreign corporation is exactly what the court held. By affirming the decision, the United States Supreme Court concurred in U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896). The legal definition of a "foreign corporation" is different from the colloquial use of the phrase.
Two attorneys made argument for the United States in the New York Court of Appeals. One attorney, Jesse Johnson, argued that “stock held by decedent in foreign corporations should not be included in the value on which the tax is to be levied.” However, Charles Baker argued that the “legacy in question on the death of the testator vested immediately in the United States, and became at once their property, free from liability to taxation.” Baker then confronted the court with an either/or position. Either the United States was not a corporation at all, and therefore not within the meaning of those terms employed in the New York laws, OR the United States was a domestic corporation entitled to all the privileges and immunities respectively. The court did not find for either argument. It held the United States was a corporation, it was not domestic, and was not immune from being taxed on the legacy of the estate. It further held that the tax imposed was on the right of succession and not on the property itself, rendering the United States argument with respect to stocks of foreign corporations completely moot. The Supreme Court affirmed New York’s holding by stating that the legacy became the property of the United States only after it had suffered a dimunation to the amount of the tax. However the Supreme Court also made clear that the United States was not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt from taxation and that the United States was indeed a government corporation.
There is no arguing to the contrary. The United States is a foreign corporation. In fact, if one reads Title 28 USCS § 297, the “compact states” of subsection (a) are clearly defined as “countries” in subsection (b). So if the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a group of “countries,” then what are the ramifications to those who have dual citizenship, especially when the foreign corporation formally enters into bankruptcy and becomes pledged to a third party creditor?
This is also supported by the statement; "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20, Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 based on the definitions § 1783. "Definitions" and § 1784. "What Are Foreign Corporations".
For supporting material and evidence see the following with references...
"Essay on Citizenship"
"The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785