Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 83 times

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:44 PM by mybigunit

Ok since Jack created a thread on the conspiracy of this Ill reply on the direct news and this is great news and would love to see other states follow suit. I wonder what the governments response will be.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:48 PM by Question Fate

reply to post by laiguana

So youre happy that countless thousands of people would be killed in such a conflict?

Some of you are so trigger happy on this site and don't realize that people die in conflicts, and most of the time they wouldn't have to if their leaders knew better.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:50 PM by jackinthebox

On topic here, no state should have to "declare their sovereignty." After all, that is what makes them a state, as opposed to a teritorry or district. So this appears to be some sort of re-affirmation of their inherent right.

Of course, we could look at this as proof positive that states have actually really only been Federal franchises since at least the time of the national bankruptcy of 1933.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:54 PM by GradyPhilpott

I know this will sound crazy, especially coming from me, but based on a little research, I've reached some rash conclusions.

My conclusions might be a little premature and in some ways dead wrong.

I will frame this as pure speculation and conjecture and acknowledge that there is little more than rumor to support my assessment.

It seems that NAFTA could be reason that Oklahoma has passed this resolution and why there may be other states who do likewise.

In order for NAFTA to work as it should there will have to be built massive transportation and communication corridors, some of which will be privately funded, but much of which will be paid for with tolls and taxes.

Obviously, the federal government will have to oversee these developments and states will have to relinquish property and money to see this plan come to fruition.

Now as I said, I'm drawing this conclusion based on some rumors and some internet research.

However, since no one else has bothered to link Oklahoma's action to anything important, I'm going to throw this out here.

I'm going to also guess that there is a growing movement afoot against these measures and that certain high profile acts of violence and vandalism might be associated, as well.

en.wikipedia.org...
/4z5q69
www.ronpaul2008.com...

While these rumors spread there are also refutations of these claims:

Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."

Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.

www.spp.gov...

/59eqxu

[edit on 2008/6/14 by GradyPhilpott]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:57 PM by Anonymous ATS

So basically. If people can find a way to get over the slavery issue and sell it as an open society bent on bringing the rights of america's back...

Then Confederacy of States might be the ideal form of government ?

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:57 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by BlueTriangle

Does this mean that there will no more federal income taxes in OK? According to the Constitution, the federal government can't have any involvement in anything within a state unless it involves multiple states or other countries...right?

Er, wrong. The US Constitution lays out specifically what the Federal Government can and cannot do. The United States is not a single country; it is 50 states operating as one, with the Federal Government acting as the collective 'voice' of all the states. Oklahoma is not seceding; they are giving notice that they will not allow Federal powers to operate illegally (in breach of the Constitution) within their state. I really think this may have quite a bit to do with the NAU/Trans-American highway system. In any case, it is simply a declaration, like the Declaration of Independence was in the late 18th century.

As to income taxes, I quote Amendment XVI of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's enumerated in the Constitution, so this declaration does not affect it. Sorry.

Edit to add:
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Looks like we came up with the same idea about the same time.

TheRedneck

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:59 PM by laiguana

reply to post by Question Fate

Well I would be more concerned over what power would initiate a violent conflict should states move further in that direction. Anywho, it's certain to come about eventually...

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 06:59 PM by cbass

Will someone smarter than me please post this on Digg and lets get this noticed as I am sure it won't make to mainstream media lest there be civil unrest.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:03 PM by jhill76

reply to post by cbass

It is already on digg.com

Digg

[edit on 14-6-2008 by jhill76]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:06 PM by Vitchilo

Get all the independant states of the globalists and who think the whole situation have gone too far should secede from the Union and call for the people of the others states to elect new pro-constitution governors and join the new union.

Then give it a similar constitution, a new congress, a new senate and a new president.

And then, GIVE THE FINGER TO WASHINGTON DC..

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:08 PM by jhill76

reply to post by Vitchilo

We would all love to see this happen. But the fact is, we can't get mainstream support, people are too wrapped up in there little circle, they don't see the problems outside of the circle.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:08 PM by Question Fate

reply to post by laiguana

Well hopefully none, because this could easily be resolved without conflict. But with the people in charge currently, who knows. Hopefully if this is all true, it's resolved peacefully and doesn't result in a conflict that costs people their lives and homes.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:23 PM by Shar

Originally posted by jhill76
Sovereignty of a state isn't the same as succeeding from the union of the US - it is just telling the federal government that they can't just take over - they have a purpose and limits and they are bound to those and can't just walk in and take over anything and everything they feel like - such as enforcing the Real ID's or the North American Union. If all states did this, the federal government would still be there - just limited as intended.

Well isn't this a good thing then and shouldn't it be done throughout every state?

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:23 PM by jhill76

reply to post by Shar

It should be, but too many states out there are just too afraid to stand up to the FEDS.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:30 PM by Wotan

Please excuse my ignorance, I am from the UK and know absolutely sweet fanny adams about the US constitution ...... but what does Oklahoma declaring soveriegnty mean as such?

Please explain in plain english.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:30 PM by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yep all the independant states of the globalists and who think the whole situation have gone too far should secede from the Union and call for the people of the others states to elect new pro-constitution governors and join the new union.

Then give it a similar constitution, a new congress, a new senate and a new president.

Or we could exercise our rights under the constitution and simply clean up the government we now have and eliminate having to reinvent the wheel.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:54 PM by Vitchilo

Or we could exercise our rights under the constitution and simply clean up the government we now have and eliminate having to reinvent the wheel.

Yeah like doing elections? That sure is working... NOT. The corruption is so high it's near impossible. You would need to take almost everyone in DC, make an investigation on them and then put them in jail. It would put most of the lobbyist in jail, most of congress and most of senate and of course most if not all the White house people.

Also, you would need to go back to all presidents who took office and are still alive and all those connected with them, and foreigners who participed in corruption...

So you'll need YEARS of investigation by NON-CORRUPT police... yeah sure, it's possible, but not at all probable.

But eh, if you find someway to do it go ahead. Take back the government and end the lobby practice, change the president way and create something that will forbid the president to go too far. Also give death penalty to whoever is found guilty of corruption. Hang them on TV to make an example and the criminals will flee to another country.

And if another civil war is needed to do that, go ahead. The scum who call themselves ``americans`` and support this administration, corruption, torture, illegal wars and the non-respect of constitution deserve to either move to north korea, go to jail or die. If they don't want to give back the power to the true owners of this country, well, they'll be forced to do so.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 07:55 PM by BlueTriangle

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As to income taxes, I quote Amendment XVI of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's enumerated in the Constitution, so this declaration does not affect it. Sorry.

I won't deny that it's in the Constitution by amendment. I will deny that the original framers of the Constitution intended to give the government any rights other than those pertaining to interstate and international commerce. It's kind of a meaningless argument at this point though.

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 08:10 PM by kleverone

reply to post by Springer

I publically take back every thing I ever said about Springer

This is amazing! I truly hope that Oklahoma will come to be known as the Trailblaze state! Way to go Oklahoma!

reply posted on 14-6-2008 @ 08:27 PM by Johnmike

It's in the Senate now, I think. Since March. Any idea how to get an update?

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...

This is the Senate site.

Bill History:
Date Flags Chamber H Page S Page Text
2/4/2008 #ds H 201 First Reading
2/4/2008 #ds H 201 Authored by Representative Key
2/5/2008 #ds H 245 Second Reading referred to Rules
3/4/2008 #ds H 602 CR; Do Pass, amended by committee substitute Rules Committee
3/4/2008 #ds H 602 Coauthored by Representative(s) Dorman
3/13/2008 #ds H 900 General Order
3/13/2008 #ds H 900 Coauthored by Representative(s) Johnson (Dennis), Reynolds
3/13/2008 #ds H 900 Authored by Senator Brogdon (principal Senate author)
3/13/2008 #ds H 900 Third Reading, Measure passed: Ayes: 92 Nays: 3
3/13/2008 #ds H 900 Referred for engrossment
3/17/2008 #ds H 917 Engrossed, signed, to Senate
3/17/2008 #ds S 957 First Reading
3/25/2008 #ds S 979 Second Reading referred to Rules

Last line, as you can see, is:

3/25/2008 #ds S 979 Second Reading referred to Rules

I'm guessing that means the Rules Committee? I can't find anything past then, March 25, 2008.

Since the link doesn't love to work, you can use:

webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us...

And type in HJR1089 into the search.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Johnmike]