If you're getting behind NH, MO, OK, and WA in their stand against the Federal gov't, Arizona is n

page: 2
83
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I wouldn't be suprised to see Texas soon as I'm sure RP would embrace this type of thinking.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Where do you think the feds get that money? From the citizens of those states. I for one am quite sure the state government could manage to not waste as much of it as the federal government does. The federal government's #1 priority is defense of the country and not much else. The states were supposed to make the laws that govern their respective territories. That was usurped long ago by big federal brother.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
When the south rises, I want Ron Paul to be the President.

As far as obama is concerned he is just a smooth talker...thats it.

Bush tryed to spend his way out of it and it didn't work, and now obama is trying the same thing but giving it a different name.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


lol Do you realize how contradicting that post is? You talk about Obama like he's great, then go on about stopping the robbing our treasury. Last I checked, he backed the bailouts...and is pushing a huge stimulus...and wants to enact tons of social programs by taking ever more money from hard working citizens...

You seem a fine example of why things have come to the point they are at. You would rather believe in a celebrity, an icon, despite the reality of his actions, than fight with others for the very things you value, like the people in these states are attempting to do. If ever one wanted confirmation of the power of the media, there it lies.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by saturnine_sweet]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper106
 


Agreed, we need Utah in this too for sure.
Not a one liner in any way whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The "south" rising?
Gimme a break, I even live in the south too.

This isn't like the civil war, these aren't bills of succession (declaration of wars). This is about recognition of certain autonomies and freedoms protected under the Constitution that the states have over the federal government.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The bill for Michigan is a fricken joke, but it's better than nothing.

5% pay cut for the top dogs running Michigan, whoaa not a whole 5%.


Anyhow some of it is ok, but they are trying to protect their collective butts by a weak bill.

Now if they took a 40% pay cut I would have a great deal of faith in the people that run Michigan, but for now they are worthless corpses.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'm here in Washington and have contacted my Representatives and Senator regarding this legislation. I am all for every State enforcing their Sovereignty. The US Constitution wasn't supposed to limit the People, it was supposed to limit the Federal Government. Hopefully, this will be a step toward taking more power away from the Federal Government and putting it back in the hands of the people.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You guys are way wrong. The States the comprise the Union do not have sovereignty over their lands. It falls underneath the Supremacy Clause in the orginal Constitution. Its not an amendement. If the states passed this bill it would be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil War was about State sovereignty and the states lost. Sorry but this will not work.


The only difference between a Civil War and a Revolutionary War, is it's called a Civil War when the side trying to break away looses.

The states have supreme claim to their lands, as defined by THE STATE's (and common wealths) Constitutions.

The Federal Government is an entity supported by the states.

Any state is free to withdraw from the Union, the Tyrant Lincoln waged a war of aggression and domination over the South when they broke away. Setting in stone the idea of America being one singular Government, and no longer the idea of individual states with a federal body to put in place regulation.

Ideologies such as yours, destroyed this Union, the Republic and everything it once stood for.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Couldn't have said it better. +Star

It's like I said in the other post, whether this stuff passes is almost irrelevant. Just enjoy in the fact that our fellow citizens are starting to actually think outside the box
and that's were stuff gets exciting to me.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by n1zzzn
The "south" rising?
Gimme a break, I even live in the south too.

This isn't like the civil war, these aren't bills of succession (declaration of wars). This is about recognition of certain autonomies and freedoms protected under the Constitution that the states have over the federal government.


rocongnition of autonomies and freedoms hahaha do you really think the government is going to bow down to some crap like that? If you want change then you'll need those bills of succession. If you think the USA is going to last forever then your living in a dream world, But if you believe that the USA is beyond saving then your living in reality. If you think starting fresh is going to change anything then WRONG because the people in the future will bring about that large federal government again.

This isn't a frecking movie, This is real life. In this world if we don't leave this greedy government then the bad guy WILL win.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You guys are way wrong. The States the comprise the Union do not have sovereignty over their lands. It falls underneath the Supremacy Clause in the orginal Constitution. Its not an amendement. If the states passed this bill it would be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil War was about State sovereignty and the states lost. Sorry but this will not work.


The only difference between a Civil War and a Revolutionary War, is it's called a Civil War when the side trying to break away looses.

The states have supreme claim to their lands, as defined by THE STATE's (and common wealths) Constitutions.

The Federal Government is an entity supported by the states.

Any state is free to withdraw from the Union, the Tyrant Lincoln waged a war of aggression and domination over the South when they broke away. Setting in stone the idea of America being one singular Government, and no longer the idea of individual states with a federal body to put in place regulation.

Ideologies such as yours, destroyed this Union, the Republic and everything it once stood for.


Rock, I would have to disagree with you on one thing. Civil Wars have rose up all around the world and those who were the rebel have won before.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
[edit on 4-2-2009 by Dark Jester]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by cbianchi513
 


With everything that I've read and learned over the past years along with everything that has been declining into total control I would say our only way out is a revolution. So I'm down as that seems to be our only option left for freedom.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I pray this does something. Just because they make it heard doesn't mean it will follow through. But I pray to God it does.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr.PaulforPrez
 




I Didn't think this would get serious but OH EM GEE.

Just think if 3/4 states ratify this bill it's a whole reform of government into it's original state of power.

This will get interesting and violent in my opinion.

-Psycho



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
When the designed checks and balances set forth in the Constitution no longer are observed by the Federal Government, it is not only the right but the RESPONSIBILITY of States (and the citizens of those states) to enforce the checks and balances.

I see these 6 states as realizing and acting upon their proper responsibility to reign in a government that won't reign itself in.

The legislative branch no longer seems to remember that it it supposed to represent the people of the respective states it works for, The Judicial branch dropped the ball when it didn't deem the Patriot Act (and the previous Bailout) as unconstitutional, the executive branch has proven for years that it is no more than a figurehead tool of the shadow elites.

44 states to go. I have written ALL of the members of my state government and forwarded to them copies of all 6 states' bills, asking them to enact one in my state too.

This is an important application of the correct design of the checks and balances system designed by our founding fathers.

If you can't see that, and support the effort, then move to another country, because we really don't need anymore of "that" type here in America.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Jester
 


In a civil war if the one's who initiated the break away win, and form one of two options

A. A new government over the entire Country, as in, the people who rose up and won created a new government which is established for all the pre-existing lands, then that is in fact a Revolution. Think of the French Revolutions and the English Revolutions.

B. A new separate Government is established but is not the ruling government over the entire land from which they broke away, then that is in fact a Revolution -- think .. the American Revolution, which was a civil war, which once won, was a Revolutionary war.

If the war is fought and those who rise up loose, it is seen as a civil affair, where two parts of a singular Country fight with organized armies over a variety of reasons. Once lost, and the Country (boundary of political power) remains unchanged, then it was a Civil War.

The south, like the original colonies, declared their formation of a new Confederation of their several Countries combined. The Federal Government then attacked them, defeated them, burned it to the ground and put in place it's own political leaders. Thus, a civil war.

Had the South won, and a new Federation created, we would have been calling it the Southern Revolutionary War.



[edit on 2/4/2009 by Rockpuck]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It looks like there is a movement, albeit a small one, afoot to reclaim States Rights as gauranteed under the Constitution. We should get behind those legislatures and legislators who support the passage of such laws in all 50 States. We should also elect new people to the various State legislatures who will support such bills.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
You know the last time we tried this the nation fell into civil war.


Good.

Because this is what it will take for real change, not chump change.





new topics
 
83
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join