American States Declaring Sovereignty

Where was everybody the last four decades when this country was rotting away a little at a time? Who protested the infamous Immigration Act of 1965 which has gradually turned our nation into a glorified 3rd world hellhole? Where was everyone when our culture, educational system, moral codes were trashed beyond repair? Go watch another reality show. It's probably already too late. It's nice that some states are passing these measures but what is needed is far more drastic than empty resolutions without teeth. Lament the late great United States of America now the USSA under the beck and call of Pelosi, Reed, Frank and our esteemed President. Liberalism has triumphed supreme and your children and grandchildren will be on the altar to be sacrificed.

Wake up fools! IF we don't resist now it will be more difficult in the near future. Sure there are economic worries at the moment but the federal government is weak during this time and we MUST take back our Constitutional rights. You all ask why couldn't we do this earlier when Bush Admin was in power. . . well all you needed to do was to make your voice heard. Now that so many ppl are aware of what's goign on and no longer zombies to the TV or work this is the TIME to rise up and stand together.

Freedom isn't something that is just given. It must be faught for by the patriots and requires constant vigilance. No thanks to our every day distractions we have lost our vigilance and the Fed Gov has gone too far. It is now that we must take our country back before we fall into fascism. It's time to stop putting off "OUR" fight and letting someone else do it for you. These are the times that try mens hearts.

Originally posted by Genfinity
Bush's $800,000,000,000 + Obama's $800,000,000,000 = $1.6 trillion.

$1,600,000,000,000 / about 325,000,000 legal US citizens = about $5,500 per person.

A family of 4 could have received $22,000.

THAT would have stimulated the economy. The bail out packages are a complete joke.

The politicians will give 1.6 trillion to the fortune 500 CEOs and in turn, the fortune 500 CEOs will keep those same politicians in office.

The civil war has already started. It is fortune 500 board of directors and politicians versus Americans who make less then $100,000 a year.

We need to start fighting back. Some where, some how, we need to start organizing.

These occasional bizarre stories coming out of Russia about America falling apart are very real.

So, are we going to organize or are we just going to whine about it?

I am very much okay with a new America splitting away, state by state, from the old. We can reunite as one nation later after the cancer, Washington DC has been removed.

Move the capital to Denver; it's a safer place for it anyway. Or somewhere in that part of the country.

But before we all get in tow with this, what is going to be so great about the new America compared to the old?

I would like to see the nation's government capital (DC) and financial capital (NYC) moved to the central US.

The UN should be moved from country to country on a yearly basis. Make them work out of trailers for all I care. The UN is just another big scam anyway on a corporate and government level.

US solders should be allowed to choose between fighting for the USA or fighting for the UN.

A 26 state majority should be allowed to overrule a federal government's decision.

The US Presidential election should be decided by popular vote only. The electoral college should be thrown in the garbage.

If a senator wants a raise, their state shuld be able to vote on it.

Term limits for mayor to President and everything in between. 10 years max. A 4 year term, reelected to a 3 year term, reelected to a 2 year term, reelected to a final 1 year term. 10 years max.

The only time the federal military can operate on US soil is when there is war on our own soil in at least two states. This can be overruled on a per crisis basis by a 26 state majority.

"All people are created equal regardless of race, sex, and/or religion." Getting rid of the phrase "All men are created equal."

An amendment to the constitution; "Any human being who works for less then minimum wage inside the US or for a US owned company will be considered a slave and the representing employer will be punished accordingly as an employer of illegal salves."

Age of consent is 18. A 16 or 17 year old may consent to someone no older then 19.

Legal drinking age is 21. 18-20 if you are a veteran of war.

Voting, alcohol, and tobacco are privileges, not rights. To participate with any, you will be required to show your ID regardless of age. If you have lost the legal privilege, the ID will clearly state it.

Opinions?

I think this is very much in tune with a lot of my personal beliefs on the subject. star fer sure.

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Your contributions to the sticking spaghetti are pretty shnazzy too! Also star'd

I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here over the meaning of the term "sovereignty."

"Soverignty," means that a state is a separate nation, which has supreme rule over itself-- while any federal control, is simply by voluntary agreement of the state, and exists solely at the state's pleasure. (Note by "state" I am referring to the state's whole People, not its government).

Legally, this is the case with every state in the USA; however the federal government has set precedent in 1861 that it can use deadly force against any state to enforce its dictates OVER such, thus making our federal regime into an imperial dictatorship by definition.

If states declare sovereignty, they must therefore claim that they are indeed sovereign nations by law-- NOT subordinate states to a sovereign nation known as "The United States;" indeed, there is no such nation by law, but only a federal republic AMONG soveregn nations.

Otherwise, the states are united under absoute submission to the federal government, and their power against it is limited to making objections for its mere consideration (and laughter).

Therefore, TRUE state sovereignty will be an uphill battle; for both the left and the right worship at the church of Lincoln, and embrace the oxymoron of "dual sovereignty--" i.e. NO sovereignty for any state.

Again, sovereignty is an ABSOLUTE status-- either a state is supremely sovereign, or it is SUBORDINATE to another state. Those who claim it can be BOTH, simply have problems with logic; for obviously, there can only be ONE final ruler.

Until we realize and accept that we live under a dictatorial empire, then the states can't declare their sovereignty FROM it.

edit-- double-post

[edit on 28-6-2010 by BradAnderson]

Originally posted by autowrench
nenothtu

If the Constitution is suspended, does that not mean that the instrument granting the federal government any right to exist at all is suspended, nullifying the legitimacy of said entity? Would suspension of the constitution not be tantamount to suicide of the federal government?

That is just the thing....the Constitution belongs to "We the People," not the Government of the People. It is a Contract, under the Articles of Confederation that give the government certain powers not to be misused in any way. All power not given to the government belongs to the State, and to the people. We the People can take that power back anytime we wish to, for any good reason, and believe me, I can think of a lot of good reasons to do this.

Actaully, every state is a sovereign nation unto itself—as clearly RETAINED in Article II of the Articles of Confederation, and never relinquished afterward. The Constitution is between the People of the individual states, since that is their only sovereign identity—no other population had any sovereign power regarding the people of the states, or their lands.
If you care to research into the actual original intent of the phrase “We the People,” you’ll see this; and that’s all that matters in any contract-- not how someone else READS it to mean.
Popular dogma has infested history, to spread the lie that the states formed themselves into a single sovereign nation; however this is an absolutely false pack of trumped-up imperialist lies-- as any competent reading of ACTUAL history will show. Therefore we do live under an imperial dictatorship, which draws its authority from sheer brute force under the myth of legitimacy.
How long will this go on? As long as the sheep follow the herd, I guess.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I just don't get it. Why didn't they do this when martial law was an actual threat? Under the bushies.

They are scaling back the patriot act and similar laws.

Why now?

And heres an unrelated random link for the sake of doing it.. link

They did this is old news and was written in 2009 and in fact every state listed followed through its a done deal. Not to worry though none of these have any teeth it was just feel good rhetoric to appease the growing unrest the people are beginning to express. I doubt any state has the cajones to enforce it. At least not the current crop of spineless criminals who inhabit state and federal offices.

Having said that it could be the catalyst for the people of these states to rise up and enforce it should the feds push things to far. Time well tell but so far it has just become a footnote in last years history.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by Dbriefed
For those who say Civil war is the last thing we need now, when is it a good time? When the economy is good, and jobs are plentiful? When congressmen and the office of the president ignore the will of the people, and are violating the constitution, that's when it comes, and that is when it needs to come.

However, remember how India was conquered. Britain leveraged groups to fight against each other until they were too weak to resist British rule to 'save' them. Beware the hidden hand.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Dbriefed]

There won't be a civil war, because those take place within nations-- and the USA is not a nation-- and never was.

However, the first indicident which claims that title- falsely-- did so only by the suppression of free speech and totalitarian suppression of the truth; and that can't happen today, as the president of Iran discovered fairly recently.

Today, if Lincoln-- or any other US president-- tried what they did in 1861, then a state could simply refute its claim of sovereign authority-- and the whole world would know it. Instantly.

No longer can empires trump up sovereign claims over nations, like Lincoln did to Confederate states, Lenin over the Baltics, or Hitler over the Germanics; on the contrary, the days of imperialism-by-suppression are OVER.

If Lincoln tried invading the South today, here's what would happen:
the southern states would publish the proof of their legal claims on satellite television, blogs, Twitter, etc, and Lincoln couldn't stop it by suspending habeas corpus, closing own presses or imprisoning or intimidating anyone. His public support would thus fall apart, and the whole war would peter out rather quickly.

Imagine the following: Japan tries to leave the United Nations, but UN president Kofi Anan says that "the union is perpetual," and orders UN warships into the port of Okinawa, which contains a UN fort; Japan responds by taking the fort by force, and Kofi Annan says this is an act of war.
Immediately, the internet and electronic media light up, saying "WAIT a minute-- Japan is a SOVEREIGN NATION, and they have EVERY RIGHT to leave the UN! And they also have every right to protect that sovereignty against unlawful invasions!"
Result-- NO WAR.

This is an identical situation to the War Between the States, when Lincoln ordered ships against South Carolina, which responded by taking the US fort there. However by controlling the media, President Lincoln was able to mount an imperialist takeover of the states-- and to revise history to validate his story.
That's OVER. And so it's time to re-do the 1861 thing, declare state sovreignty, and tell the federal empire where to shove it.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by BradAnderson]

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I just don't get it. Why didn't they do this when martial law was an actual threat? Under the bushies.

They are scaling back the patriot act and similar laws.

Why now?

And heres an unrelated random link for the sake of doing it.. link

They did this is old news and was written in 2009 and in fact every state listed followed through its a done deal. Not to worry though none of these have any teeth it was just feel good rhetoric to appease the growing unrest the people are beginning to express. I doubt any state has the cajones to enforce it. At least not the current crop of spineless criminals who inhabit state and federal offices.

Having said that it could be the catalyst for the people of these states to rise up and enforce it should the feds push things to far. Time well tell but so far it has just become a footnote in last years history.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Never happen, as long as people believe that the USA is their home nation, since that's where their loyalty will be when the fed begins arresting people for violating the federal law; and not many people today are going to risk going to federal prison over it anyway, with their gangs running everything-- not that it ever bothered the people from sending convict there before, and now they're paying for it by bending over for every unconstitutional law, to avoid bending over in jail while trusting their fate to the constitutionality of the modern court-system. Not many people want to martyr themselves to that inquisition. and I sure don't blame them.

Show me ONE PERSON today who says that secession is legal, and I'll show you someone who will NEVER win an election of any kind-- the people have sold their souls to the almighty Leviathan state, and now it's simply COLLECTING on its bargain.

i didn't read the whole thread, having noticed that it was from last year - i just read the first and last pages...

but i think that there is a misunderstanding in what the source was commenting on - it was from another forum and not a news article.

not reading the whole thread, i can't say for sure but it appears to me that no one actually bothered reading the actual bills.

here is an excerpt from the Washington state resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve: 37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

New Hampshire

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State 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 in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First 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;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

Arizona
Montana
Michigan
Missouri doesn't seem to have the bill text available on-line
Georgia
California
the Oklahoma link is not to the actual legislation but rather a new article reporting on same

but, it appears to all be the same, down to the wording.