It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What does this mean? states declaring soveriegnty

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Im sorry, i'm not American. What will result in this happening? What power does it give the states, to declare soveriegnty?

Is it some kind of rebellion? Do you think that it might result in civil war?

What will the government do about this?

Please educate me.. Thanks in advance.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I'm not an American either but i do know enough to understand that US States only enjoy their rights as part of a federation of the "United" States and have no legal standing otherwise.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Truther
 



What power does it give the states, to declare soveriegnty?


it doesn't give the states any new powers. its a reminder to the federal government that the federal government is suppose to be limited to the powers granted to it by the constitution. And any power not granted to the federal government goes to the states or to the people.


Is it some kind of rebellion?


no, its more of states getting tired of the federal government stepping on their rights.


Do you think that it might result in civil war?

NO. unless the federal government continues on its path to take away the rights of the people and keeps stepping on state rights. or the federal government declares martial law in those states.


What will the government do about this?


kick and scream and make a lot of threats. maybe declare martial law in those states to try and scare the people into falling back in line and turning the blinders on.

reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Actually you got that backwards. the individual states actually have more power then the central federal government! the central government is suppose to be limited to the powers only granted to it under the constitution. all other powers belong to the states, and what powers the states don't take then it goes down the line to the people.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
The basics of it go back to the fact that the constitution only gives certain "abilities" to the Federal government and reserves a lot of the decision making to the states to govern themselves. In the recent past the Fed has overstepped these boundaries, which has for the most part gone unaddressed. The declarations of soveriegnty is basically the states saying that these are their issues to deal with and for the Fed to back off, though I'm not well versed on all this and I'm sure someone else will be by to further elaborate on it.

The states each have their own constitutions and the same rights in the Bill of Rights are included in most if not all of those. If I understand your comment correctly the "federation" is not required for those rights, unless of course your referring to international rights, which I have no clue in that case...

What will result? who knows, lol

Civil War? doubtfull, but hey anything can happen...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Truther
 


Check this out: en.wikipedia.org...

Every state in the US is a functioning government. It has an elected executive with a cabinet. It has a Senate and Assembly/House of Representatives, it has a Judicial system, a budget and a military. If a US state declares sovereignty, they are then independent from the United States of America and thus its own functioning government. It has happened before (Civil War) and it can happen again. For a state to declare sovereignty, it will likely pass a declaration of independence. The only way this would happen is through support of the people (not the military—if it is the military, the US will hold the right to attack and reclaim its land). The legality of a peaceful secession is questionable to this day and how the US government will react to such an event is anyone’s guess. It is more likely intensive diplomatic missions will ensue rather than a military operation, though the size and motives of a secession will likely determine the actions taken by the government to reestablish unity. I think most of the smaller states will see the benefit of remaining in the USA than independence, while some of the larger states (New York, California, Texas) can function and thrive as an independent state. California has the largest state GDP in the US, which would place it in the top 10 worldwide. New York and Texas will be in the top 15. Either way, the quality of life will likely be higher than most countries in the world.

Anyway, the likelihood of secession of any state is infinitesimal (today).



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   


kick and scream and make a lot of threats. maybe declare martial law in those states to try and scare the people into falling back in line and turning the blinders on.


That's so loopy it doesn't warrant a sensible reply.

I guess there must be a lot of people off their medication over there which is understandable given the lack of Government health care in USA. You boys and girls should really try living in a civilised country without guns someday.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterRegal
 


your confussing soveriegnty with sucession. soveriegnty is the states taking back the powers and rights gauranteed to the states that the federal government is trampling on. sucession is when a state leaves the union



Originally posted by sy.gunson



kick and scream and make a lot of threats. maybe declare martial law in those states to try and scare the people into falling back in line and turning the blinders on.


That's so loopy it doesn't warrant a sensible reply.

I guess there must be a lot of people off their medication over there which is understandable given the lack of Government health care in USA. You boys and girls should really try living in a civilised country without guns someday.


LOL The simple fact of the matter is there is NOTHING the federal government can do to a state asserting its soveriegnty other than get pissed and make threats.

what exactly do guns have to do with states standing up to a Central government thats to big and removing rights from its citizens?

and we're just fine without the medication that you take in other parts of the world. atleast when we have enough we'll be clear headed enough to act and not just roll over and take it and give up all our rights.

And while we might not have the government paying our medical bills, and our health care system might not be perfect i Bet i get better healthcare in this little town i live in than you recieve where you live!

So once again in this thread your talking about something you know nothing about. so Next time do us all a favor research the subject before you open your mouth so you don't look like you do now. a know it all that knows jack#



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Here's a link to General Conspiracy Discussion » American States Declaring Sovereignty

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Is it true that the MSM is not even mentioning this? Surely this is majorly huge news?


It doesn't even seem to be being mentioned on the alternative news sites.

From what I gather this is primarily a reminder by these states to the federal government that they are prepared to rebel if the need arises. If so, even if it's just a little reminder, surely this deserves considerable mention on national, and even global, news?

Are average Americans even aware of this going on?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Probley not...haven't a clue...I really don't think The Gov/MSM want's it to get out...with everything falling apart it would be another distraction from their master control plans...but I just E-Mailed these 2 Stories to CNBC Squawk Box...see if anything comes of it...


Michigans Resolution:

www.legislature.mi.gov...

Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “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 Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

and Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states;

and Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;

and Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

and Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states;

and Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s 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. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States;

and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like this story that broke...no one really covering this either which I think really is a coverup...
Explanation starts around 2:20 point.

www.infowars.com...

Rep. Kanjorski: $550 Billion Disappeared in “Electronic Run On the Banks”


[edit on 2/9/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
my state is one of the states doing this and it hasn't been covered in the news at all.

But then again none of the states that currently have these bills pending have actually passed it through their state senates and house of reps and they have not been signed by the state governors yet.

And its not like those states have left the union yet. this is just the warning to Uncle Sam that some states have had enough



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Just google the U.S. constitution and read it.
The issue is about recalling those specific rights granted by this contract that have been usurped by the federal government.
There are clearly defined boundaries between what a state has a right to, and the federal government has a right to mandate to the state. A very large portion of states rights has been remanded to federal agencies, most by "carrot and stick" methods.
Lets use a historical reference.
After the first oil crisis, the federal government wanted a 55 mph speed limit nationwide.
The states that wanted to continue to receive federal highway funds had to impose the limit, or be cut off.
It really started to become an issue when states started enacting their own medical marijuana laws.
California is the best example, where a state voted, BY THE PEOPLE, to allow cannabis by a doctors prescription.
It was all very up front and open, and state police didn't arrest, seize or prosecute those following the strict guidelines.
Federal police, however, would raid registered places of distribution, arrest those in possession, and seize all property (not just illicit property--in their eyes-- but under federal forfeiture laws, everything the people owned) and prosecute to the full extent of federal law.
The first instance is the "carrot" method---do what we want and get money.
The second is the "stick" method--do what we want or we will do it for you.

The invasion of federalism into states rights has now become so deep---from insurance, right to life/death with dignity,medical, transportation, land, homes,(immanent domain) and even guaranteed rights given by the bill of rights---most notably, Free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process of law, (among others) that many states have had enough---and by the will of the people of those states, want to retake those rights granted them by the contract called the constitution, when they agreed to become a state of the United States.


Sorry----about as simple as I can get it without a bunch of legalese.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Hx3's post lays it out pretty clearly. These measures are intended to put the Federal government on notice. They have well over-stepped their authority and it's time we get back to the law: The Constitution.

Also, when a state decides to leave the republic it is called secession. Not succession. Sorry Mercenary. Just want to keep things straight.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
While America is always seen as a whole nation with one central government and a president, America is composed of a union .

Like others mention before me the individual states represent that union with a self governing entity that is supported by the citizens of the individual states, they have the choice to remind in the union or become completely independant.

America is always called a Democracy but in our constitution you do not find the world Democracy.

That is because we are actually a Republic something that the federal government through the years has been very insistent on trying to make it go away.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

So I encourge everybody to start getting aquaint with the nations roots and understand what America is suppoused to be and not what it has become.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
I guess there must be a lot of people off their medication over there which is understandable given the lack of Government health care in USA. You boys and girls should really try living in a civilised country without guns someday.


Hey, thanks for your 2 cents - that's about all its worth!


Nice use of non-sequiturs to support your claim. State's rights have nothing to do with Communist medicine or guns; but I bet you already knew that. But hey, why bother staying on topic (A topic you obviously know nothing about - given your... er, "Contribution") when it's easier to simply take uneducated cheap shots that support your obviously Socialist agenda. See, it's people like you that this country needs to defend against. Your "ideas" are a cancer that will certainly ruin everything that is great about America.

Moving forward, regarding the topic of the thread... State's retain total rights. The power of the Federal Government is derived from the consent of the "United States" and their citizens; that is the individual state's agreement to participate in a united system of individual governments. These motions seek to reassert state rights which have been abrogated as of late by the tyrannical Federal Government.

Will this result in a civil war? It did the last time this happened when southern states sought to sucede from the union. But those were different times, different circumstances caused by vast ideological differences; namely slavery. I can see the US government trying to militarily force the hand of any state that ultimately declares it's universal sovereignty. That would be the likely step for the Fed Gov't AFTER it cut off federal money and such.

These are interesting times and put nothing down as a certaintly. Time will tell how this one plays out. I am hopeful that the states unite behind this cause of sovereignty. This would be the fastest and most peaceful way of dissolving this corrupt government and reinstituting one by the people, for the people and of the people.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by kozmo]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The flash point will likely be federal funding cuts to states, education, etc.

Many states are in a deep budget crisis, getting worse. If the states run out of money (and they will as more and more taxpayers and businesses lose jobs and close doors) these states could fail, that leaves a void, and leaves them vulnerable to federal government intervention and control, the risk of civil unrest will grow, and eventually there could be violence as state programs fail, no jobs etc.

The current stimulus plan if implemented as is will not do enough for state governments.

State sovereignty will be meaningless if these states go bankrupt.

It is just another sign of the times, and what is likely to come will be a very dangerous and troubled time for the people, especially those living in the hardest hit large metropolitan cities round the USA.

Think of the economy as a large truck with failed breaks, rolling down hill, the current economic stimulus plan does little more than create a bump in the road while hoping it will stop that runaway truck.

Everyone either in the USA or other countries should pay close attention to these events, this economic crisis will have a similar impact abroad if it continues to worsen.

Eventually desperate Americans will be forced to accept a complete change to a full blown socialist system in order to survive.

The stimulus plan is doomed to fail without major changes.

Civil war while unlikely does not mean there will not be civil unrest, rioting and looting in the hardest hit urban areas... Everyone should prepare themselves for that, and pray it does not happen.

The times, they are a changin'



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
hey no problem jtma. everyone knows i can't spell
it didn't help i had been up for going on 36 hours when i posted that this morning.

Thanks for correcting my spelling error though

[edit on 2/9/2009 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The federal government only had 4 jobs under the constitution.

1 Provide defense

2 create monetary banking system used by all states (ability to make legal tender)

3. Regulate commerce between the states and handle disputes involving this.

4. Handle disputes between the states by trying to make sure a law in one state isnt contradictory to a law in the other.

Anything beyond this scope was not intended under the constitution. States were supposed to pass all laws and only under challenge by another state of the union was the federal government to act.However the constitution is now just a piece of paper it is no longer being followed in the united states.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson



kick and scream and make a lot of threats. maybe declare martial law in those states to try and scare the people into falling back in line and turning the blinders on.


That's so loopy it doesn't warrant a sensible reply.

I guess there must be a lot of people off their medication over there which is understandable given the lack of Government health care in USA. You boys and girls should really try living in a civilised country without guns someday.


Lol. Yes...lets all give up our guns and take our medication like good compliant citizens! Maybe after a couple months of this, we should give up our constitution too!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join