New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War

Link to full content of the bill here:

www.gencourt.state.nh.us...


Resolution Immediately Voids Several Federal Laws, Threatens Counterstrike Against Federal “Breach Of Peace”

February 4th, 2009 Commentary by Pat Dollard on his website:

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States.

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . .
therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.


One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.


New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution: “That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America 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.

Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. 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.


II. 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.


III. 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.


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


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


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

"That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.”

Zindo

These latest legislative salvos by the states should give us ALL here at ATS shivers down our spine. I think that the so-called NWO takeover is upon us finally, and I think that the higher ups in state govt. KNOW it.

Why all the rhetoric and language about "martial law", "state of emergency", "involuntary servitude"? Aren't these legislative actions unprecedented? Could someone clarify that point for me?

These events are the most convincing in MY mind that what we've talked about all these years is finally here.

This is great! I'm glad the state governments are finally realizing that we have the power. I also love how they slap Obama's prospects for mandatory community service in the face. It will be interesting to see how many other states follow suit to this extent.

AWSOME! Its past do time in my opinion.

w00t! New Hampshire! Live free or die...

I think every state should be as proactive as this...maybe then we wouldn't have a CorpGov who felt comfortable enough to pass trillions in bailouts for their Bankster friends.

I don't know...I'm not really enthusiastic about all this...seems like more muddying of the waters...on one hand you have states doing stuff like this, acting boldy, and then on the other hand you have states like California and New York whining and snivling for bailouts and handouts from the fed. When people get hungry enough they forget their fine noble words and lick the hand that feeds them...I just see the whole thing as increased systemic chaos on both sides, pushing for more fed control and at the same time having other states pulling away. It doesn't look like a situation that would end well any way you slice it.

A big fat star and a big fat flag. I hope other states follow. We need to take our country back from this big fat bloated piece of blubber called the federal government.

This is a truly awesome resolution. It doesn't sound so much like a declaration of war against the Federal Government as it does a reminder of the rights of the citizens of that state. The very first paragraph of the resolution states

..."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..."

This country has become so brainwashed about thinking that the Federal Government has to make all the decisions. If people paid half as much attention to their state governments as they do the federal, they might have bit of clarity; although some state governments like to play little brother to the Fed.

I don't see civil war in the future, I see revolution in the future. Yes, I believe it will be good overall, however, it will be very difficult. Just remember if you're pulling for that level of change, you best be ready for life to get much harder for a while.

I understand that this might not be a civil war and will most likely be more of a revalution. But thatwas the head line so i kept it due to the regs here. I find it very interesting that its a New Hampshire representative writing this and offering it up for discusion! There state motto being Live Free Or Die!!

Zindo

They can do what they wish, for all I care, just as long as they no longer receive any federal funds.

I'm not a legal expert, but the federal government could claim what's called (I think) the general clause.

Which means that all powers of the federal government can't be thought of or written in the constitution... so basically the federal government can claim whatever they want, and the supreme court must decide who's right.


That's actually Alexander Hamilton who thought of that.

IMO Hamilton was a british agent, or at the very least wanted a king in america due to his UK education.

But I'm for New Hampshire!

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Vitchilo]

It's interesting but I don't see how NH, or any other state, would enforce such action. The military belongs to the fed, and no state militia could stand up to the firepower or budget of the US military. Besides, they'll lose the propaganda war too. When it's boiled down, the MSM will report such states and their leaders as upstarts and radicals bent on tearing the United States apart. Proud to be an "American" indeed. And when was the last time the SCOTUS sided with state rights over the fed? I'm asking seriously for anyone who is better informed than myself.

I admire the sentiment and believe in the motivation and ideal, but it's a lot of posturing in the end that I sadly don't see amounting to much except misery if and when the states attempt to do more than simply talk about it.

Now, if people want to get serious, they'll hit them where it really hurts. In the pockets. Refuse to pay Federal income tax.

This is real, folks. For me, this is a proud day.
I often wondered what it would have been like to have LIVED during the time of the American Revolution.
I'm sure it was scary, and it'll probably be even more scary this time. Look at the weapons they have.

Nah, all of that may be averted... MAY be... My first thought was along the lines of a splintering of the US into the "sections" that I have seen referenced here before.
Sovereign regions of the former United States.

The question remains as to whether the US Gov. will try to keep its grip, as it did the last time the States declared Sovereignty.
If this is the desired effect, they may just let it happen and the US will splinter without bloodshed.
This would be my greatest hope in these dire circumstances.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark

---

I'm not sure that anyone needs to find you anything in regards to the SCOTUS siding with the States over the Fed.
What this is, in effect, is a Declaration of Independence from the Federal Government if their contract is breached any more.
That would take SCOTUS out of the equation all together, as they are an arm of the Fed.

In all actuality, the National Guard IS the state militia. The National Guard is generally better supplied than that of the average unit in the ARMY though. It is completely unconstitutional for them to be OUT of their own state for ANY reason though, I believe. Especially in another country. If any state really wanted to, they could call back any National Guard troops. Thing is, too many politicians in eachother's pockets, that it will never happen.

State power TRUMPs federal power any day. We are a Union of States, not a country. The Constitution allows for the succeeding of states from the Union at will.

I just had a crazy thought... I'm going to call my representative and give him a nice little speech about how when History looks back on this storm that is currently beginning to brew, I want the History books to say: "look at those proud Arkansans who were among the first to stand against the Evil Tyranny which composed their Federal Government for the previous 4 Decades." (referencing the New Hampshire legistlature as a model for one here in my state) I mean, they all must know it's coming by now. I'm just curious now to see which of them have completely "sold their soul"(tm) and are going to flee the fight and neglect their friends, family, neighbors, barbers etc.

Then I'm going to get real paranoid that by saying such my name was just put on a list of potential detainees.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

States can only susceed if its in that states constitution. There are several states that do not have that inumerated in the language of their constitution. That's one of the reasons so many states are moving in the direction of these resolutions. As for National Guard being called up in a federal movement. Guard units are routinely used for catasrophy relief and help in other states. They can also be called up to regular Army units for declared wars under congressional edicts. Thats why so many of these units are in Afganistan and Iraq.

Zindo

[edit on 2/12/2009 by ZindoDoone]

It would NOT be a revolution.

Revolution: 2 a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization ; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

It would, instead, be a RESTORATION.

Restoration: a: a bringing back to a former position or condition

sir_chancealot,
Yup, thats a much better explanation. The only thing that bothers me is that I have grave doubts as to a peacefull restoration! I think it will be a very violent one!
Zindo

Zindo,

I don't know. I could see a restoration, but it wouldn't be a resotration to the union.
Nay soveriegn nations would work. Plus, it is more for the Feds to squandor. Hopefully though, people will have realized they created this mess in the first place and just kick them to the curb.