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.

 

could states declairing soveriegnty be a bad thing?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I was wondering exactly what effects would be felt, if 21 or more states began to view themselves as independent. I was also wondering if it could all be engineered by the NWO. Ive also learned that indiana has legislation to go back to using the gold standard.

Heres some things I could see coming in the long run.

A possibility of having to do a currency exchange for every state.

Would I need a passport to go into each state? (more need for ID)

Would they still extridite wanted people?

What happens to the US postal system?

How would the independent states do after economic collapse? Would they start forming trade agreements that result in new unions formed, like the UN or NAU?

Could this be the NWO's way of "devide and conquor?"




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I have to admit, these same thoughts went through my mind when I first heard and I remain undecided at this point.

Then there is that old phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -A. Lincoln

The whole Lincoln fixation this election cycle makes me think this is in the plans. MSM takes their orders just like any other pawn and the Obama/Lincoln connection could serve as conditioning. I think that there may be the possibility of a war to assert federal power, with BO as the pre-ordained Lincoln figure to fight to keep us together. These state sovereignty movements could be the precursor, but then what will be the fort sumter of this situation? A false flag attack by a "renegade citizens militia" or a stateside attack like mumbai blamed on "global warming deniers" That would allow for gun restrictions like they want. Or would the attack come before the declaration of sovereignty by the states, maybe in the form of mumbai style attacks synchronized in several cities across the USA. This would be enough for the gun grabbers to start screaming about how guns are bad and need to be banned, and with the legislation already in the pipeline, who knows.

Then again maybe I'm just going crazy and these are the ramblings of a mad man.

We'll see soon enough I guess.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well is various factors that will be in place if the states drop out of the Union, and one of them is funding, one of the reasons the federal government have loyalty from the states even at he expenses of the citizens of the state is because they have the state government hold by the balls when it comes to funding.

But still the states will have to provide enough jobs to its citizens in order to be able to generate enough taxable income to support the state government and the state needs.

That has been the role of the federal government while providing for funding so the states have more money to work with.

It actually will prove to be more complicated that many think.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I would gladly trade 500 tyrants a thousand miles away for 500 tyrants one mile away.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kcired_tsew
I was wondering exactly what effects would be felt, if 21 or more states began to view themselves as independent. I was also wondering if it could all be engineered by the NWO. Ive also learned that indiana has legislation to go back to using the gold standard.

Heres some things I could see coming in the long run.

A possibility of having to do a currency exchange for every state.

Would I need a passport to go into each state? (more need for ID)

Would they still extridite wanted people?

What happens to the US postal system?

How would the independent states do after economic collapse? Would they start forming trade agreements that result in new unions formed, like the UN or NAU?

Could this be the NWO's way of "devide and conquor?"


When a state declares sovereignty it doesn't declare itself separate from the Feds it just declares a higher position than the Feds in the hierarchy (higher power). Except for the things that the constitution says MUST be done by the federal government (which is very little), all other governing should be done by the states (actually the people of the states) per the constitution. This is nothing to be fearful of, it's how it was and still is supposed to be.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The corrupt and out of control U.S. Federal Government hates competition. It might be bad if states start nationalizing their own economic means of support.

I promise.

The very first state to succeed from the union, I will move to it and do what I can so the state and people can prosper. I will work like hell to do my part with the hopes that maybe "that" will never be what "this" is.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kcired_tsew
 


Yes, states rights was one component of the american civil war.

The only thing they teach in most schools was slavery, but also
states rights was part of the issue.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
reply to post by kcired_tsew
 


Yes, states rights was one component of the american civil war.

The only thing they teach in most schools was slavery, but also
states rights was part of the issue.



WOW! after looking that up, I feel like an idiot. thank you. I pretty much have the "blown mind" look.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join