States are declaring sovereignty

[Xog]

9+ States have now declared sovereignty

Looks like things are going to be heating up these next couple of years. I hope Obama is gonna be doing some sweet shit.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread435462/pg1

In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring or have already declared sovereignty, including:

Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm

Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Michigan
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004

Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009...-federal-power

California
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/...0829_chaptered

Georgia
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1...text/sr308.htm

Possibly: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Illinois.

"The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified." — United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

We were created as a federation of states and the federal gov was made to compliment them, not dictate them.

I wanna hear some discussion on this, because it's not 100% clear to me what this could mean. What are some possible outcomes for this, besides the obvious?

possible outcomes i've deducted to be possible, but not likely
1) Civil War
2) Martial Law
3) States rescede and the fed gov is restructured, peacefully

[Salubrious]

Looks like you found Tone's forum

[Xog]

Looks like you found Tone's forum

tone is taking over my body!: Hay guize diz es t0ne i haxx0rd 2 brain of Xog from alien spacehsip loolz but neway u guys gotta knowz the guvvament duznt want the you-es 2 have gud ecudation lalz

but seriously, what could happen?

[Exalt]

Looks like things are going to be heating up these next couple of years. I hope Obama is gonna be doing some sweet shit.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread435462/pg1



We were created as a federation of states and the federal gov was made to compliment them, not dictate them.

I wanna hear some discussion on this, because it's not 100% clear to me what this could mean. What are some possible outcomes for this, besides the obvious?

possible outcomes i've deducted to be possible, but not likely
1) Civil War
2) Martial Law
3) States rescede and the fed gov is restructured, peacefully

What I understand all of this to be is that the states are just asking for the right to make STATE ONLY decisions based on things that aren't already set in stone by the government... probably for things like gay marriage, abortion, use of medical marijuana, etc etc etc

pretty much everyone wants to be california and do things the way they want

no one is breaking from the federal government or anything like that...if you really read it all.. it just means states are using the 10th amendment as their right to set local laws the way they choose fit if its not a federal thing... which was what the constitution has said all along anyway... none of this is anything new I would think

[Kolar]

Texas is the only state that can legally secede from the United States. All States hold some form of sovereignty independent of the union. I think it's a stretch to go from reasserting/assessing the 9th and 10th Amendments to civil war or anything of substance. If anything I'd say that is the way your Federal Republic should be functioning.

[Xog]

What I understand all of this to be is that the states are just asking for the right to make STATE ONLY decisions based on things that aren't already set in stone by the government... probably for things like gay marriage, abortion, use of medical marijuana, etc etc etc

pretty much everyone wants to be california and do things the way they want

no one is breaking from the federal government or anything like that...if you really read it all.. it just means states are using the 10th amendment as their right to set local laws the way they choose fit if its not a federal thing... which was what the constitution has said all along anyway... none of this is anything new I would think

But states are trying to withdraw as much from the fed gov as possible, and if every state does this, think of the outcome..

edit for kolar:
I completely agree with state power, and minimal fed gov. But with the structure of our govntmt it wont happen. Our country really isnt ran by the govt even its ran by the mega corporations.

The number 1 issue in washington (state, not DC) is bailing out the corporations, which so far is the latest state to declare.

[Kolar]

Who says every state or even one will? Do I believe for one second that any state has the power to actually leave the United States? No. Would the Federal Government ever allow it? No. Do some Federal agencies have to bow to state rights eventually (prime example: the war on drugs)? Yes. It's a peaceful political process.

AboveTopSecret is a conspiracy-theory website, I'd rank it above Prison Planet and under InfoWars, they're all in general really bad places for curious and inquisitive minds to venture.

[DankNuggets]

lol, posers :P

if a state wants to secede from the union, what's to stop them from doing so within their own state? It be like during the civil war when the south seceded to form the confederacy, yet the north didn't see it as a separate country, just states in rebellion. One side would say "yes we're independent" and the other would say "no, you're not."

no state could afford to secede for economic reasons, let alone political/military.

seriously though, the costitution forbids individual states from making alliances with other states, or other countries. that power is vested to the federal government.

so really there's nothing i can see them doing to "prove" their soverignity besides not paying federal income taxes or something like that.

They don't have the power to make laws that would have any effect outside their state, and even their state laws can be superceded by federal laws (re: denver legalization).

Really, imho, there shouldn't be any federal laws that concern matters contained completely within a state. they should be concerned with international matters as well as interstate maters.

[D1st0rt]

Really, imho, there shouldn't be any federal laws that concern matters contained completely within a state. they should be concerned with international matters as well as interstate maters.

which is the reason for the "secession"

[kthx]

Having a head government for all 50 states doesn't really make sense anymore because each state has had enough time to develop its own traditions and culture. Originally when all the states were formed as a union we had one common goal, and one common culture as most people who went to live in each state generally came from the same area.

[DankNuggets]

Having a head government for all 50 states doesn't really make sense anymore because each state has had enough time to develop its own traditions and culture. Originally when all the states were formed as a union we had one common goal, and one common culture as most people who went to live in each state generally came from the same area.

well the federal government was also made to regulate interstate trade, and to keep, say pennsylvania, from charging gigantic tarriffs to carry goods from NY to virgina. Also keeps FL from forming an aliance with cuba for example, or even it's own trade policy (ok, you can bring your cigars here).

That aspect was probably more important in the 1700s as well, where we weren't as unified a people as we are today. states were unified, somewhat, but the nation as a whole was drastically different from state to state.

[Epinephrine]

Spitzer should have thought of ceding NYState before resigning, then he wouldn't have broken any interstate laws!

[Kontrolz]

You're reading way too much into this. This is just another political game. I'm guessing in the end nothing will be affected by this.

[Vykromond]

You're reading way too much into this. This is just another political game. I'm guessing in the end nothing will be affected by this.

ya

[Jerome Scuggs]

i just finished reading john c. calhoun's "a disquisition on government" and this is pretty much what he discusses. very interesting book and he makes a fantastic argument for states rights.

the problem is, once the fedgubmint set the precedent for the mandates - money in exchange for state laws passed that the USFG backs - it's a hard addiction to stop. if the states were to ever actually exercise their "rights", they'd go broke pretty fast and couldn't pay for vital services (otherwise provided for in a free market). talk about "wage-slavery", huh?

it's bizarre how these loopholes and cut-arounds are justified in such ways. the federal government technically isn't extorting states and destroying federalism... but they are, and it's not something they routinely get called out on. this comforts me, knowing that morals are all about how you phrase things. like drug laws, and how the fedgob justifies its prosecution of the drug war on the interstate commerce clause. they're doing something explicitly forbidden in many ways by the constitution.