Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?  (Read 12945 times)

sandm000

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
  • Brian
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2005, 12:40:51 pm »

So they can just absorb the former state, On Paper?  Or will they occupy the area?
Logged
A government is not legitimate merely because it exists. 
-Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.-Harry Browne

We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work.-Milton Friedman

lordpoee

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Murray Computer Science Group
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2005, 02:43:24 pm »

Most likely it would be a combination of the two, I remember reading something about this under the Eminent Domain clause, I'll try to find it US law is a mess...
Logged

BrianMcCandliss

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2005, 08:22:22 pm »

Seccession is a dangerous word. In this modern world however, words like "terrorism" and "criminal conspiracy" replace old words like "revolution" and "liberation"

So the US may not secede from the UN?
The power of secession is simply a matter of original intent: i.e. the states either intended that they were the ultimate final arbiters of their own self-rule-- or that such was ceded to the Union proper.
 
Lincoln claimed the latter, i.e that the had states always belonged to "the Union--" and that the Articles of Confederation made it a PERPETUAL union, while the Constitution made it an even "more perfect" Union than that.

In REALITY, we know that the states seceded from the prior confederation UNILATERALLY, to form the Constitutional Republic.
This is found in the Constition itself-- ala the very wording of Article VII, i.e. "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Since 9<13, then  this was obviously a different union than the Confederation; likewise, Madison makes clear in Federalist 43 that the states seceded UNILATERALLY via power of their invidual sovereignty-- in outright BREACH of the Articles themselves.

Hence, for Lincoln to claim that "the Union matured," is a blatant falsehood, while the claim of a "Union perpetuity" was so much B.S.  by Lincoln; whether or not he knew it to be B.S, is purely irrelevant (except as to the academic historical issue of whether he was the world's worst tyrant, or simply the world's biggest MORON)-- but it's hard to fathom that such a great lawyer would be so ass-ignorant.


Quote
The law is designed to hold the united states on federal Authority. The FedGov wants the United States to be "The Republic of America" One government for all.

And there's only two ways for them to get it:

1) overturn the Constitution,
2) LIE about the Constitution actual meaning.

To date, they've taken the second option.
Quote
America is too big to be controlled by the FedGov. They know this. This is why the National ID Act was passed. It is an attempt to usurp more power from the state government as was the Interstate Commerce Act and Emanate Domain. The federal government is fighting a winning battle and the reason: Lethargy. We live in a generation that opposing rocking the boat.

Also brainwashing--  the population prefer beer and television to truth, while they likewise live on an orgasm of power that "America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world" etc.
Meanwhile they don't know the MEANING of the term "freedom."

Quote
And what if New Hampshire managed to Secceed from the US? They would only sanction us into submission or tarriff us to death. Fortunately new Hampshire is coastal. (How much of the water does New Hampshire lay claim to?)

Go to mapquest for your answer; however all the tariffs and sanctions in the world, could not supersede the value of libery.

Quote
A second Civil war would be bloodier than anyone could imagine. Would new Hampshire win the approval of it's local National Guard? If not you would find yourself fighting a (better armed) enemy within. Local free standing Militias would not have the fire power necessary to be effective. Air Support wins wars.

This would be a war of words- and a battle of truth. The simple question would be: did the states surrender their individual sovereignty-- or not?
There is NOTHING in the Constitution, which claims that the states cannot secede from the Union-- which indicates that they remain sovereign.

Quote
Such a war would not be feasible no matter how necessary it becomes. However Canada won their Independence by suing England! If ya can't beat 'em with bullets, baffle them with paperwork! But the FedGov would not submit to such legislation, it would outlaw it and arrest all involved.

Quote
On WHAT GROUNDS could they refuse?
The ONLY grounds, could be historical claim-- since the current US government DERIVES its entire authority via historical claim or original Constitutional intent.
Simply put, the US government would have to uphold and cling to Lincoln's claim-- as they do now in order to maintain federal supremacy and majority-rule.
But at least this would open the issue up for examination-- currently, northern victory somehow "settles" the question that Lincoln was right.
But it don't work that way-- military victory is not time-travel. The government cannot claim authority by victory, which it originally premised on original intent! It's just a non-argument.

Quote
America also has another problem: They think you have to be either Democrat or Republican an any vote cast for an "outsider" party just cut-throats votes for the democrats. I hear this in political chat rooms ALL the time. The fact: More and More people vote libertarian every year! The Electoral College destroys our chances of getting a libertarian in office. Ron Paul is a registered Republican, he infiltrated. Such political heroism must be commended and hopefully duplicated.


This is inevitably the case under centralized government- you only have a one-party system, with two sides to it.
Democrats and Rebublicans are not parties-- they are simply a bi-partisan monopoly.

Quote
George Washington opposed the formation of political parties, he said that forming political parties would do more damage to the country than any war. And that's why they call him the father of our country. (he was actually the eighth president not the first.) John Hanson was the first president and six more followed after him before Washington ever held the title.


The United States under the Constitution, was a DIFFERENT UNION than before.
And it was NEVER called a "country." Just a UNION, or a REPUBLIC.

Quote
Washington did not want to be president despite the pressure people put on him to do so.

He didn't want to STAY president indefinitely; Jefferson also believed in term-limits.
However NEITHER believed that the union, was one of unlimited submission of the states to the Union; Madison and Jefferson were both clear about this in their respective Resolutions.
Logged

lordpoee

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Murray Computer Science Group
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2005, 10:54:52 pm »

Thank you for that very clear and intellegent elaboration of my post, as it was not a rebuddle but an enhancement of perspective.

Do only states hold the power to secede? Or can an individual seceded his own property from the state?
Logged

BrianMcCandliss

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2005, 02:10:28 am »

Thank you for that very clear and intellegent elaboration of my post, as it was not a rebuddle but an enhancement of perspective.

You're welcome! However I'm stating absolute fact, not perspective. I'm not such a foil-hat as to believe that publication of non-centralist views of original intent, will be construed as terrorism-- which is counterproductive to any goal.
Did 9/11 help get the US out of Israel and the Middle East? Hardly!
Meanwhile the internet is more powerful than ANY bomb.

Quote
Do only states hold the power to secede? Or can an individual seceded his own property from the state?

No. Individuals cannot "own" property in the absolute sovereign sense, as can a state, but merely hold exclusive title to it against other. If an individual were able to to this, then he would have a state of his own.
For the record: some on this board, interpret this mere statement of raw fact, as an endorsement of it on my part-- if any of them are reading this, please spare me from such confused twistings again, and pursue an education on your own time of the difference between observation and endorsement.

However, I'll state here that the forces which cause one to think such individually-owned statehood to be necessary, are hyper-reacting to certralized government, by which the people are unable to hold government in check against mob-rule and economic special-interest.
Individual sovereignty, REQUIRES state sovereignty, since the power of the people cannot be delegated otherwise-- but rather surrendered.

And, it has the merit of being the truth, regarding the correct meaning of the law and Constitution by which the federal government derives all of its authority-- and which it CLAIMS that the states are subordinate parts of the central Union state-whole... and the people are thus likewise.

Meanwhile, this pie-in-the-sky fantasy of utopian anarchy-- is just that.
Logged

lordpoee

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Murray Computer Science Group
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2005, 04:26:27 am »

Brian: Many believe the US sits on the verge of another internal conflict (civil war), as a matter of hypothesis, rather than than a statement of incitment, do you find it dutiful for citizens to bear arms against tyranny? Does the constitution hold protections for those that would bear arms in defense of constituional tyranny?

For exampe: George Washington quelled the whiskey rebellion by threat of arrest and explaining that the taxes were constitutional because the people had the representation of the senate and the house. So historically speaking, the whiskey insurrection was not a cause to take up arms against the government. This having been said:  Does the constitution define any valid causes for insurrection, did the forefathers define Tyranny? Thomas Jefferson quoted a myriad of reason why the seond ammendment is among the most important of rights.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson


The Bill of Rights has almost become a worthless piece of paper,

Congress' use of Insterstae Market Control, allows them to control the laws of states, regardless of how ridiculous their reasoning (In the case of california, congress believed that marijuana grown in Cali would most likley be sold over state lines, therefore it applies: RIDICULOUS,

The Federalist Papers state that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms equal to that of the common soldier. We are only allowed to keep semi-auto, unless we apply for a high oriced tax stamp subject to immense scrutiny.

The united states is a secular nation, yet Bush claimed publically that it was a Christian nation. Our founding fathers ALL of them, despite their various religous affiliationsm forbade the integration of religion into government. (Harriet Miars' confirmation hearing anyone?)

Peacable Assembly has been countered by free speech zones and city permits, this right is dead.

It goes ON and ON, so what is Tyranny? When is it time to fight? When they start knocking your doors down and raping your wife?

How dead IS the bill of rights?
http://www.freedomcommittee.com/5718/5718/freedom/books/usbrit/www.civil-liberties.com/pages/dead.html


« Last Edit: December 01, 2005, 01:47:19 am by lordpoee »
Logged

lordpoee

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Murray Computer Science Group
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2005, 01:48:48 am »

No response to my post above yet?
Logged

Berg_the_Barbarian

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • fsp participant, first 1000 pledge
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2006, 12:44:29 pm »

No response to my post above yet?
unfortunately, you are speaking to a group of individuals. as individuals, we all have our own "line in the sand". some of us have had several, all of witch have been crossed.

sadly all those lines are different. there is no consensus as to when to say when. we are all hanging separately because we can't seem to be able to hang together.

what is needed to successfully fight this power is a "group mind" kind of like the Borg,(but not that bad). this is what the FSP represents to many people. a collective chance to make a difference. if any one of us were to act independently, we would be labeled as cooks, and promptly disposed of, and no one would ever know the truth. together though, we would be far more powerfull than the sum of our members individually.

we must act together in unison to effect a change. this is why i have joined the FSP.

sorry i got off topic..

in reply to yore initial question, liberty is dead as doornails as long as "the People" remain apethetic. while i am not nearly as well versed in the aspects of sovereignty as i would like to be, i do know that the Republic and the STATE are totally different entities. it is possable to revive the Republic, but risky.

as soverein Citizens our votes would count to the election of the proper constitutional offices. as a citizen of THE STATE, we are electing corporate officers, since THE UNITED STATES, and the respective STATES thereunder were Incorporated during the mid 20th century. but as sovereigns, we are Citizens of the Republic, and are therefore electing representatives.

there are now and have been states that have 2 governors. 1 for the STATE, and 1 for the Republic. on more than 1 occasion the Republic has lost its governor to "suspicious circumstances".

basically we as sovereigns need to get together and resurrect the Republic (or commonwealth as the case may be). this involves substantial risk on the part of the individuals who are elected to the offices of the Republic.

then and only then could we possably win our state sovereignty. it would also help if we could get some of our guys into the STATE. then we could dissolve the STATE and legally return authority to the Republic.

our government would work exactly as intended if we would vote in our capacity as sovereign Citizens. unfortunately by using a lot of smoke and mirrors, the UNITED STATES has effectively eliminated the Republic on a union level. state sovereignty is all we have now. if we can claim it.
Logged
every man dies, not every man truly lives.

lordpoee

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • Murray Computer Science Group
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2006, 09:10:27 pm »

Here is an Interesting little part of history in kentucky.

Governor William Goebel

Term: 1900

Party: Democrat

Resident KY County: Kenton

Election Returns: Appointed by the General Assembly after Gov. William Taylor’s election was declared unconstitutional

Members of Administration

Born: 1/4/1856

Died: 2/3/1900

State/County of Birth: Pennsylvania

Former Occupation(s): Lawyer

Accomplishments as Governor

    * Ordered the militia dissolved

Notes

    * First Kentucky governor assassinated while holding office.



He dissolved the kentucky milita on his death bed.

Question: Since he was dying, would that not invalidate the law?
Logged

Morken

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2006, 08:32:50 pm »

What if one village within NH secedes? Wouldn't that be a great opportunity?
Logged

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2006, 05:19:32 am »

http://vermontrepublic.org/writings/FEb06/DEC_VT_SOV.htm

THE VERMONT SOVEREIGNTY DECLARATION

Recent actions by the U.S. government including the prosecution of illegal wars, the Patriot Act, the illegal rendition of terrorist suspects, prisoner abuse and torture, citizen surveillance, the suppression of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, and a culture of deceit have all given rise to legitimate concern that under circumstances of its own choosing, our government might not rule out (1) the suspension of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, (2) the declaration of martial law, (3) the militarization of civilian police functions, (4) the suspension of free elections, (5) the usurpation of individual property rights, or (6) the negation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In light of these troubling developments, the State of Vermont hereby reaffirms (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide Convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union.

Vive Le Vermont Libre!
Logged

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2006, 06:03:56 pm »

I've finally come to the epiphany, that you can't have a free state without a sovereignty, and I'd like to recommend bending our efforts toward sponsoring an official state convention which will examine and demand the sovereignty of NH, and encouraging other states to do the same.

New Hampshire already holds sovereignty, though it is partial sovereignty. Our federal system, with, as described by the 9th and 10th amendments, certain powers delegated to the states and the federal government by the people, but some retained by them which amounts to anything not enumerated by their state and federal constitutions.

Sovereignty is not secession, secession is the cessation of delegation of powers to the federal government. We don't need to secede to assert state and personal sovereignty. NH's state constitution states both that the people of the state are sovereign, and that they retain the right of revolution.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2006, 04:45:59 am »

We should really support full secession though. Currently the Feds don't recognize NH soverenty.

It's time they did. Full secession.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2006, 05:04:39 pm »

We should really support full secession though. Currently the Feds don't recognize NH soverenty.

It's time they did. Full secession.

As you may have noticed, governments justify their actions by instigating their opponents into committing pretextual acts that the government can point to as "proof" the other guy is the agressor. This is not just smart, it is a legal mandate, since most nations are signatories to a treaty (actually, a few treaties) outlawing agressive war, particularly the Kellog-Briand Treaty, and the UN Charter.

Rather than giving the feds what they need to justify marching in and nationalizing everything and eveyrone here, it would be much smarter to arrange things so that the feds engage in the pretextual acts, which would place them into dishonor toward their treaty commitments. So, no, "full succession" should only be pursued as a reaction to imposition of federal tyranny and interference in state affairs.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

RalphBorsodi

  • Guest
Re: Free state = SOVEREIGN state?
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2006, 05:11:54 pm »

that is why it is important to develop a list of greivances or constitutional transgressions as the Second Vermont Republic has done.

THE VERMONT SOVEREIGNTY DECLARATION

Recent actions by the U.S. government including the prosecution of illegal wars, the Patriot Act, the illegal rendition of terrorist suspects, prisoner abuse and torture, citizen surveillance, the suppression of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, and a culture of deceit have all given rise to legitimate concern that under circumstances of its own choosing, our government might not rule out (1) the suspension of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, (2) the declaration of martial law, (3) the militarization of civilian police functions, (4) the suspension of free elections, (5) the usurpation of individual property rights, or (6) the negation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In light of these troubling developments, the State of Vermont hereby reaffirms (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide Convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up