States Confirm and Declare Sovereignty


PDA






Sheldon J
February 12, 2009, 07:57 PM
This is mostly cut N pasted from other forums... but very interesting none the less...

10 states have signed on to confirm and declare their sovereignty over the the Fed as of last week.

The 10 states are calling themselves "Co-States."

They have essentially notified the fed that if they step over the line, they'll have a civil war on their hands. The specified areas of protection the states demand are the 1st Ammendment, the 2nd Ammendment. Obama's forced servitude for college age students, and a few others.

Here's more and a copy of New Hampshire's proposal to the FED. The other 9 states' bills are similar.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legisla ... R0006.html

(HR0006 proposed on February 2nd).

There are now 10 states that have proposed resolutions declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment with another 3 in talks to do the same.

Basically, if the government declares marshall law, furthur restricts our 1st Amendment rights (through a "hate-protection" amendment), furthur restricts our 2nd amendment rights including attempting to limit the type & amount of arms & ammunitions we can have, or attempts to force civil service (as Rahm Emmanual said he intends to do for EVERY citizen between 18-25 as well as mandatory FEDERAL civil service for all children 8-1, then the government will have nullified the Constitution and the states writing these will become Independent nations. Should another federal government attempt to take control of these states, they can only do so through 3/4ths approval of the states declaring such and if the states don't agree, then the government (whether approved by other states or not) doesn't have control over those states. They are prepared to enforce their 9th & 10th amendment rights via force if necessary.


but now the number is reputed to be upwards of 21!!

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

AL: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AK: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AR: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

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

CO: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

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

HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm

ID: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

IN: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

KS: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

ME: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

MI: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21r...-01-22-002.pdf

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

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

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

NV: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documen...JR1089_int.pdf

PA: (Still searching for link - not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States - put on planning list)

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

If you enjoyed reading about "States Confirm and Declare Sovereignty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
shevrock
February 12, 2009, 08:04 PM
A good chunk of the links are down. Though it'll be interesting to see where this goes.

devilc
February 12, 2009, 08:09 PM
Civil War would be kinda' fun.

SrDedosRapidos
February 12, 2009, 08:11 PM
does anyone know if this is an internet thing or if it is a serious probability?

Most of those links dont work...

vic40204
February 12, 2009, 08:17 PM
probably BS.

Gungnir
February 12, 2009, 08:42 PM
Washington one is real. I know one of the co-sponsors I'll ping him and see what he says about this.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=4009&year=2009

chemist308
February 12, 2009, 09:03 PM
I would strongly advise those of you who live in these states to contact your state house reps and senators to pressure them for their vote yes on these bills. Unfortunately PA isn't listed yet...

t3rmin
February 12, 2009, 09:52 PM
Surprised but happy WA is on the list. Good stuff!!!

JImbothefiveth
February 12, 2009, 09:56 PM
Is this for real? Everyone is aware that something like this would be extremely dangerous, since some states wouldn't have full military protection, and some other nation might invade, correct?

buckeye8
February 12, 2009, 10:00 PM
How come exactly one of those links works for me?

Zoogster
February 12, 2009, 10:10 PM
Most of those links dont work...
How come exactly one of those links works for me?
The links likely work, but they are so long that this website adds the "..." in the middle to shorten them.
That "..." then replaces a portion of the actual link and as a result is an incomplete and incorrect link no fault of the poster.


I have seen the same problem for other really long links on sites including this one. The whole link is not displayed ans is shortened, ruining it.

So if you can repost them in a way they are not shortened with the "..." as links become then more people could actualy view them. Web address links get automaticly modified by the site, but regular text won't.

So if you post the links and add something people can manualy remove like random letters to the end THR won't automaticly turn them into incomplete links.


The CA one for example can be located by browsing to part of the link and surfing:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/
Then multiple links including several for the 0829 as mentioned by the OP.
That was in 1993 however, which is what the 93-94 part of the link describes.

The 0829 bill itself seems to deal with the federal government declaring emergency zones on its own.

Since the OP mentions the 'chaptered' section with that link here is the text:


BILL NUMBER: SB 829 CHAPTERED 07/26/93
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 198
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE JULY 26, 1993
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR JULY 25, 1993
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 8, 1993
PASSED THE SENATE MAY 6, 1993
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 1993

INTRODUCED BY Senator Mello

MARCH 4, 1993

An act to add Section 7073.1 to the Government Code, relating
to enterprise zones.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 829, Mello. Enterprise zones: disaster areas.
The Enterprise Zone Act prescribes the criteria for the
designation of enterprise zones by the Department of Commerce.
This bill would require the department in designating new
enterprise zones to include in its criteria the fact that
jurisdictions have been declared disaster areas by the President
of the United States within the last 7 years.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 7073.1 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
7073.1. In designating new enterprise zones, the department
shall include in its criteria the fact that jurisdictions have
been declared disaster areas by the President of the United
States within the last seven years.


Not exactly within the spirit of the OP's post.
Further much of CA has been declared a disaster zone within the last 7 years as a result of various wildfires. A large portion of the state has been declared a federal disaster zone within that time frame, so that would appear to trigger the statute relating to enterprise zones.

SoCalShooter
February 12, 2009, 10:20 PM
Holy CARP California is listed!!! I'll call tomorrow morning.

Kinda reminds me of the GUN HO Maj from Heart Break Ridge where they are all rallied in the dark and an announcement comes over the PA and he says "This is it were going to war" and Gunny Highway (clint eastwood) gives him a funny look as he looks at the Sgt. Maj

TexasRifleman
February 12, 2009, 10:29 PM
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States - put on planning list)

This one is a fun urban legend, but unfortunately not true.

mbt2001
February 12, 2009, 10:29 PM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=iKU&ei=zeiUSavlPJCCNbG6rfML&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama%2Blincoln&spell=1

I just find it odd that while we are having this discussion, another discussion is happening in Cyberspace comparing Obama to Lincoln...

Kind of ironic.

RevNate
February 12, 2009, 10:37 PM
Everyone is aware that something like this would be extremely dangerous, since some states wouldn't have full military protection, and some other nation might invade, correct?

Well, Jimbo, the answer to your question in such a worst-case scenario is what some guys had in mind long ago when they wrote this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

38snubnose
February 12, 2009, 10:37 PM
Here's the correct link for Georgia:

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

It was during the 1995/1996 session. So it's not anything recent.

hso
February 12, 2009, 10:42 PM
If we can't get some primary sources (state.gov) on this by Friday mid-day this thread will be deleted as being just another internet myth.

It also lacks the basic criteria for an Activism thread, a plan of action for members to follow. So, even if it does get working links of state legislation that HAS BEEN PASSED and SIGNED BY THE GOV, without a plan of action it will end up closed as just another "FYI" politics thread.

DocBoCook
February 12, 2009, 10:46 PM
Texas is an urban legend. Check snopes or other websites on that one

Wheeler
February 12, 2009, 10:51 PM
After reading the proposed declaration from Ga, I don't see any thing at all that remotely smacks of declaring the State of Ga. as an independant country, nor do I see anything at all that speaks of military action or secession.

What I did see was a proclamation that the Fed has overstepped it's bounds as declared by the Constitution, it acts like the states are an agent of the Fed, rather than the other way around, cited a Supreme Court Ruling stating that that the federal legislature cannot comandeer the legeslative process of a state, and that Ga. has sent many resolutions to D.C. with no response.

Basically, it's a statement that says "We're keeping our eyes on you, this is your list of screw-ups thus far."

Nothing at all like Georgia's original declaration of seccession nor declaration of war.

Wheeler

wuchak
February 12, 2009, 10:54 PM
Here is the link to New Hampshire's. Some of the other state's are cut and past of each other but NH's goes much deeper into an explanation. It's worth the read. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html I seriously wonder if they didn't debate starting it with, "When in the course of human events..."

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that 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; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

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; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” 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; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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 that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. 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; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

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. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

JImbothefiveth
February 12, 2009, 11:13 PM
Well, Jimbo, the answer to your question in such a worst-case scenario is what some guys had in mind long ago when they wrote this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
If something like this is happening, there will be a civil war going on, so the militia/national guard/ state troopers will already be fighting a war. What most concerns me is the lack of nuclear weapons some states would have, those are the only reason we haven't had WW3 yet.

Riss
February 12, 2009, 11:22 PM
Just go this from my PA State Rep. AND he is a big supporter of 2nd Amend Rights. Most Americans – by simply reading the text – understand the nature of the 10th Amendment. It ensures that any powers not granted to the federal government through the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people.

However, through various expansions of federal authority, the government in Washington, D.C., has impeded on the powers reserved to the states and the people.

This significant transfer of powers from the individual states to the national government came not through revolution, but through ongoing and unchecked encroachments. Now, this federal intrusion on state sovereignty has reached a breaking point.

Below are some examples where national government has or could infringe on state sovereignty:

* By collecting taxes from state residents and then using that money to compel sovereign state governments – through the use of “strings” attached to federal funding – to implement programs and provide services in accordance with the desires of federal authorities.
* By pushing states toward financial distress by providing financial incentives to implement programs and services without supplying adequate federal funding.
* By enacting national laws that go far beyond the federal powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
* By potentially providing federal funds to fill state budget deficits, which were created – in part – through over-spending prompted by federal financial incentives to create new programs.

The Answer: Putting Federal Authorities on Notice

In an attempt to proclaim and reassert Pennsylvania state government’s independence and sovereignty from the federal government, I plan to introduce a House resolution reminding federal authorities about the constitutional limitations on their powers and calling on them to cease and desist with all activities that infringe on the powers reserved to the state of Pennsylvania and its citizens.

This is an issue that is currently being addressed by more than 20 other states across our nation. Like our sister states, Pennsylvania must draw a line in the sand and reassert its sovereignty.

I am currently circulating the resolution among my peers in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Please encourage your family members, friends and acquaintances who live outside our legislative district to contact their House member and urge them to support this measure to protect Pennsylvania’s independence. Link www.samrohrer.com/uploads/10thAmendment-HR.pdf

Thingster
February 12, 2009, 11:24 PM
Well, here's the thing. If 35 states pass this and actually follow through, legally there is nothing the feds can do about it.

35 states can recall the federal government and replace it with a new one.

Odds are this won't happen, but what these are are the states reminding the feds that they've been having their toes stepped on for a while and they want it to stop.

Until 35 states pass similar legislation, this is largely symbollic. After that, the feds do have something to worry about. But I'm proud of these states for putting their feet down.

SrDedosRapidos
February 12, 2009, 11:37 PM
If only KY were one :( looks like Ill be writing Mr. Davis tomorrow :D

If this is in fact happening in as many states as its rumored, it would be a magnificent blow to the socialist pigs seeking to castrate our republic!

hso
February 13, 2009, 09:53 AM
Still nothing showing this to be more than proposed legislation for a few places and internet myth for most. The clock's running out on this thread if we don't get some proof that legislation has been passed and signed for these.

Gungnir
February 13, 2009, 09:57 AM
I did a run down on a bunch of them last night and most are being read in the State Congress currently.

I think that in general it's saber rattling by the states to scare the Federal Government (although NH probably is not just saber rattling), if any come to anything I'm pretty sure that we'll find out on any major news outlet.

MaterDei
February 13, 2009, 10:05 AM
While I certainly support the idea of state's rights this statement is simply untrue.

TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States - put on planning list)

Texas is NOT sovereign. Texas WILLFULLY requested annexation into the U.S. In fact, it wasn't until Polk was elected under a manafest destiny platform that Texas got its way. The annexation document does NOT give Texas the right to leave the union. Even if it did (which it didn't), Texas DID attempt to leave the union and join the CSA. We all know how that story ended.

expvideo
February 13, 2009, 10:55 AM
Interesting doesn't begin to describe this. I'm very surprised to see my home state of Washington on the list. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I imagine that it won't go anywhere. If our country has another civil war, I highly doubt that it will be started by politicians.

Boba Fett
February 13, 2009, 11:25 AM
From the Texas Constitution (http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/), Section 1, Articles 1 & 2:

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

I like how Section 2 has a line similar to one in the Declaration of Independence: "...they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

And from the Declaration: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


BTW, is it just me or did the Colonies break away from England over far less atrocities than what our current government is subjecting us to?

If you enjoyed reading about "States Confirm and Declare Sovereignty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!