If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having only breezed over the thread, I asked a very large group attorneys for thoughts. Interspersed among the biased political rantings was one unbiased comment that said this, to paraphrase...

States enter into the Union through enabling acts. These acts are federal laws and are subordinate to both the letter and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. This is how some state laws can be declared "unconstitutional"

So for example, a state admitted as a "slave state" before the Civil War is nevertheless subject to the later 13th Amendment of the Constitution that outlaws slavery. Arizona's enabling act requires English as our official language. If that is ever found to violate the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution, that provision fails and we don't get to secede.
Click to expand...

So basically, if the ruling goes to "collective rights", anything in Montana's contract for statehood concerning "individual rights" fails the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution. Short of war, they have no right to secede.


-T.

EDIT: Also maybe of interest, one comment said...
Justice Scalia, usually a conservative, is infamous for his "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution. ... Scalia has a history of going "liberal" where originalism calls for it (examples involving the rights of an accused).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I will start looking for some "Come Live and Work in Montana!" literature to strategically lay around the house...to kinda grease the slides with the ole' lady.
Click to expand...

Information relating to a move to Montana is archived here:
http://www.montana-alliance-for-liberty.org/phpBB2/index.php

Without the federal subsidies we would be denied federal interference in education, land use, and a myriad of intrusive rules and regulations which hold down our productivity. Subsidized corporate agriculture would perhaps begin to be replaced by localized food procuction, which would be a good thing. If we could keep our federal tax money in state which would otherwise be sent to the federal rathole, I think it would be a net gain.
 
So basically, if the ruling goes to "collective rights", anything in Montana's contract for statehood concerning "individual rights" fails the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution. Short of war, they have no right to secede.
Click to expand...

Amendment 10: "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."

Secession is not prohibited to the states in the Constitution therefore it is a right reserved by them and the people.
 
It really doesn't matter if they legally have the right to secede or not. It matters what they can actually do. And if they tried it, the USG would stop them.

I don't believe that any meaningful percentage of Americans, in any state, really has the fortitude to fight another civil war. If Americans have to choose between keeping their rights and seeing tanks roll down their streets, or giving up their rights but keeping their Starbucks, 99% will choose the latte's over rights every time. Today's Americans like being fat lazy sheep. A war would mean they don't get to drive their brand new SUV(on lease of course) home and watch Nip/Tuck. No, there will be no secession.
 
Strange as it may seem, if one were to closely study the states with the missile silos one would find most of them are in the camp that would likely support secession. Us regular army forces are not home, they are in whateverstan they happen to be mired in at the time. National Guard forces including air forces are at the command of the State Government, not the fools in DC. If, in fact an uprising were to take place all that would be required is one missile battery commander to adjust his azimuth and range a bit and nuke DC. End of problem.:evil:
 
That is an interesting possibility: a state secedes and seizes any federal weapons in their borders, perhaps including nukes even. Might make the feds more willing to seek a peaceful settlement...
 
You still need actual people to man those silos and operate those weapons. And only a very small fraction of a percent of this nation is actually willing to go to war with itself. It doesn't matter how many silos Montana can claim, unless the actual young soldiers inside those silos are willing to nuke American cities, they're useless. The military has a hard enough time selecting and training soldiers willing to take nuclear action against other countries like the USSR(at the time) and China now. If you really think you're going to convince any of those soldiers to attack other Americans, especially based on a concept like "states rights" that to them is a vague term they heard in 8th grade history class talking about the Civil War, you're kidding yourself.

American soldiers will not nuke America.

This isn't the 1860s where people are willing to die for creeds like "Virgina first!" People don't give a #### about that stuff any more. And they're not willing to fight, kill, or die over it.
 
Oh oh, let me get in on this. Can I be the bookie for this?

The honest answer is you don't know what any specific American soldiers would do. For you not know what is in anybodies heart.
 
I think that if the federal government ever attempts to destroy the 2d ammendment, there will be states, a lot of people, who will seek secession.
 
If the federal government ever attempts to destroy the 2d amendment,
there will be, I think, secession and rebellion.
 
There will be no war MT and any other states that would secede(and I don't think any of them really want to) would lose, they have no air power and while Infantry is absoulutley essential to take ground. Air power would make life miserable to the what 2 million people there? and how many are factories that can make war material.
Also, remember the media would not be on the seceding states side the rest of america would only get what the media told them. I think this is a good bet considering their stand on the 2nd ammendment.
I like what MT is doing and I'd like other states to do the same but basically at best it's a big bluff
 
The way I see it, Wyoming, Montana, and maybe Saskatchewan and Alberta along with them. Maybe Utah; maybe Idaho; maybe parts of North and/or South Dakota - it's hard to say, because I think that many of the "refactioning" won't be along current state borders, but on regional cultural borders.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting possibility: a state secedes and seizes any federal weapons in their borders, perhaps including nukes even. Might make the feds more willing to seek a peaceful settlement...
Click to expand...

The four remaining Minuteman III (ironic name, huh?) bases are Malmstrom AFB in Montana, F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, and Grand Forks AFB and Minot AFB, both in North Dakota. Together they have about 500 Minuteman III's, a significant portion of our deterrent force. It wouldn't be necessary to seize them outright, just prevent their maintenance and resupply. If the states only did that, prevented the movement of the military across their territory, it wouldn't take long to create a serious national defense situation.

Uncle don't play around when it comes to nukes. Our standing orders were that the safety of hostages was not a consideration when it came to the recapture of nuclear weapons. We had the ability to call on air support from aircraft units and, if necessary, ground forces from the Army, Marines, whatever was necessary. No, ladies and gentlemen, the nukes would never be allowed to pass from Federal control. I'm sure they would even call in NATO allies if it were necessary to regain control of them. Ain't a doubt in my military mind about that.
 
"They already have attempted it, and mostly, no one cared. NFA 34? GCA 68? AWB 94? Where were the rebellions and mass calls for secession then?"

This is VERY different. Those bans spoke of specific guns. This threatens ALL arms, not just guns.
 
and how many are factories that can make war material
Click to expand...

This is what they said about the south during the civil war. Due to the south's massive lack of industrialization, the civil war was only expected to last a few months. They made it work for quite a long time and it was not a 'blow-out'.

Also, about the nuclear silos. Those are under the regulations of the US government, not the national guard (IIRC), so in order for a seceded state to obtain those items they would have to invade the silos and take them over. Once the military entered Germany during WWII, did their tanks suddenly become German tanks and start traveling in the opposite direction?
 
The south gained supplies from britain and other countries, further had a better climate for growing crops(and the union had no air to attack the fields) and had a population skilled in horsemanship, marksmanship, and lots of military training. In this day and age even robert e lee could not hold out for longer than a year without some sort of air power.
Also remember the union had an amazing amt. of inept generals early on.
 
The four remaining Minuteman III (ironic name, huh?) bases are Malmstrom AFB in Montana, F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, and Grand Forks AFB and Minot AFB, both in North Dakota. Together they have about 500 Minuteman III's, a significant portion of our deterrent force. It wouldn't be necessary to seize them outright, just prevent their maintenance and resupply. If the states only did that, prevented the movement of the military across their territory, it wouldn't take long to create a serious national defense situation.

Uncle don't play around when it comes to nukes. Our standing orders were that the safety of hostages was not a consideration when it came to the recapture of nuclear weapons. We had the ability to call on air support from aircraft units and, if necessary, ground forces from the Army, Marines, whatever was necessary. No, ladies and gentlemen, the nukes would never be allowed to pass from Federal control. I'm sure they would even call in NATO allies if it were necessary to regain control of them. Ain't a doubt in my military mind about that.
Click to expand...

The feds did a pretty poor job on 9/11. The govt. ignored warnings on Pearl harbor. Just one mistake on the feds' part, one could be captured by a state...well, could be interesting...and don't forget all the foreign countries that might jump on this opportunity to get back at the federal govt. for its meddling in their affairs, if it went this far. And, let's just suppose a state militia unit takes control of one of these sites, just what will the air support do? Bomb a nuclear weapon, potentially creating an enormous mess? They could quickly drop soldiers to the location to attempt to retake it, but suppose the militia decided to hit the switch before getting taken? All sorts of possibilities I think should a person with enough knowledge plan it out before the state secedes.
 
I would not be surprised if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alberta, BC, and Alaska form the nucleus of a new free nation, but not without a lot of grief.
Click to expand...


BC & Alberta Canada leaving confederation to join up with Montana, Idaho, Wyoming & Alaska

+1 on a LOT of grief...

BC Too liberal.
Alberta is an OIL cash cow.. no way Eastern Canada would let them go...




I'm from BC BTW
 
Where to start, where to start...

Just one mistake on the feds' part, one could be captured by a state...well, could be interesting...and don't forget all the foreign countries that might jump on this opportunity to get back at the federal govt. for its meddling in their affairs, if it went this far. And, let's just suppose a state militia unit takes control of one of these sites, just what will the air support do? Bomb a nuclear weapon, potentially creating an enormous mess?
Click to expand...

Just for your information, missile silos are hardened to take anything up to a direct hit from another nuke. Bombing the surface of the silo with 2000 lb. bombs would leave the missile itself unharmed. It might not even affect its launch ready status, since the blast doors are designed to be operable even when damaged or covered with rubble.

They could quickly drop soldiers to the location to attempt to retake it, but suppose the militia decided to hit the switch before getting taken?
Click to expand...

There are a whole series of Permissive Action Links that would have to be defeated in the proper sequence and with the exact proper codes before you could "hit the switch". It takes a minimum of two votes(the missile combat crew commander and his deputy turning their keys simultaneously constitutes one "vote") from two independent launch control centers to launch the missile, and the launch orders and enabling codes can be canceled by any single higher command authority. The system is designed to survive a nuclear first strike and still be able to maintain positive control of remaining forces. Hard to beat that.

Also, when you say quickly, think in terms of a few hours rather than days. We had to maintain the capability to put a squadron (company) sized force with air support on any site in the complex within 4 hours or we failed our Wing Security Evaluations. The site itself is designed to defeat attempts at entry for at least that long, even with heavy construction equipment and high explosives. Think Fort Knox has heavy security? You ain't seen nothin'.

All sorts of possibilities I think should a person with enough knowledge plan it out before the state secedes.
Click to expand...

The thing is, we're talking about knowledge that no one person would have access to. I ain't saying how many authorized, properly authenticated individuals it takes to gain access to a nuclear weapon, but it's more than one and more than you might think. It takes even more, different people to enable it for release to produce a nuclear yield. I won't go into any more details for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
and don't forget all the foreign countries that might jump on this opportunity to get back at the federal govt. for its meddling in their affairs, if it went this far. And, let's just suppose a state militia unit takes control of one of these sites, just what will the air support do? Bomb a nuclear weapon, potentially creating an enormous mess? They could quickly drop soldiers to the location to attempt to retake it, but suppose the militia decided to hit the switch before getting taken? All sorts of possibilities I think should a person with enough knowledge plan it out before the state secedes.
__________________
Click to expand...
So they would secede to follow the constitution and then attack the country with a nuke? what would be the point? They would forever be the bad guys killing innocent people because they wanted something their way. and as for forgein powers who? columbia? morality aside once you nuke someone there is no going back.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Montana Claims U.S. Promised State Individual Gun Rights
Replies
3
Views
433
lacoochee
L
M
  • Locked
Montana Firearm's Freedom Act
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
husbandofaromanian
H
T
  • Locked
MT Freedom Firearms Act - Nullification of Federal Regs?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Carbon Helix
C
T
  • Locked
Supreme Court is taking the Heller Case - per NRA email
Replies
0
Views
401
thegriz
T
L
  • Locked
House resolution in support of Heller decision.
Replies
11
Views
880
ServiceSoon
S
Back
Top