New Hampshire Secession in Currently in State Legislature

imported post

Very interesting. If I am reading this correctly the federal government would be in violation the moment this legislation passed. A few pertinent excerpts.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

<snip>

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

<snip>

<snip>

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 :celebrate


<snip>

imported post

Where do you read it as immediately in violation? Your bold part clearly states "Further", as in they accept the limitations and restrictions currently in place. The Feds would not be in violation until further restrictions are attempted, but not immediately.

imported post

"Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:"


But not limited to..... This is an important. That to me means if the feds do anything other than allowed by the constitution it would nullify the agreement.

The problem is that it probably won't be signed by the socialist governor. And it would never be enforced if it was.

imported post

Arizona had a similar resolution back in 04

imported post

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebApplication2/WebForm1.aspx?Bill=HJR1003
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills091/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

imported post

Arizona just launched another one... The Neo-Confederacy is growing!

[align=right]REFERENCE TITLE: sovereignty; tenth amendment.[/align]











State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Forty-ninth Legislature

First Regular Session

2009









[align=center][size=HCR 2024][/align]





[align=center][/align]





[align=center]Introduced by [/align]



[align=center]Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper[/align]



[align=center][/align]





[align=center]A concurrent RESOLUTION[/align]



claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.





(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)




Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "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

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2.That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3.That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4.That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

imported post

It's getting very... interesting out Can't wait to see how this turns out :celebrate

imported post

Five States... at once? I do believe there are those in Legislature(s) attempting to pre-empt PrezBO'sMarxist design to ursurp the Constitution by 'Imperial Decree'. This is only the beginning. Interesting... the media won't touch it... yet.

imported post

These state actions are great news.

However, my enthusiasm is a little muted by knowing in the back of my mind that our state legislatures are controlled by members of the same two political parties that control the congress.

I'm not sure that trading one set of bandits for another is all that great.

Kinda like being a shopkeeper inNew York Cityand watching two crime bosses arguing over who gets toextort protection money fromyou.

About the only benefit I see is that it might be a little easier to control the state legislature at election time--maybe.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

These state actions are great news.

About the only benefit I see is that it might be a little easier to control the state legislature at election time--maybe.

Click to expand...

I think you'd better actually read the texts 'n not 'skim'. The benefit is asserting States rights over encroaching Federal 'Imperialism'. The benefit is limiting the power of the Federal Government to that which it is supposed to do. The benefit is adherence to the Constitution as written.



I predict: AK, KY, TX, WY, MT and possibly UT will follow shortly.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Citizen wrote:

These state actions are great news.

About the only benefit I see is that it might be a little easier to control the state legislature at election time--maybe.

Click to expand...

I think you'd better actually read the texts 'n not 'skim'. The benefit is asserting States rights over encroaching Federal 'Imperialism'. The benefit is limiting the power of the Federal Government to that which it is supposed to do. The benefit is adherence to the Constitution as written.

I predict: AK, KY, TX, WY, MT and possibly UT will follow shortly.

Click to expand...

I agree that such would be a good thing. But its undermined somewhat. The bandits in the state governments could/would afflict us just as badly. Remember, the fed parasites seem to usually start their careers in state and local government.

Now, if the states suddenly started scrupulously applying the ideals in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, too, we'd be in good shape.

Alas, I fear they won't. If they havebad ideas at the federal level, they got them before they got there from the state and local level.

imported post

True Citizen, but at the state level, they are a bit more accountable to the voters than the Federal positions. From that high up, we are mere numbers and peons. At the state level, we wield a bit more influence.

At the very least, it's a start.

imported post

State level?? Here in Virginia they are on the verge of passing yet another ridiculous prohibition of smoking IN BARS. It has been watered down quite a bit, frinstance establishments or parts of establishments limited to persons over 21 are exempt (so at least adults are treated like adults)

I probably should explain here that strictly speaking ALL alcohol-serving public establishments in Virginia are by law "restaurants" and are required to derive a certain percentage of proceeds from the sale of food. My fave dive, O'Shaughnessey's, has their lounge/bar UPSTAIRS where younhave to be 21 anyways, so that one's safe. For now.

Point is that our freedoms are qute easily effed uo at the State level, TYVM. I have long advocated a mandatory Constitutional Compliance Review of every statute, program, and regulation . These State efforts COULD result in just that.

I am not, however, holding my breath waiting ....

imported post

This 'No Smokin'' stuff has been implemented all over.... Enacted here last year to the detriment of many businesses. It was the result of a deliberately obfuscated referendum 'vote'. I had to read the thing twice to understand which wayI was voting. 'Wasn't a simple 'yes or no'. It may go back to another vote sometime... now that Nappy is GONE (Thank GOD). Too much Kommiefornia influence. Then again... that may well have been tied to 'Federal dollars' for somethin' or other.

Similarly the involuntary servitude of socialist'community service' hours required for HS graduation 'credits'. Some of that crapeven violates child labor laws. That's tied directly to Federal funds for 'education'.



For five states to entertain such legislation at once indicates something's afoot. The media won't touch this (yet). Not even talk radio (yet). I'm gonna do what I can from this end to disseminate such.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

It's actually at least nine states with proposed legislation. There is a list on another gun board somewhere. And it is not Secession, that would mean withdrawing from the United States and forming a separate and independent government. It is a declaration of sovereignty in mattersthe Federal government is not constitutionally allowed togovern.

Click to expand...

Could you provide the other states?

imported post

imported post

California is a surprise! (So's yer 'stars 'n bars' avitar... from Michigan?)



Thanks!

imported post

MI-copperhead wrote:

Here they are.


Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia
http://www.infowars.com/increasing-number-of-states-declaring-sovereignty/
​

Click to expand...

The California resolution on sovereignty will be as good as overturned when the current legislature says to Congress, "We'll drop our pants, bend over, and take whatever you deem we deserve, just PLEEEEAAASSSE, send us some bailout money!"

imported post

No grease 'n no reach-arounds either! California did this to itself... and those of you who still live there know why... I should think.

imported post

I'm glad to see that some states are finally waking up to the fed's gradual erosion of the rights of states and their citizens.

I'm sad to see that Texas isn't on this list, so I've written my district senator and representative. If the constitution means anything to you, I encourage you to do the same.

Here's hoping this passes in several of those states, if not mine.