worldnetdaily.com — Back to the Constitution for State's powersound like a revolution.I bet hussein will do whatever it takes to stop these states from preventing him from having all the dictatorial power that is rightfully his (in his own mind that is).He is the new king and nobody better get in his way. How indignant was he when rush criticized him?
Feb 7, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2009
And where are you sitting at if not "safely ensconced behind your keyboard", smart guy? In outer space?
njonFeb 8, 2009
@JenniferInMO, the Constitution defines treason in article III, section 3. The definition is, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."See <a class="user" href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3">http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3</a>Treason is warring against the U.S., or aiding those who are warring against it, so a peaceful secession cannot be equated to treason. It was Lincoln who technically started the Civil War by refusing to let the southern states leave the Union. And legally speaking, if one adheres to the view that the southern states were still part OF the Union (as Lincoln presumably did), then treason couldn't even come into play for the southern states, because Lincoln would have been the one who was guilty of treason, since he waged war against states that were still being considered as part of the United States.@USArugula, that's an interesting argument with the 14th amendment, but I don't see it over-riding the implicit right of secession in Constitutional history. And your view of needing 100% operates on the presupmtion that democracy is the operative system of government. But the United States is a Constitutional republic --- not a democracy --- (see Constitution, article IV, section 4) so if the peoples' legislature on their behalf chooses to secede, that's entirely legitimate.
njonFeb 9, 2009
What a lame straw man. Many of the people supporting this movement opposed Bush just as much as they oppose Obama. This is a mixture of classical conservatives, independents and libertarians, whereas you apparently think --- and continually imply over and over again in multiple comments, despite have been corrected multiple times --- that the only kind of non-liberal is a neocon, and that's not true at all.And a theocracy? Good grief, are you seriously that uninformed? A number of people backing this are NOT Christians. And what of those of us who are? I am an evangelical fundamentalist, and I DON'T want a theocracy. God has not ordained us to establish a theocracy. Romans 13 defines government as that which punishes bad and rewards good. It's very simple and defined, and all governments, pagan or otherwise, are tasked with doing that. Theocracy never enters the picture. God already owns and rules the universe whether you like it or not, so in that respect the entire universe IS a theocracy. And God has ordained human civil government for a limited purpose. It's not to bring conformity to the Gospel (something only the Holy Spirit can do); it is to protect the natural rights of all people.The feds can keep their funding. That money doesn't even exist; they have the Federal Reserve criminal banking cartel create it out of nothingness. If the states established honest money legislation like is being considered in Indiana, and shut down the income tax system (seeing as how the income tax amendment was NOT properly ratified by the states), they wouldn't have an economic crisis.
e46fanFeb 9, 2009
@njon...I think you have good intentions regarding your interpretation of the role of the SCOTUS; however, you are misinformed if you believe that the SCOTUS is not responsible for interpreting the constitution. That is precisely what they do and they do that by 1) looking to the intentions of the writers, 2) looking to the actual words themselves, 3) determining how the law, i.e. constitution, has been applied previously (or stare decisis), etc...There are folks (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, etc.) who believe that the constitution needs no interpretation, that it means just what the words say...perhaps you are one of those. But those individuals always find a way to make the constitution say what they want it to say...so the strict constructionists interpret it too.You don't have to agree with me by any means and I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you, but I'll put my 7 years of pre-law and law school plus my years of legal practice experience up against 3 years of pre-law anyday! Your arguments are cogent...just incorrect. Cheers!
miamijerFeb 12, 2009
What would Obama do if some states petitioned the Feds for secession? Invade those states and start another Civil War? Would Barry then be considered a hero like Lincoln because he kept the union together at the expense of blood and lives? But the more the Feds exert additional control over the states and the more state rights they take away, the more likelihoodof a revolt/rebellion to Federalist authority. State's rights have eroded over time, starting with FDR's New Deal to LBJ's Great Society and now Obama's stimulus plan.Many states are sick and tired of federal programs and edicts. Hawaii is actually making a real push for independence, arguing that the U.S. violated international law when Hawaii was made a territory against their will. New Hampshire has their "republic" initiatives too."We thus hereby request that the legislature of New Hampshire make the following resolution: That the State of New Hampshire is, and of right ought to be, a free and independent state; that she is absolved from all allegiance to the Federal Union, and that all political connection between us and the United States of America, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a free and independent state, we have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. - From the text of our Declaration of Independence* written by Caleb Johnson, inspired by Thomas JeffersonIt is with a deep sense of regret, and a profound feeling of loss, that we must reluctantly recommend to the citizens of New Hampshire that our state declare its independence from the Federal Union. As concerned citizens, we do not take such a drastic recommendation lightly. This website has been drafted for the purpose of explaining the reasons which compel us to advise such a drastic step. It is hoped that you will consider the evidence in the same spirit of reflection with which it has been presented."<a class="user" href="http://republicofnh.org/">http://republicofnh.org/</a>Texas has an independence movement as well. But let's be serious, it's never gonna happen! Washington doesn't take any of these movements seriously, and none of them have enough political traction to go anywhere. How would it be done anyway? What about the national debt and defense? What about trade agreements and taxes? What would prevent other states from doing the same and starting a runaway domino effect in the US?Maybe that crazy Russian academic wasn't so far off when he predicted a breakup of the US. But I see the NAU forming before that could happen. Once the U.S. is part of a North American Union with Canada & Mexico, no state or province will be permitted to leave!
cynuspsFeb 15, 2009
You must have been brainwashed. This is about personal freedom, not white supremacy. More and more our freedoms are disappearing in the guise that we can't make decisions for ourselves. The government knows better and needs to mandate we do things but don't provide the money. States have been making legislation because if they don't do as the feds say the don't get the great federal funding. What happened state's rights? It is time we as the citizens of this great country stand up for our rights. It doesn't matter race, color or religion. We are all in this together. Check out <a class="user" href="http://www.bornagainamerican.org">http://www.bornagainamerican.org</a> and listen to the songs and notice the people. Wake up before we don't have any rights.
johan404Feb 18, 2009
You guys still don't get that this is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. It's about your liberty, your freedom.
johan404Feb 18, 2009
They don't want to tear the nation apart, they want to restore it to it's former glory. The Federal government is technically null and void already, they have violated the constitution several times.
henri3Jun 15, 2009
digg for freedom!!