digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at goldismoney.info

Oklahoma declares Sovereignty! MUST READ!

goldismoney.info — "A Joint Resolution 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..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • quesi, on 06/14/2008, -29/+390The Republic of Texas needs to do the same.
    • PATSCRU, on 06/14/2008, -35/+26every other state would love for that to happen.
      • Lane, on 06/14/2008, -16/+20Because who would miss the GDP equivalent of a small nation that is Texas? Ignorance is bliss I suppose, so sorry to bring you down. FYI Texas=10 Oklahoma's
      • fyngyrz, on 06/15/2008, -1/+26Lane, this isn't about secession -- it is about federal over-reach. No one, including Oklahoma, is talking about anything at all that has to do with GDP. They're talking about federal law enforcement that is unauthorized by the constitution.
    • Dumbledorito, on 06/14/2008, -40/+97Seriously. Almost every bad idea we're seeing in government today was tried in Texas. Thanks for sending your joke of a governor to the White House.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/14/2008, -44/+14Well, you Democrats left us with no choice in 2000 and 2004. YOUR candidates sucked even worse.
        • SilentRamble42, on 06/14/2008, -8/+28You can defend your candidate, but don't just outright lie.
        • JimmySpaza, on 06/14/2008, -34/+15Who's lying? Gore and Kerry sucked worse than Bush at the time of the election. What was I supposed to do?
        • HotSaucePanCake, on 06/14/2008, -22/+11Im Gonna have to side with you Jimmy. I think Democrats could have had a better selection
        • Fafnir43, on 06/14/2008, -7/+38Are you really going to look me in the eye and tell me that if you'd elected Kerry, you'd be in /deeper/ ***** than you are now with Bush? I mean, 2000 I can understand on the basis that back then Bush looked harmless, but 2004? No.
        • DuffyDirect, on 06/14/2008, -10/+22Gore won the election in the first place, so........?
        • HotSaucePanCake, on 06/15/2008, -3/+1I don't think things could be going better for my self? nice try Fafnir43, but just because you apparently aren't doing so hot doesn't mean the rest of the world is too.
        • Shrubber, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2@HotSaucePanCake: I think you completely missed the point of what Fafnir43 wrote. He was referring to the fact that many Americans thought that Kerry was scarier in 2004 than Bush was. It was a fair assessment, seeing as how we just didn't know all of the facts that we know now. He meant that there's no way Kerry could have been a worse president than Bush has been. He wasn't saying, "Hey, everything's fine and dandy here, ain't got no troubles in the world!" as you apparently thought he meant.
        • wphj, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1The democrats picked boring candidates, and Bush is a friendly looking guy that got people interested in him. The elections were before his worst mess-ups were really noticed by most people.

          Hillary should have ran in 2004, she might have had a chance then without Obama there as a better candidate.
        • Allender, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Im pretty sure Gore would have made a way better president but then again by him not becoming president now more people are aware of globalwarming but i hope gore runs next election or so well maybe the one after
        • VegaBega, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure if Gore became President people would be MORE aware of global warming.
      • twinklyJesus, on 06/14/2008, -20/+6The first 4 letters of your name: Coincidence? No.
        • acceleration, on 06/15/2008, -1/+10The 2nd letter of your name, then the 2nd last letter of your name, then the 3rd last letter of your name, then the last letter of your name, followed by the 7th letter your name: Coincidence? No.
      • Stroggoth, on 06/14/2008, -5/+2Looks to me like it says that they declare the non-overriden powers that the Federal government has left behind (ie. not spoken on) are states powers, which is true before they made this statement, so this really means nothing. Supremacy clause, FTW.
        • fyngyrz, on 06/15/2008, -0/+18No, it is meaningful because the feds have far overstepped the bounds you refer to; OK is pointing out the bounds and declaring a whole *bunch* of things the feds want to do as unwelcome -- and illegal. This is something every state in the union should do. Let them take their invasive, unauthorized agencies and actions, and shove them up their collective legislative, executive and judicial asses.
      • MavRevMatt, on 06/15/2008, -2/+17You think we liked him as governor?
      • zimmbear, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1You're welcome :)
      • L4WL3RS34L, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Why are you blaming Texas? America voted for Bush, not Texas.
        • MxM111, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2And Texas did not? Twice? If you voted against, he would not be a president.
        • PureRED, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4You can't seriously pin your problems on our state. We're not the only damned republican state.

          Rick Perry is a douchebag. Austin didn't vote for him, in fact, we hate him so much that he doesn't even LIVE in the capitol. Someone burnt down his mansion.
      • GoobGoob, on 06/15/2008, -4/+0Texas sent him as a joke. Didn't think the rest of the dumb asses in the country would actually vote him in. It was one of those "oh sh*t, they took our town idiot serious and voted him in."
    • CaptainCool53, on 06/14/2008, -7/+110Every state needs to do this.
      • macweirdo42, on 06/14/2008, -25/+6For most states, this means handing over power from the federal government to a bunch of inbred hicks. Yeah, this is a great idea.
        • Coded1, on 06/15/2008, -0/+11Hicks? You thing none of them made it into the senate?
        • CaptainCool53, on 06/15/2008, -1/+14It means the hicks retaining the power that is rightfully theirs and has been usurped by the federal government.
        • Chakat, on 06/15/2008, -1/+5It also means that us people in states like california aren't usurped by inbred hicks in areas like marijuana decriminalization and emissions regulations.
        • winnestow, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5i think congress is the inbred hicks:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
      • benhiler, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6I rather have inbred hicks run ***** then neoconservative cooperate ass wholes. Inbred hicks know how to be free and dont mess with other people and do their own thing so that sounds like a danm good idea to me
    • DesignNerd, on 06/14/2008, -11/+5they had their chance. GIve someone else a turn.
      /
    • merry81, on 06/14/2008, -23/+1What are you talking about? Texas has sovereignty. For what it's worth.
      • zephyr42, on 06/14/2008, -1/+16You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
        • merry81, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1That's entirely possible. That really wasn't the point. It makes no difference (or would make no difference) if a state had sovereignty, no matter what state it is. The federal government will still try to run things.

          Another (slightly off subject) point: With the voting record in Texas of late, I don't know that I would want the state running things. I mean, honestly. They elected Perry, more than once. Doesn't speak highly for the collective intelligence.
    • thealec, on 06/14/2008, -26/+41Austin needs to move to another state, then Texas can ***** itself.
      • bphicke, on 06/14/2008, -8/+16I like Austin where it is, thanks.
      • pagno, on 06/15/2008, -7/+30How about we keep Austin, and you go ***** yourself.
        • juanchopancho, on 06/15/2008, -9/+7How about we pay Mexico to take Texas?
        • Argentian, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1How about we build a Death Zone on the southern border?
      • bloodmoney, on 06/15/2008, -2/+9You need to move back to the state you came from and then whine about whatever is going on there.
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/15/2008, -7/+2Take Austin with you and go ***** yourself.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -1/+0Only if you pay for me to move, as well. Thanks.
    • zephyr42, on 06/14/2008, -9/+39We would be a very prosperous country on our own. We could sell oil to the US, lol what irony that would be...
      • mlavergn, on 06/15/2008, -3/+22Question: Since Texas, the state, consumes 1.1B barrels a year and produces about 0.4B barrels a year, exactly what oil are you planning on selling to the US?
        • bphicke, on 06/15/2008, -2/+10Production is regulated and limited.
        • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Since Texas produces 1/5th of the entire countries oil production, one would conclude that's a significant move if we decide to break away and sell back to them.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -5/+7Sorry but the state with more oil than all of the middle East combined is Colorado NOT TEXAS...
        • lajaw, on 06/15/2008, -1/+9But it's not feasible to extract yet. When oil hits 200/barrel, then it might be.
      • Loonacy, on 06/15/2008, -4/+21The US would be forced to invade because you have oil... err, I mean... WMDs.
        • pagno, on 06/15/2008, -3/+3...and they will find exactly as many as they did in Iraq.
        • Subacious, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few nukes there, actually. We do have more than any other country on Earth, afterall.
        • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2I see what you did there.
        • nocash23, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2no. because everyone knows that president/savior obama would never let that happen.
      • Myonosken, on 06/15/2008, -2/+2Given the levels of discrimination, reactionism and 'YEEHAA GET THEM GOD DAMN SANDNIGGERS' that have arisen in Texas, you might end up with international sanctions.
        • bphicke, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Stereotype much?
        • kuzotz, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I've lived in texas before it's ignorance on all levels in that state. except for austin.
    • KnivesForRobots, on 06/14/2008, -28/+23I lived in Oklahoma for 30 years before I escaped that inbred racist meth-hole. This would be my dream come true. Texans are worse assholes in every last way, so good ***** riddance to the whole lot of ya!
      • macweirdo42, on 06/14/2008, -2/+16Yeah, I give Oklahoma about 10 minutes before they bring back Jim Crow. Go states rights!
      • arkboysooner, on 06/15/2008, -10/+6You never lived there. Go ***** yourself.
      • lisaawesome, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4Aw man I've lived here for the majority of my life and I don't think it's THAT bad. We have problems like many other states but we're working on them. We've actually been making progress lately (despite what Sally Kern would have everyone believe). We're working on getting rid of the idiots like Inhofe and the governor has been exercising his veto power against the Kerns and the Jollies of the state house. Things are lookin up. It's not going to happen overnight but this state is moving forward more than it is given credit for.
      • willster580, on 06/15/2008, -1/+12You lived in Oklahoma, so you're an expert on who Texans are?
      • VivaLaNation, on 06/15/2008, -1/+10So being born and raised in Texas automatically makes me racist *****? I don't think so...
      • lajaw, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Yea, those injuns is a bunch of racists!
      • xiojqwnko, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4meth-hole? I believe you are referring to Mississippi, sir.
    • Tyrghast, on 06/14/2008, -6/+54Hey look at the ignorant *****! Guess what! Not everyone in Texas deserves your blind hatred! Bush does not equal Texas. Bush is a marionette controlled by the rich and influential of this country, just as a great deal of the high ranking public officials are.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Guess what happens if all of the states do this.

        Go on, guess!

        That's right. The number of people the rich and influential need to control increases by far more than they'll be able to handle!--for a while, at least.
    • philodygmn, on 06/14/2008, -2/+22So should California.
      • PabloMac, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6In many ways, California already effectively has.
        • rotten777, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3California has tried. Since there have been many federal raids, they haven't really done it with the whole legalization idea.
      • KMartSheriff, on 06/15/2008, -3/+8The US very much needs California.
        • Jashobeam5, on 06/15/2008, -9/+10Best laugh I've had all week!
        • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/15/2008, -9/+7If you mean that we need ignorance, stupidity and selfishness to level out the rest of the country's well-natured attitude, then I guess, in a weird way, you're correct.
        • clickx, on 06/15/2008, -5/+8Considering California alone is the 6th largest economy in the world. I think the US needs California. ***** yourself you stupid asses. Not you KmartSheriff.
      • TrnsltLife, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Long live the Republic of California! Don't tread on me!
    • jamesmon01, on 06/14/2008, -10/+28FINALLY!! True Republican values make a comeback! Now if we can just shake off those Christian Coalition retards, we can get our party back!
      • pagno, on 06/15/2008, -16/+6Wait, there was a time when Republicans werent torch-bearing Christian zealots?
        • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/15/2008, -0/+9If you weren't such a closed-minded person you'd already know that.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Republicans were originally leftists, actually. Weird, huh?
    • juanchopancho, on 06/15/2008, -17/+5I would pay Mexico to take Texas and every Texan with it. Here you go Mexico, please take Texas an embarrasment to the USA.
      • RandaII, on 06/15/2008, -8/+1***** Texas I so agree with you. My theory if you nuke texas you will get world peace.
    • LukasSmith, on 06/15/2008, -12/+8The Republic of Texas just needs to be returned to Mexico. The place is alrready practically Mexico. Just look at their hispanic population. Mexico is winning the war with Texas. The alamo battle was for nought.
      • MooNinja, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Texas is the only state to have the balls to beat a Nation to create it's self. Bush isn't a texan either, I believe he was born in Vermont, then moved with his father down to Texas. Texas for years has been one of the very very few states that operated in the Black, and not in the Red. I would gladly see my beloved state separate, we would destroy Mexico alone, just like we did nearly 200 years ago.


        I do love how Texas is responsible for the microprocessor, the personal calculator, and Id software ( and other software works) doesn't get one ounce of Digger love. I guess ignorance rules again for those whom would post such things.
        • bigbadgoat, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1No, people in Texas are responsible for that, nothing to do with the state itself.
        • Elranzer, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Bush is From Connecticut, along with Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. Kinda says a lot about the kind of politicians that come from there...
        • DuneChild, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0First, it's itself, not "it is self".
          Second, your border is so porous that Mexico would completely take over within days.
          Third, you didn't win the war, you won a few battles. Were it not for the treaty you immediately signed with the U.S. after the battle with Santa Ana, Mexico would have reinforced and conquered you within weeks.
          Fourth, you may have made some good things down there, but you also brought us Halliburton, Enron, and Exxon, so excuse us if we think some of you are a bit crooked.
      • Icyfenix, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Ey, ***** yall.
    • mllawso, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6Texas: It's like a whole 'nother country.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 06/15/2008, -3/+10Everything is Bigger and Better in Texas
    • freshgrease, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3It's too bad we gave up the right to legally succeed from the Union to rejoin the US after the civil war. Kinda played the "Listen to me or I'll leave (legally) the Union" trump card too early.
    • keatonkeaton998, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5I think I'd rather read this as a news article rather than a forum post
    • wenomspitta, on 06/15/2008, -4/+2Go Texicans, Go!
  • cyndezu, on 06/14/2008, -5/+121I hope they get one from everybody.
  • Jimmyb207, on 06/14/2008, -16/+393The states MUST remain sovereign entities against the federal government in order to protect its people and preserve civil liberties.
    • fasda, on 06/14/2008, -6/+37But I've noticed in my life that it tends to be the state and local laws that actually hurt civil liberties and federal laws most of the time simply conditions to accepting large amounts of federal grant money.
      • Nateon, on 06/15/2008, -3/+10This is true, look at the civil war. It was pretty much a large dispute about state rights and the states were not bound to the Bill Of Rights until after the war. They were able and did abuse the civil liberties of their citizens.
    • ciaran036, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9Wow that would be amazing. It would be reversing all the harm that has been caused.
    • HenvY, on 06/14/2008, -15/+30Right, because the people of every other country that isn't split into relatively meaningless quasi-indepedent areas are unprotected and have no civil liberties. Good point. What makes the fed so evil and state so great?
      • sanman, on 06/14/2008, -17/+20The Fed is the tool for unbridled expansion of the welfare state, and to pursue wealth redistribution in contravention to meritocracy.

        Some people don't want to work hard for themselves, and instead want to grab other hardworking peoples' money. In order to achieve that, they need to control the Fed, to acquire a false veneer of legitimacy for their agenda.

        Reduce the power of the Fed, and increase local autonomy. This will enable the various localities to pursue an unencumbered existence, and a multiplicity that will create CHOICE. When the only choices are between Fed, Fed, and more Fed, then there's no choice at all.
        • macweirdo42, on 06/14/2008, -6/+12Why would local governments be any less corrupt, though? I'm not following. I mean, so long as SOMEONE has power, does it really matter whether it's at the federal, state, or local level?
        • redneckblues, on 06/14/2008, -5/+5@mac
          Then vote with your feet.
        • groo68, on 06/14/2008, -3/+11@macweirdo you must realize first that when its at the federal level the leader has control of the largest army in the world. The people will fear a leader of a state less than one of a union and question his/her corruption more, and to his/her face. a governer controls a big enough area to be noticed, but not big enough to be above the law.
        • HenvY, on 06/14/2008, -2/+4@groo68:
          you mean the leader of the USA has control of the PRC army?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
        • sanman, on 06/15/2008, -0/+12macweirdo, I again repeat, when you have many localities, then it creates choice. If your locality is corrupt, then you have the choice offered by another locality. But if everything is all Fed, then there is no choice, and you have to accept whatever is shoved down your throat. People should be allowed choice, and those with successful values should be allowed the choice of congregating together.
          The good localities will attract more people, while the corrupt localities will lose people. The laws of competition in action. In a world of multiple choices, then the good choices will advertise themselves by rising to the top.
        • buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5Why would the local government be less corrupt?

          When was the last time your local government passed a law that endangered your civil rights?

          Almost never.

          What level of taxation do you pay the local government?

          Hint: It is a lot less than you pay the feds, even though you get all your roads, fire, police and schools paid for with the much smaller amount of money that you your local government.

          What service exactly do you get for the money you pay in federal taxes?
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Extra war!

          Also, another point is that it's a lot harder to corrupt fifty governments from without than to corrupt one.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 06/14/2008, -3/+17How unsurprising that you are from London in a relatively TINY country...ESPECIALLY compared to the United States. The Fed isn't evil...it's just not right to assume that Washington D.C. should fully speak for people in Alaska or California or Maine or Oklahoma. Different parts of our country have different moral values and economic strengths and weaknesses.
        It's very similar in a way to the dynamic between the E.U. and the European member countries.
        • fyngyrz, on 06/15/2008, -1/+19Governments should not dictate morals anyway. They should build, maintain and defend critical infrastructure [roads, communications, utility supplies], preserve and defend personal liberties, maintain a stable currency, and set uniform standards for weights and measures.

          As soon as you use government to "enforce morals", be it at the local, state, or federal level, you're screwing with people's liberties. This is the very definition of "tyranny of the majority."

          Complete liberty in speech and self-defense comprise one keystone; complete liberty in informed, personal or consensual choice is another; and privacy is the final member of this critical triad. If the actions of another do not injure others, or pick the pocket of others, those actions are not subject to your control.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 06/15/2008, -5/+2thats a great rant that was completely unrelated to the main point of what I was trying to say. just accept that as of right now, morals have forced their way into government in the form of gay marriage laws and bans and the whole abortion issue. that's cool that you can rant about how wrong this is, but it's how it is right now, and if people in conservative states wanna ban gay marriage go ahead if it's the state's choice. if a liberal state wants to allow it then they should be able to as well
        • TrnsltLife, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Of course, many of the rights in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are "moral rights" - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? freedom of speech, press, and religion? abolishment of slavery? These are all grounded in moral principles, with which not everyone agrees. So the government does and needs to protect moral principles, that is exactly why our "forefathers" set up the government of the United States. The government should only be there to ensure our maximum moral rights, and to protect us from immoral intrusion on our rights (e.g. murder, theft, censorship, etc.) To say the government shouldn't be involved in moral issues is to equivocate. It should only be involved in moral issues that the majority of the population finds necessary to protect society's and individual's moral rights.
      • Yarmin3, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7The larger the area and population one government body controls the more divers the population's interests gets and the harder it becomes to serve everyone's best interests. Wouldn't you agree that the individual can govern himself best and the dictator of millions of people governs worst? Like we're seeing today, every piece of legislation is one huge mediocre compromise that in an effort to serve multiple interests at once ends up serving no ones.
        Residing from the Pacific Northwest, we have far different priorities than Oklahoma. Protecting our forests and harbors is something very important here, and it's something Oklahoma has no interest in and it is actually in their best interest to try and not pay for any federal dollars that are allocated for our region. This is why earmarks are so important. It would be far easier to have more of our tax dollars going to our local levels to begin with, instead of sending it across the county, and hope it comes back home.
    • arobicha, on 06/15/2008, -7/+1Are you guys even a ***** country anymore? Why even bother having a federal government if you think that your state does everything perfect? Come to think of it... This might actually be beneficial... States would become countries, and with the recent influx of xenophobia, you guys would start shooting at shadows... ie - the other states of what was once a "glorious" union.

      Now stay the hell out of Canada! I'm afraid that this kind of stupidity is contagious... and Stephen Harper is already american enough.
      • samthurston, on 06/15/2008, -1/+9Right... Canada is all about togetherness. Isn't that right, Quebec?

        Historically, this is what the constitution was about: an alliance of "States" (that word used to mean Country the way you're using it) that shared common trade treaties and an allied network of militias. It was remarkably similar to what the EU (note that EU countries are called "member states") has been doing up until shortly after the U.S. Civil War, when the feds started asserting all kinds of crazy power over the states.

        And just look at the EU now, they are trying to get a "president" and "constitution" so that the central EU can exert more control over the individual nations.

        The thing about this resolution is, lots of people are mentioning the superhighway and the Real ID thing, but while it's an important and legally valid statement, there's no mention of specifics in the actual resolution. It's just as rhetorically effective as when Colbert puts someone "on notice." Ultimately the feds have no reason to engage in any retribution over this resolution because it doesn't say anything. When and if the state starts exerting its newfound commitment to sovereignty, we'll see how long it takes for the federal purse to dry up and marshals to step in.
        • arobicha, on 06/15/2008, -1/+0Quebec isn't even the problem, it's a subculture of people who believe that their culture should be the forefront of their nation's interest, instead of health-care, education, and public safety (as opposed to the brutish army-like police the americans have, and unfortunately it would appear Canada is gearing up to become...). There is a large chunk of Quebec that wants nothing to do with separation, including quite a few businesses in Montreal (which is largely english I might add) which would effectively end any separation attempts due to a failing economy.

          If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen... but don't complain when you find out you have to hunt your own food.
    • zchefheather, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1The government is up to so much stuff these days, the National ID act and the SAVE ACT to name a few...we all need to be aware.

      https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?page=SplashP ...
    • Samsong, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Their.
  • Stryder81, on 06/14/2008, -43/+65This is going towards a war...
    • mikephimikephi, on 06/14/2008, -5/+21I don't think so. The U.S. will end with a whimper, not a bang. The seeds of States seceding from the Union are everywhere. Most notably in Vermont. With many states having economies larger than dozens of small countries, I think they will slowly become independent one by one, but the lower 48 will remain a single economic zone for mutual benefit.
      ...100 year timeframe perhaps?
      • noahhoward, on 06/14/2008, -6/+7How is ending sanely a whimper?
        • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3I think he just means undramatically.
      • userperson, on 06/14/2008, -3/+3That would be cool.
        But do you really think the Feds are going to go down without a 'fight'. I'm skeptical they'd use violence (again, unless it's the only way), but I think they'd find a way to coerce the state government. Aside of which this seems more like a stunt they'll never follow through on anyway. The OK officials have tyrannical wet dreams like all other politicians, of being President and pushing everybody around, I'm not so sure they're ready to let go of those yet.
        • Matt2k, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7"That would be cool" ?

          > Aside of which this seems more like a stunt they'll never follow through on anyway.

          They're asserting their sovereignty under the 10th amendment, not seceding from the country! Did you read it??
        • userperson, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, and if they U.S. denies their sovereignty?
          ... and after all options are exhausted?
          Besides which the parent thread as well as many others here are referring to succession.
          Assuming it would be non-violent, yeah it could be quite cool. More freedom less tax, if not in OK, perhaps another state?

        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1If the U.S. denies their sovereignty, that means we have to have one of two things happen.

          1) New Amendment.
          2) Constitution is declared outmoded.

          Either way, that would only make other states become MORE interested.
      • theone3, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3It will be a war with your creditors then.. you can't 'dissolve' the debts.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1You can default on them though...
        • bipolarruledout, on 06/15/2008, -1/+0When you owe the bank your in debt but when you ARE the bank then not so much...
        • theone3, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1You can default on debts, but governments can't. China and Japan are the bank.
      • PabloMac, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Take a look at what's happening in New Hampshire:

        http://freestateproject.org/
      • XSVFizz, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Nah, but we do have a bunch of guys with full-auto guns here if there is one!
        • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1And just guns in general. We are a very very armed people.
    • kurttrail, on 06/14/2008, -9/+18There already was one, and the State's Rightists lost.
      • lordmetroid, on 06/14/2008, -6/+7Who cares, that was different people living. That is all in the past.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2This time state rightists will have even worse weapons compared to the fed so they will lose even worse...
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Even worse weapons? Are you suggesting the federal government would actually use nukes?

          No one wants the end of the world, here, so no.

          Though it'd be interesting to suddenly see a "terrorist attack" on Oklahoma...
        • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1@AugustusOsari
          Thanks we already had one.
          I've been to the memorial a few times. They have stone chairs for each of the victims. The big chairs I can take but I cant look at the little chairs very long.. (They are for the babies and kids).

          Is that 'interesting' enough for you?
      • dinsy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3The Constitution has not changed.
    • Fafnir43, on 06/14/2008, -1/+26No. It really isn't. One of the main preconditions for a civil war of that nature is that the /people/ - not just the government - have to care deeply about the casus belli. Ron Paul's failed candidacy seems to indicate that not many people care about states' rights. (To be clear: I'm not trivialising it as an issue, it's just that you live in a country where the Constitution is being ripped up into tiny little pieces and most of the population doesn't care.) So if Oklahoma were to secede over this (which is about what it would take to provoke war), very few people would come to help and the war would be over in a day or two. Since the people in control of Oklahoma are presumably bright enough to know this, they won't try.

      What they will do (I'm guessing) is to get as much political activism going as possible, and mobilise a voting bloc - which could make the election a little more interesting.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Ron Paul lost because the media fought against him rather then simply presenting the news about him...

        If he was given a FAIR chance, then he might have won... and then lost to Obama... Seriously a republican can't win in this election... even if he is as different from republicRats in charge as Ron Paul...
        • ajwinder, on 06/15/2008, -6/+1Ron Paul lost because he's been in the capacity to change law and he hasn't. Now he wants the job description of executing the law of the land and he wants to change the balance of power back to the states (an action requiring legislation). I'm sorry, but the man cant even take a look at his own job descriptions. Give me a break, what he was offering was intriguing, but the office of the Presidency wasn't the office to create that change from. Nothing he promised would have ever been accomplished.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1You can't change law when you're a lone man in the House or Senate, you idiot.
      • soomprimal, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1People don't even know what "state's rights" means. I try to bring this issue up about the powers of the states and people just rail at me with: "BUT WE'RE THE *UNITED* STATES OF AMERICA!"

        Most people I talk to think that the federal gov't always has more power than a state on all issues.

        ARgh.
    • DangerCollie, on 06/14/2008, -9/+12War? You gotta be kidding. I'll go hold the door for them. We should be encouraging Alabama, Utah, and Mississippi to join them. Come on, rebel yell. Start your own damn country and show those liberal bleeding hearts how it's done.
      • sirgonzo420, on 06/15/2008, -2/+5Hear, Hear!
      • arkboysooner, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6They are doing this mostly to stop the Nafta superhighway from going through the state. Something Bush supports...
        • userperson, on 06/15/2008, -4/+6Is "Something Bush supports.." an argument?
          Just because Bush supports it, doesn't make it bad.
          I get sick of the shorthand Bush == Bad. While sure it's a good rule of thumb, to take it for a granted fact w/o additional reasoning is kinda short-sighted. Not everything he supports is 100% bad.
          Though you could've just been stating a fact *shrugs*
        • ajwinder, on 06/15/2008, -3/+1I think he worded it that way because there have been murmurs from the Office of the President that he wouldn't need legislation to start pushing this through, and so by saying Bush supports it, hes representing that he feels like the NAFTA superhighway is a dear and true threat.

          I personally dont see it as much of a threat, he could start laying the groundwork but a project of that size is going to take some serious, serious planning. They'd have to deal with all the zoning issues first, since you're slicing the country in half, you're dealing with the states and the fed on a variety of issues. Bush could lay some of the groundwork, but if Obama is elected you could be pretty sure it'd all get torn up and shredded away.
        • arkboysooner, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5"Is "Something Bush supports.." an argument?
          Just because Bush supports it, doesn't make it bad."

          Calm down and comprehend what I was really saying. The person above was comically suggesting Oklahoma did this to show up liberals. I responded by saying most of the reason for this move is because of the NAFTA superhighway which is supported by our consertative pres. I don't want to jump on you, but read more carefully next time.
        • bipolarruledout, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2When has bush supported anything that WASN'T bad?
        • userperson, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1@arkboysooner
          I was missing context.
          I was venting at the "Bush==Bad without reasoning" idea, not you.
        • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Not sure where you got that info or if you made it up. It makes sense though. I was thinking it might have to do with the Real ID and the Immigration Laws we have passed.
      • ErrorS, on 06/15/2008, -4/+1No! what will the US do without states like Utah and Alabama? I doubt people who live in small, dumb, poor liberal states.. you know, like California, Washington and New York would be able to take care of themselves. They wont be able to survive without Mississippi's tax dollars!!11

        hah, give me a break.. oklahoma wouldn't last a month if they weren't suckling off the teets of the blue states in this country.
      • greenw40, on 06/15/2008, -2/+0the US would be a lot better off without the south anyways, just a bunch of hicks
    • deadmann, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Only if they stop paying taxes. And if they are still paying their Federal taxes, who cares?
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/15/2008, -0/+8I hear the hum of the H.A.A.R.P machine warming up. Earthquake in Oklahoma anyone?
      • kuzotz, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1has already happened before back in 2003.
    • whywait, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1finally...
  • sirgonzo420, on 06/14/2008, -46/+294Do you all smell that? ......
    ........
    ..... I smell Revolution.... :)

    and you still need to check out campaignforliberty.com
    • vault, on 06/14/2008, -39/+12smells more like ***** than a revolution
      • fasda, on 06/14/2008, -15/+1It is from OK everyone knows what 2 things come from there.
        • bphicke, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6I think you need to watch Full Metal Jacket again.
        • 180andback, on 06/14/2008, -1/+9Two things?

          1) My Mother
          2) Go ***** Yourself
        • stevealford, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2According to the signs on I-40: Troy Aikman and a ***** of wind.
    • DesignNerd, on 06/14/2008, -12/+10Bacon?
    • Herkimer56, on 06/14/2008, -25/+25Smells more like a meaningless gesture from a few cracker politicians.
      • xtinamo, on 06/14/2008, -4/+12On a serious note though, we need to start a REAL Revolution. I'm talking gas riots, storming some jail and freeing everyone, maybe a mass naked parade or two.. like ***** doin' some real radical *****.
        • Daggity, on 06/15/2008, -2/+7Freeing /everyone/? I know there's plenty that shouldn't be there, but still.
        • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6The mass naked parade is an annual event here in NY though not everyone has the courage to bare all. Some dress up like Indians, policemen, and the more creative participants deck themselves out in a hodgepodge of blue-collar worker outfits. The guy selling hotdogs was one such example. He wore a construction hat, firefighter boots, thong underwear and ass-less chaps. I didn't buy any hotdogs from him.
        • Herkimer56, on 06/15/2008, -3/+5Another internet tough guy heard from. Did you get permission from your mommy and daddy yet to start a revolution? Pathetic.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1You know there actually ARE riots and revolutions, don't you? It's not like everyone in the world is incapable of acting on what they feel.
      • ophello, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Right. OR the only newsworthy item to cross your eyes in years.

        Maybe you should think about what this means instead of brushing it off. Oh. I forgot. You prefer to live in a fantasy world where you believe what you want, and nothing ever changes. Got it.
    • shieldsikebana, on 06/14/2008, -24/+12smells like ron paul sucks.
    • JoeVet, on 06/14/2008, -10/+8Take a shower and that smell will go away.
    • nixon956, on 06/15/2008, -5/+4really? cmon nothing is actually going to happen from this, nothing ever happens in this country
    • Dbeneath, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4what the rock is cookin'?
    • pantone286, on 06/15/2008, -3/+2Revolution? I think you got your historic american wars a little mixed up there. It is civil war that this kind of action risks. And believe me there was nothing glorious or noble about the first one we had. It was the most bloody and senseless loss of american life in our history.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1It wasn't really senseless at all, actually. Though it was unnecessarily bloody, but that's a requirement for anything to be called a war.
      • iamjboyd, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1the fact that OK has to do this, and yes they should have, is a reflection on the state of our country. We had the Revolution for a reason, do you wish to see that blood wasted?
    • shawnanigans, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4They changed it's name to Wii.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/14/2008, -16/+91I smell a confiscation of all corporate and private assets, then maybe some guillotine executions for good measure.
    • mahsah, on 06/14/2008, -9/+5Glorious Communist Revolution of Oklahoma?
      • migshark, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1Negatory my good chum, that spells M A R T Y R D O M. And today through the Square Window...

        Edit: meant in reply to fangs
      • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3If you are are alluding to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 you are wrong in your example. The Glorious Revolution was also known as the Bloodless Revolution. Guillotine executions are bloody by nature.
        I'll let you do the math.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
        • mahsah, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Actually I just picked a random idealistic adjective.
    • thunderclap, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3"I smell a confiscation of all corporate and private assets, then maybe some guillotine executions for good measure." Considering the amount of celebs that use Oklahoma to hide from Hollywood, if someone dies suddenly there you go.
    • userperson, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7Oklahoma, ... not the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia.
    • garrettsdiggs, on 06/15/2008, -0/+6corporate assets are private assets.. redundancy is redundant
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2guillotine? http://www.threadless.com/product/1120/Making_Work ...
  • elvenrunelord, on 06/14/2008, -30/+24Well somebody got some balls. but this is like....to obvious. I have to wonder who is backing this move toward state fiefdoms and who would benefit by breaking the USA in to little kingdoms. Remember the old saying of Divide and Conquer? Lets be careful in what we support. In theory I support states right, i have to wonder though.....Why now? What is driving all this? I mean the federal government has been consolidation for 200 years and we think now is the time to stand up and say no? Bubba its not going to happen.
    • lazerus9, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18That is how they brought down the Soviet Union.
    • citcokid, on 06/14/2008, -6/+30This is part of the Ron Paul revolution in action. Reclaiming our rights that have been slowly eroded over the last 100 years or so and more specifically over the last 7 years under Bush. If you read the House Joint Resolution 1089 it states in part "THAT this serve 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.
      • Ajajadude, on 06/14/2008, -21/+5Ron Paul wants to break up the country? I knew I never liked that *****.
    • shadoweva09, on 06/14/2008, -3/+7The EU seems to be doing quite well and it is split up into "little kingdoms". Technically each state already has it's own constitution and is already it's own "little kingdom" as you call it.

      Driving forcess: Bush, economy, exponential military spending, and an economic system that forces our poor into military service. Impeachment only done as political move, etc... Bush, lobbyists, and the politicians themselves have pushed the system and the nations trust to breaking point.
      • senatorpjt, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Interestingly enough they were just trying to do the same thing in the EU with the Lisbon treaty but it fell apart because Ireland wasn't having any of that.
    • aguy90, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8not quite 200 years. just a little over 100. the federal government didn't consolidate power over the states until after the civil war.
    • Tuscanspeed, on 06/14/2008, -1/+12"I have to wonder who is backing this move toward state fiefdoms and who would benefit by breaking the USA in to little kingdoms. Remember the old saying of Divide and Conquer? Lets be careful in what we support. In theory I support states right, i have to wonder though.....Why now? What is driving all this?"

      You should be backing this. Everyone should be backing this. It's the consolidation of Federal power that threatens to destroy everything all of our ancestors fought to the death to create. There are only 2 words that describe a single person that can declare anything he wishes and everyone has to follow.

      Dictator
      King

      The US has neither. WE give the government (state and fed) all of their power. They have no right, nor any ability to take this away. Ideologically of course.
      • fyngyrz, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Oh, I think there are more words.

        Despot. Tyrant. Autocrat.

        You get the idea.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3What about:
        Czar
        Emperor
        (not for a few hundred years now but still)Pope
    • stealthc, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Advantage of breaking the USA into "little kingdoms" : One tyrant can't ***** us *all* over.
  • MrHairy2005, on 06/14/2008, -64/+8I support states rights on social issues, but federal rights on everything else. A house divided against itself cannot stand!
    • rex84, on 06/14/2008, -3/+29So you are against the US Constitution then.
    • kuantan97, on 06/14/2008, -2/+16You're assuming that the house standing is a good thing.
    • lotsa1s, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1What if the house is used to rape little children?
    • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1Planet Earth has not yet collapsed.

      Take your One World Government propaganda somewhere else.
  • Heysal, on 06/14/2008, -6/+441Sovereignty of a state isn't the same as succeeding from the union of the US - it is just telling the federal government that they can't just take over - they have a purpose and limits and they are bound to those and can't just walk in and take over anything and everything they feel like - such as enforcing the Real ID's or the North American Union. If all states did this, the federal government would still be there - just limited as intended.
    • citcokid, on 06/14/2008, -4/+123I live in Oklahoma and I, for one, am proud of the way that our state has stood up against the oppressive misuse of power by the federal government. We have resisted the Real ID act, the NAFTA Superhighway and now declaring what is our states right under the constitution. Go OK.
      • sylvok, on 06/14/2008, -4/+17Oklahoma does kinda get looked down by most of the US though. Not to be rude but it would take a bigger state like Texas, California, or New York.
        • freebsdmike, on 06/15/2008, -3/+28Not really. Movements have to start some place. Maybe Oklahoma will give another state the balls to say well if they're doing it then we can do it too and then a chain reaction occurs. It probably won't, but it's nice to dream.
        • Troy64, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6"Your doing fine Oklahoma, Oklahoma O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A, Oklahoma OK."

          Rogers and Hammerstein
      • crapmatic, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4a state "succeeding"?
    • mooseofshadows, on 06/14/2008, -14/+9"succeeding from the union of the US"

      spelling is important here.
      • takua108, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Why is this getting dugg down? Does nobody know how to spell "seceding"?
    • gak001, on 06/14/2008, -3/+25Yeah, so far no one has succeeded in seceding. See: United States Civil War.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Might have to do with the taking of Ft. Sumter. What would have happened if the south had waited for the north to attack? Might have been a whole lot different if Lincoln had started the War of Northern Aggression.
    • kuantan97, on 06/14/2008, -1/+10If an entity is sovereign then, by definition, it can secede.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Well, it was actually perfectly within the abilities of the states to secede. The Republicans just happened to think that giving Lincoln dictatorial power was a great idea and went with it.
        • kuantan97, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Agreed. Not to quibble, though, but it was not within the abilities of the states, since they were prevented from doing so by an invading army. It was, however, clearly within their powers as disclosed in the 10th Amendment.
    • Stroggoth, on 06/14/2008, -2/+14You are quite right, most folks commenting here have no idea what the language means. They are just reaffirming the power statement of the federal gov't, this is isn't a succession from the union. They need to teach the Constitution better in schools these days, people are really misinformed.
    • j1ggy, on 06/15/2008, -7/+2Heh. Imagine Oklahoma as a sovereign nation smack dab in the middle of the big ol' USA. I'm sure its citizens will do perfectly fine despite the Cuban style embargo, closed up borders, no air travel and the 24/7 all-American propaganda station. Fine until the WMD raids and airstrikes.
      • pantone286, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Isn't that a family guy episode that you are expounding on?
      • cobalt8888, on 06/15/2008, -3/+2I was going to make the comment that I bet we have more oil than your state, but you live in Canada. Thus, your comments are unimportant in this conversation.
    • azbmr, on 06/15/2008, -0/+12Another great example of this is that up here in New Hampshire, I can drive without my seat belt because I'm over 18. Even though there is a federal program ("Click it or ticket"), here in NH we don't give a *****.
      • Professr, on 06/15/2008, -1/+5I just need you to put this one little line in your will:

        "I hereby state that my posthumous Darwin Award is to be claimed by Professr from the internets on my behalf."
        • lotsa1s, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Just cause he's proud of his right to be an idiot doesn't mean he actively partakes in doing so.
        • azbmr, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Yea, didn't say I don't wear my seat belt. I just said that I'm not charged a fine if I don't. Personal freedoms are paramount: Live Free or Die!
      • anonymousleaf, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5Agreed, NH congressman and senators are like "lol ***** real id"
      • Sverre, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4"I am against mandatory seat belts. Enforcing intelligence seems undemocratic."
    • pantone286, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Be sure they tell stormin' norman that when he comes out of retirement and shows up in their back yard with the 2nd ID.
  • BrapAllgood, on 06/14/2008, -16/+187This is so badass.
  • CoolHandLuke70, on 06/14/2008, -25/+154It would be great if we could get all the states to secede and then go in and dissolve/take over D.C. and jail the D.C. traitors and start fresh with close reference to the U.S. Constitution!
    • sylvok, on 06/14/2008, -3/+23I live right next to D.C. Trust me, no one wants to over through these idiots more then DC. For us in this area our local news is national news and we have to deal with Bush and Co. all the time. We don't like having people who have no idea whats going on in the world decide how things are run in our area (We know its national, but it is our backyard) DC has 9 out of 10 people who are democrats living in it, why do you think giving them voting rights in the senate and house has been so fought against.

      Long story short, we have no representation. DC merely has an "adviser" they have no vote and can only give advice. To top it off we then have to deal with the fact that a bunch of traitors are living right near us, and are causing the country to hate our city, not to mention the rest of the world.
      • vpshockwave, on 06/14/2008, -13/+7Easily solved. Move!
        • wellyuk, on 06/15/2008, -1/+10Yeah, because moving is easy. He would only need to find a new job, new place to live and everything else that moving entails.

          Wind your neck in. Not everyone still lives with their parents like yourself.
        • xxpor, on 06/15/2008, -4/+2he wouldnt have to find a new job, just move to md. or va. not that far.
        • vpshockwave, on 06/15/2008, -3/+1Oh, I guess I just think that way because my job is easily transferable and I have very little to move.

          Oh, ***** off by the way.
        • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2@wellyuk
          Yeah thats so hard to do that nobody ever does it. Moving companies will go out of business soon.
      • silveravnt, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1So move if you care that much... oh you dont.
    • colincornaby, on 06/14/2008, -3/+21Why is it that you assume the politicians running the states will be less corrupt than the federal politicians?

      There's no one magic bullet to fixing this country.
      • Neiby, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9Which is why a balance of power is essential. You gain balance through competing interests. If the balance swings too far to one side, that side gets to make all the rules at the expense of the others.
        • colincornaby, on 06/14/2008, -7/+2So you're preserving the balance of power by eliminating the feds? That makes a lot of sense...
        • sirgonzo420, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Look at what the Feds have done.... Res ipsa loquitur
      • wm2010russ, on 06/14/2008, -3/+16they may not be less corrupt, but it will be much easier to expose local politicians and get them out of office than it will to expose national-level politicians who take money from vastly deep-pocketed organizations from around the world.
        • drh8, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3You mean like in Chicago in the early 1900's? It was real easy to get rid of their problems. It's not like any of those mob families still run things.
      • willster580, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Killing vampires on the other hand...
      • kuzotz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1living in oklahoma I have to agree with colin. WE had a huge scandal when a few politicians were using the highway funding from the tolls from OKC to tulsa for their own pockets instead of upkeep of the highway.
    • JasonCox, on 06/14/2008, -5/+4You remember what happened last time a few states seceded, right? And the states had way more rights back then than they do now.
    • subterfuge, on 06/14/2008, -1/+10or we could just have all the states secede and DC would collapse all by itself. DC spends way more money than it collects in taxes, so it would just implode after about a month. i guess it's fitting that the region that houses the federal government is literally a leech on the american people.
    • philodygmn, on 06/14/2008, -7/+7The principles of habeas corpus and others are beyond the Constitution's scope and much more important. The Declaration of Independence hamstrings the Constitution by referencing an external source of rights, a "god" or "Providence", a "Creator", and forever will remain in its shadow as a result, no matter what _isn't_ in the Constitution itself. I think we should start over entirely, with the principles of law proven to work, and finally ditch religion forever, and establish that we ourselves are worthy of liberty, equality, dignity, autonomy, and independence. The state is a framework for collective decision-making, not member loyalty.

      I'm curious people's (informed!) opinion of Mike Gravel's National Initiative to empower the people as lawmakers:

      http://www.gravel2008.us/national_initiative
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Initiative
      • jazzguitar18, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3I really like Mike Gravels power to the people idea, starting over and ditching religion would never happen in this country and I believe that if some of us can be happy under Clinton then we have a real shot of repairing this country with Obama.
      • TrnsltLife, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2The Declaration of Independence empowers the Constitution, not hamstrings it. It puts the basis for human rights in an external authority that no majority of humanity, no human might, can overturn. The idea is that these rights are inherent to all human beings, not based on a majority vote or the granting of a ruler. Take away the idea of a self-evident, self-existent truth, and enjoy the fruits of an atheist "power-of-the-people" government a la China or the USSR.
  • JATCA69, on 06/14/2008, -21/+107It's just a resolution...it hasn't been approved, it has only been approved to be introduced to the house. It will never pass and if it did the Federal Government would not allow it. As the bill clearly states the Federal Government no longer acts as an agent of the states, more over the states have become agents of the Federal Government. So, just because this gives them the constitutional right to claim sovereignty doesn't mean it would be allowed. We as Americans no longer have rights we have privileges which are striped at the Federal Governments discretion. We gave up our rights when we allowed the "Patriot Act" to pass. 9/11 was the precipice for the end of our country as we knew it...only 9/11 truth can bring about a meaningful resistance to the current power structure. The most patriotic thing you can do is to bring about a social consciousness of truth. I appreciate the idea of dissent, but not to the detriment of our country. There is valor in this effort and I applaud the ideals but the answer is not in claiming sovereignty , the answer is in unity.
    • Tangaroa, on 06/14/2008, -0/+14Following the links from the article, it passed the State House 92-3 in March. Can't tell if it hit the Senate or if the Governor signed it or not.
      http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?incl ...

      It's still true that the feds won't allow it.
      • DarkYang, on 06/14/2008, -0/+16If you go to the OK senate page and search for the bill, you will find that it was read twice in the Senate at the end of March and referred to the rules committee. After that, nothing has been done with it.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12Committee is the silent death of uncomfortable bills.
      • Hangly, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2What legal justification would the federal government have for disallowing it? Interstate Commerce Clause again?
    • MetaMars, on 06/14/2008, -21/+21You lost me when you started spewing 9/11 truther *****.
      • barag, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3well thats the same creamy ***** of the official story. The truth of 9/11 doesn't have to involved our government staging the whole thing as an elaborate ruse, as there can be many angles and sides we couldn't even begin to form wild accusations on, but to believe the media and government's defacto story? i think its shame on you by now.
      • jsebrech, on 06/15/2008, -0/+6What does it tell about america when it's a country where someone gets dissed because they want to find out and proclaim the final truth about something?

        The final truth about 9/11 is that the government abused it as an excuse to strip away rights. The threat never was enough of a justification for what happened after. This is a "9/11 truth" that must be accepted throughout the US, or things will not improve.
        • MetaMars, on 06/15/2008, -3/+1Well, no *****. Imagine that. A government using an event to promote an agenda.

          My problem is with the type of people who interrupted Bill Maher's show a while back. The ones that yell and scream bloody murder that it was an inside job; there are things that are worth being considerably angrier about and are completely true in nature.

          There are final truths in the pursuit of the motivations of the actions that our government has undertaken, yes.

          We did not crash two goddamn jetliners into the sides of two of the most prominent buildings in the United States. Get over it, you paranoid *****.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/14/2008, -0/+11What do you mean the feds "won't allow it." Legally OK is justified and there is, in fact, very little the feds could do to stop them. That is assuming they are serious and will be rejecting federal monies as a part of this resolution which I highly doubt.
      • pizpot, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3cia will jump into action, you won't know, very sneaky
    • S4MF1SHER, on 06/15/2008, -4/+3"There is valor in this effort and I applaud the ideals but the answer is not in claiming sovereignty , the answer is in unity."

      Thank you! I see everyone jumping on the "Screw the Federal Govn'ment!" bandwagon, and they don't realize that if each state were to go on its own, this country would fall apart. Unity is what we need to achieve the common goal of a country where the people are heard and the goals of one party or person do not supersede the overall pursuit of life, liberty, and the right to be free from the tyranny of evil men.
      • thirteenthcor, on 06/15/2008, -0/+6What's wrong with "falling apart"? The Fed is supposed to exist as an arbitrator for the states, and as such can only exercise powers given to it by the states and constitution. as such, it is OUR duty to terminate the federal government and start anew when it steps over its legal boundaries, like its done for the last 100 years.


        Anarcho-Capitalist, Egalitarian Libertarian says: "have a good day!"

      • barag, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1unity is a goal, a utopian ideal; and like all utopian ideals, dont count on it. If the people of this country had the will, it would have happened already. We are a nation in constant dichotomy. Black and white, democrats and republicans, rich and poor, good and bad, American or immigrant, us or them. We are divided at every level. I believe it can be referred to as the hegelian dialectic (but i may be wrong). Unity can only happen once we shed these chain like classifications, but ***** that, Survivor is on tonight. As it stands now, and has through the bulk of civilization, direct action, is the only action.
    • Heysal, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5The Feds don't have anything to say about it - it's not something that they can vote on - it's the state that votes to do it. The fed can put them through corporate hell for it - but as I said - they did not succeed from then Union - they claimed sovereignty and if you don't understand the difference you need to do some studying. How the hell can we hold a peaceful revolution if you have no clue of the actions that are being taken and why they are being taken? No wonder we have con-men in power.
    • cornfeed, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Jeeze, don't you people learn from history? Sovereignty along with States Rights went out the door with the Civil War. The Patriot Act is meant to finish the job for individual rights.
      • TonyLocNE, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3"I prefer liberty with danger rather than peace with slavery” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    • lotsa1s, on 06/15/2008, -4/+1Buried for being a truther. I really wanted to digg you up, dude, but then you had to go and talk like a retard.
    • andrewbb1, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Good post, right up until the "unity" part. The reason for 50 sovereign states is NON-unity. The Constitution was explicitly designed that way because the framers understood that unity kills freedom. With 50 sovereign states, you're free to vote with your feet. That's no longer possible. The Feds have their hooks in you where ever you go.

      It is the "unity" arguments that got us into this mess.

      I'd like to see the Republic of Texas the first to secede from the US crime syndicate.
    • jamiebenzy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yes...you summed it up very eloquently. This will never be covered by the corporate controlled media because it would introduce a sour note into their muzak of lies. Bringing this country to a corporate facist dictatorship by stealth has been the great work of over a hundred years in the making and we are witnessing the first visible fruits of this evil.
      The great work of this country has in actuality, been only the building of a great scalfolding. As the global corporate states are being built, they will be obscured somewhat by this great scalfolding. Once they near completion the scalfolding is deliberately taken down in a controlled demolition by the cutter charges of economic collapse, false flag terrorism, the evisceration of rights, the conditioning of the proletariat, and strengthing of the police state.
      At last the hideous monolithic monstrosity comes into view. However by the time its discerned by the dumbed down masses, perpetuating their own ignorance and stupidity by each his or her own parasitic ego, it will be too late.
      Then the pundits and tastemakers, the media bullies and the intellectual gatekeepers will begin to sing a different tune. They will insist its the same tune they've always been singing and that nothing has changed.
      Any who dare voice a contrary opinion will be reminded then that these communications are all one way only.
      Welcome to our future.
  • sphira, on 06/14/2008, -3/+76"it's just a resolution...it hasn't been approved, it has only been approved to be introduced to the house. It will never pass and if it did the Federal Government would not allow it."

    Sadly, JATCA69
    You are too right-

    "We as Americans no longer have rights we have privileges which are striped at the Federal Governments discretion."

    I think "we rent or lease privileges" --

    Off topic
    I like this one posted in the forum

    ""1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms released its official position on potato cannons." When our government has nothing better to do than formulate an official policy on spud guns, it's time for the revolution."

    I bet tennis ball cannons too --
    • insomniac8400, on 06/14/2008, -0/+19The beauty is that it doesn't need to pass to be enforced. All this does is declare what is already true. Any person has the right to uphold the constitution and the state has the right to tell the federal government no if they are doing something they aren't allowed to do. Say spy on the citizens of the state without a warrant.
      • Stroggoth, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7Exactly, these is a reiteration of existing powers.
    • rhabd0mancer, on 06/14/2008, -7/+8Those things are dangerous! Many rednecks get injured or die from potato cannon explosions!
      • winmywii, on 06/14/2008, -3/+2I've never had one blow up.
      • thirstyg, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I launched one last night.
        We even used some avocados. Mean Green!
    • chromevinyl, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3what's next, T-shirt cannons? noooooooooo
  • lazerus9, on 06/14/2008, -3/+164Rights are never granted! They are either "usurped" or "defended"!
    • DavidtheDuke, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7Yep, and on the flipside,there is no perfect government except the noble will and dutiful vigilance to enforce that will.
    • USNavyBlue, on 06/15/2008, -3/+11lazerus9: So true - it amazes me that Americans are unaware of the point in history that "state rights" were usurped! The fools still think the "civil war" was noble and fought to free slaves. That could not be the farthest thing from the truth! Furthermore the south never "officially surrendered" and there is a reason for that. The tyranny of the FEDs is what has come to fruitation over the course of approx. 145 years. NAFTA, Usury fees, hate speech and hate crime laws, over taxed to death, the illegal alien invasion, a collapsing economy, Orwellian laws etc................ This is a DIRECT result of the so called "civil war"

      However, most people don't know that Vermont, Tennessee, and South Carolina are already on the bandwagon to officially "secede" from the Union. Now Oklahoma has joined in.

      The state of Hawaii has already declared itself an independent nation on November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty.

      The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact. So, this means that Obama is NOT eligible for President because of the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


      • Yarmin3, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Don't forget Cascadia! If you can enter the union you can leave it too.
  • mejaredme, on 06/14/2008, -5/+54We will fight for our rights. It's that simple.
    • Smigge87, on 06/14/2008, -1/+29Especially our right to party...
    • Yage2006, on 06/14/2008, -3/+17Really when ?
      Cause you don't have many left.
      • KingWilson, on 06/14/2008, -13/+3I have plenty.....here in america, Im doing quite alright and have never felt better
        • whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -1/+11Then you're not paying attention.
    • jasonh1234, on 06/15/2008, -4/+2You DO realize that would mean going up against Humvees and Abrahms with American Soldiers in them who would be blasting your F-150 with mounted MK-19s for taking pot shots at them with your hunting rifle while a supporting Apache films it all for YouTube?

      Don't worry I'll digg the video up in a show of my support for you though.
      • kuzotz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1yea I'm moving to dallas because OKC is gonna have a grim future :(
    • BobNoxious211, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Jasonh1234 is right. The Second Amendment exists so that when the time comes for revolution, The People would be able to set things right. However, the weapons that the government lets us have would stand no chance against rockets, tanks, and napalm.

      The only chance we have is to have a bloodless coup like Russia had a few years ago.
  • mikephimikephi, on 06/14/2008, -1/+80Correct me if i'm wrong, but this resolution seems to reinstate and reaffirm the powers of the state.
    Whilst at the same time, serving notice to the Federal Government that it has acted beyond its authority in many cases (such as Real I.D) and in such cases, the Acts will no longer be the law of the land in Oklahoma.
    • Neiby, on 06/14/2008, -2/+11And if I remember correctly, the highest law of any particular county is the Sheriff. The County Sheriffs of Oklahoma would just have to band together to throw out any Federal law enforcement that attempts to enforce those laws that have been declared invalid.
    • bezshai, on 06/14/2008, -1/+13I live in California right now, but lived the first 23 years of my life in Oklahoma. I have never been prouder to be an Oklahoman than as I read this resolution. I really hope it passes. Also, I can't wait to see CA, TX, NY, etc take up resolutions like this. It is time to take back rights of the states that have been usurped slowly over the past 150 years. Also, to all the people who are likening this to seceding from the Union, this has nothing to do with that. This is simply the state taking back what is legally its.
      • imdandman, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, I believe this issue is dead. I searched the www.oksenate.gov website and couldn't find any record of it being passed. It seems to have been introduced here (http://main.google.nicusa.com/search?q=cache:IGaT2 ... but I can't find any record of it ever being passed or voted on in the senate. Furthermore, if you search the governor's website and visit the bill tracker (http://www.ok.gov/governor/billtrack/index.php?cle ... it doesn't show up there either, which leads me to believe he never got it.

        Also, if this hasn't been passed by now, it's dead because the legislative session is out until January.

        There may be something funky in the rules about HJRs and their passage but I'm not familiar.
    • jamesmon01, on 06/14/2008, -3/+10Im so proud!!! Are true republican values making a comeback!?!? I could give a S**T about abortion or flag pins or the ten commandments in every courthouse, but I love hearing states take back their power over the federal government!
      • Stroggoth, on 06/15/2008, -8/+3Sorry, how are republican values the states owning their own power? Republican by definition means you support the unified REPUBLIC government, not individual state powers.
        • jamesmon01, on 06/15/2008, -2/+0wrong...sorry
        • drh8, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Excellent comeback...
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Furthermore, the Republicans are actually the ones who originally crushed the states.
    • koft, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1Buried for using "whilst".
  • whataboutdave, on 06/14/2008, -44/+3I'm all for state's right but this is just outright silly.
    • Pyehole, on 06/14/2008, -1/+12How can you be for states rights if you are not willing to take a stand on them?
    • drakethegreat, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6I think you are silly
  • fasda, on 06/14/2008, -23/+29OK I have a question to all the people who have said that freedom has been eroded in the last 100 years first list freedoms people had 100 years ago that they do not have today.
    (oh just as a minor point your first amendment rights have actually expanded since applying the bill of rights onto the states via the 14th amendment, Miranda expanded the rights of the accused, Political parties have almost no power (in comparison too 100 years ago with the party machines), 18 years old can vote, women can vote, racial discrimination is illegal, no poll taxes, just to name a few)
    • Tangaroa, on 06/14/2008, -0/+24The 10th amendment regards freedom of the states from federal interference, not personal freedoms. For an obvious example, see traffic laws. The federal government controls many of them despite it being a local matter.

      The feds only have the legal powers allowed under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anything beyond that is just as unconstitutional as promoting a state religion or taking away habeas corpus.
      • whatever01, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1I thought the administration said the Constitution doesn't guarantee Habeas Corpus. It says when the government can take it away, but not that it exists. Oh, wait..
      • Tangaroa, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Correcting myself: the 10th amendment regards both freedom of the states and personal freedoms.
      • daggah, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1Tangaroa, you make it sound as if it's so obvious, that the federal government only has a very short list of things it's allowed to do. If that were the case, then the history of law in this country would reflect that precedent, right from the very first session of Congress. What you fail to understand is that Article I, Section 8 actually grants quite a bit of power to the federal government, and it's all in the very first paragraph.

        Oklahoma lawmakers also need to have another look at Article VI.
      • QaSpel, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Traffic laws are an interesting point. You are right that the Federal Government does not have direct control of any traffic laws. All traffic laws are written by the state. But the federal government does have the "power of the purse". The way federal traffic laws are written, the state needs to set their laws according to federal mandates, or risk losing federal funding for road projects. The states could go against the federal government, but they lose all that tax money they need to keep their roads in good condition. So how is the federal government breaking the constitution?
        • drh8, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Thanks for being one of the few people able to understand that fairly obvious (or not apparently) concept. The government can only withhold money. It can't reprimand the states any other way if they don't obey. Hence why some states have speed limits of 75 or 80 miles an hour.
    • RCourtney, on 06/14/2008, -2/+35The fed gov now tells states and individuals what they can and cannot put into their own bodies (prescription and recreational drugs, food, medical treatments, etc). Not what we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T but what we CAN and CANNOT. Personal choice removed despite the fact that what I put into my body affects me and me alone..

      Another example is environmental protections. My state, California, recently wanted to enforce stricter rules on emissions than the fed gov does. However, we have been blocked from doing so by the fed gov. If we choose, as a state and people, to require people to drive more fuel-efficient cars IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (because the resulting pollution directly affects not just ourselves but everyone else as well) we should have no problem doing that. But the government has usurped that 'right".
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332983/

      In another example, many states and even some of the meatpacking industry, wanted to test ALL cows going to slaughter for mad cow disease, but the fed gov has said they cannot. Yep, the feds tell us what we can put into our bodies but also tell us they refuse to allow complete testing of these things we put into our bodies... wait, what?!
      http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/29/america/ ...

      I'm sure others can come up with other examples - those are just a few that fly off the top of my head but I think they clearly illustrate the usurping of rights and freedoms from the individual and state levels.
      • pizpot, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2cops argue that pot ruins families, but forget that it is the legal bills and loss of employment that do it, after the narcs are done.
      • fenderbiz, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3I would agree with you about the drug issue before I started working in the medical field. It wouldn't be a problem if people used drugs responsibly (yes it's possible). Drug overdoses and tobacco smoking especially, have flooded hospitals, wasting time, space, and money on irresponsible drug users. It's a difficult choice to make when deciding whether to take peoples' freedom of drugs away or to make them illegal, hoping to keep more people out of the hospital and reserve it for people with real illnesses.
        On the other hand, I have argued in the past that if people really want to drug themselves, they will get it whether it is illegal or not. I'd like to hear a response, because I'm actually not 100% sure with what I agree with. I usually go by statistical facts, so I would need to see some statistics to make a conclusion.
    • shadoweva09, on 06/14/2008, -3/+15Bush McCain wanting to hold prisoners without trial forever? Freedom from tyrants with so many scandals that the names of them alone can't fit on a 75 foot scroll? Patriot Act?

      A quote of the declaration of independence seems to be in order, the keywords are "consent" and "destructive." Bush does not have our consent, and it seems he may have never actually won any election, and he has become destructive. (of course well never know about any election fraud unless Obama wins and investigates everything Bush did as promised.)

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
    • spritom, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6The US Congress passes laws, then assigns money to the law in order to carry it out...that's how it gets administrated from that level.

      Now take the 100 years thing and look at what the feds spent their money on compared to today. Then itemize which of those thing are spelled out in the Constitution that the feds are allowed to do. Things such as social security, medicare, dept. of education, and quite a few others.

      In 1908, the Feds spent about 7.5% of the GDP. Today, it's close to 35% and scheduled to rise about 1% per year in the near term.

      http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1908_0.h ...
    • jgtg32a, on 06/15/2008, -2/+14Miranda didn't expand rights, it made sure that a person who is being arrested is aware of their rights.
      • drh8, on 06/15/2008, -0/+8And that is a right. You are given the right to be told your rights. If this right is not granted in a fair amount of time the case against you is in trouble.
        • jgtg32a, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3I guess it can be seen that way.

          The right to be aware of what your rights are.

          I blame the schools.
    • rolf, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6"OK I have a question to all the people who have said that freedom has been eroded in the last 100 years first list freedoms people had 100 years ago that they do not have today.
      (oh just as a minor point your first amendment rights have actually expanded since applying the bill of rights onto the states via the 14th amendment,"

      14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, so it was in effect already for 40 years 100 years ago (1908).

      "Miranda expanded the rights of the accused,"

      The Miranda warning did not expand your rights, it made you aware of them. Which is a good thing, since it reminds the cops as well.

      "Political parties have almost no power (in comparison too 100 years ago with the party machines),"

      *cough* *cough* ***** *cough* *cough*

      "18 years old can vote,"

      That is because the age of Majority at the time was 25. Even 20 year old baseball players at the time had to have a legal guardian -- and 25 doesn't seem like a truly bad age -- scientists have discovered the part of the brain that uses caution/judgement does not mature until 25.

      As it is, at 18 you get to vote, sign up to die for your country, but not to drink. Every era makes its own rules and it doesn't seem this one is any less lopsided.

      "women can vote,"

      Too true. But it was coming about by then and was implemented in several states:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage#Un ...

      "racial discrimination is illegal,"

      Illegal, but plenty of that still going around. Hell, affirmative action is a form of it if you want to argue (it does not make judgement colorblind, so to speak). Overall, the federal government has admirably reformed itself throughout the years (with the military being the most progressive) although its legitimate, Constitutional role in private enterprise is arguable. In private lives, you shouldn't mandate thoughtcrime no matter how honorable the end goal.

      "no poll taxes,"

      Yup. True that. Now for Freedoms Lost:

      In 1913, the 16th amendment passed paving the way for income taxes. No matter what there rate (reaching as high as 90% in some years), taxes on your wages is oppressive. Ever do your own taxes? If you can't keep the fruits of your labor, are you truly free? (Excise taxes make 60% of the government's income, it could easily subsist without income tax).

      In the 1970s, Fisa Courts were established to seek out spies. With the Patriot Act, it expanded those powers beyond what they ever should be. Warrantless searching, you have lost your 4th amendment rights. In addition, the FBI can selfwrite a searchwarrant (no disinterested 3rd party involved), search documents pertaining to you at any financial institution (expanded to mean Post Office, Lawyer's office, doctor's office, etcetera). You don't even have Client-Lawyer, Client-Doctor confidentiality anymore.

      The recent Military Commissions Act lets the president declare anybody, ANYBODY, an unlawful combatant and have you shipped to where they say the constitution doesn't apply.

      Need I go on? Basically the President today can act as King -- exactly what the forefathers didn't want. Watch all 4 parts of this speech to appreciate what we have been losing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8&feature ...
    • synarchy, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6Let's see, there's...

      the right to not have my wages confiscated and to have to report the details of my personal financial life to the government every April 15th
      the right to honest money instead of the imposition of federal reserve notes
      there was that little law passed in the 30s in which it was made illegal to own gold
      military conscription in the 20th century
      the right to travel anyplace I like, like Cuba
      the right to not have my property seized without due process of law
      the right to privacy in my financial transactions without them being reported to the government
      the right to know that my personal electronic communications are private unless exposed after due process of law


      I suppose that's enough, since I don't expect you to care since you could not come up with these yourself.
    • stealthc, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3100 years ago you could actually own your own land without paying rent to the St