This is awesome! My state (nh) has a sovierngty bill in the pipeline now!!
By xfahctor
@xfahctor (14113)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
February 25, 2009 4:18pm CST
I just found this and it restores my hope that we may yet still be the state known for "Live free or die". joining a long list (20) states that have taken a measure of one form or another to reassert their independence under the 10th amendment to the constuitution, a bill was introduced in the state legislature, with laguage stronger than many others and this guy is dead serious about the consiquences. We're apparently through fooling around. Everyone should read this, it is very signifigant and has ramifications that go further than just my own state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I36vH_uTbic&feature=related
Here's an small exerpt from this lengthy bill, to give you an idea of how serious this is.
[i]
.....That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
[/i]
2 people like this
6 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
26 Feb 09
My state is working on it. We are hoping it comes up for a vote real soon. It is currently under review in a sub-com.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
26 Feb 09
Just a quick FYI - even though almost half of the states are working on sovereignty bills - NO state has actually passed one yet. Several are close though.
http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=849
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Feb 09
My understanding is that there are states that have some version of this already passed, Maine and Colorado to name a couple, I know the guy who helped get colorado's passed from another forum in fact. Colorado passed theirs on April 21, 1994. In fact, it is my understanding that nearly a dozen states do in one form or another.
Either way, it is high time and though they vary in purpose, from unfunded mandates to out right constitutinal usurption, the general root of the bill is the preservation of the rights under the 10th amendment and adherence to the constitution by the federal government. It is a revolution with teeth and state government legitmacy.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Feb 09
Hello Speakeasy,
[i]"Oklahoma House passes sovereignty bill
Path set for other states seeking to reassert constitutional rights....
Brogdon told WND he feels confident Democrats in the Oklahoma Senate will not be able to block the sovereignty measure this year....
"Last year, the Democrats in the Senate were able to veto consideration of Rep. Key's bill," he said, "but this year the Republicans are in control of the Oklahoma House and the Oklahoma Senate, for the first time in Oklahoma's history." [/i]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89842
So, it would seem that we're closer than ever before in seeing this reassertion of state sovereignty as a reality.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
26 Feb 09
Now that it is in the pipeline find out who wrote and submitted it. Then contact the other members of your state house and ask them to co-sponsor it. Get your friends (and their friends,and their friends friends and on and on)to do the same. The more co-sponsors the better. That way it will pass through quick for a vote.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Feb 09
Hello X,
My state certainly isn't pursuing this -- unfortunately!
Ya' know, I'm really surprised that Texas hasn't taken this up yet.
Personally, I believe that the underlying reasons for this legislative trend are very much in the sovereign citizen's best interests. These sovereignty initiatives block the path of die-hard globalists, who would like nothing better than to sign away our national sovereignty to the United Nations, by way of the Millennium Development initiatives. Criminies, it was just last year that the globalists in our country endeavored to enslave USA business and our military to L.O.S.T. (the U.N. Land of the Sea Treaty).
This represents the states drawing a line in the sand, whereby the federal government is being put on notice that if the fed's violate the Constitution, then they concurrently violate the binding contractual agreement between the states and the central government. This gives the states the power to put the federal government on notice when it is violating the pact between the parties. It is a powerful 'contract law' tool. And, it is LONG OVERDUE!
I find the last provision in your state's intitiative very, very interesting. It would seem that your state legislators are versed enough in their history lessons to remember that these kinds of calamitous economic meltdowns have a propensity to make and/or break governments. By including that last provision your state legislators are protecting your fellow citizens from involuntary merger with any other neighboring state or territory to form a new union (N.A.U.?). As well, as protecting the individual states from any binding decision of the federal government, in opposition to the states best interests in the event of kind of a truly dynamic shift.
I would love to support this kind of a measure in my own state. Sadly, our Congrsesional rep's are of a bunch of knuckleheads who are indebted to Pelosi/Reid and the DNC. So, snowcones will be a booming business in Hades before my state takes up such a Constitutionally protective clause -- grrrrrrrr!
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Feb 09
The last clause is not only a protective measure for our state, it is in essence saying that if the federal government continues to violate the terms of the contract, that being the constitution, that New Hampshire will in effect declare the contract and federal government null and void and initiate the movement for a new union under that constitution. In effect, firing the federal government and refusing to recognize it and call for a convention inviting the other states to join the new union, using the constitution as it's base. It is one of the most dramatic and outspoken resolutions of it's kind as it not only makes the declration and assertion of it's 10th amendment rights, it puts in place a remedy for the state to follow when it is ignored.
hold hope for your state, there are a record number of states doing this now and I almost thouight I saw something mentioning texas. I'm trying to find it to be sure. I'll try to get back to you and confirm it.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Feb 09
No, this is the way things are suposed to be. It won't bring states to war, at all. read the constitution. The federal governent is an agent of the states, not the other way around. All this does is assert the rights of the states already in the 10th amendment and hold the federal government accountable for keeping it's place. It is this contant usurping of this amendment that will in fact eventualy lead to war.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Feb 09
We were set up as a bunch of little countries and in the interests of, well, common interetsts, we established the "united states of america" in other words the federal government. It is an agent of the states created by the states to tend to common interests, such as common defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce and finance, our borders, just to name a few. But the founders made this a limited roll on purpose. The did it to keep a simple agent from becomming a central power and usurping the liberties of the people and the states. As time went on, the federal government, and us, forgot that role and it slowly became the monster it is today. It is no coincidence that the more powerfull, expensive and gargantuine the federal government became, the worse off we began to get as a country and less free we became as a people. The constitution is a nearly foolproof document and blueprint for success as a nation when it is adhered to. And as we see, when it is ignored or usurped, even in part, things fall apart.
2 people like this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
26 Feb 09
I've been trying to convince my husband to relocate our family to New Hampshire for years, I desperately want to "escape from NY"! Now ,more than ever I want to leave this state, our governor is a completely incompetent jackass who wants to tax the crap out of us while doubling the already high salaries of his personal staff and cronies.
Good for NH, hopefully one day I too will be able to claim residence in the Live Free Or Die state! Do you guys still have no sales tax?
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
28 Feb 09
Ramble away, lol, it's fine. I've been to conway a few hundred times, it's ok, a little busy for my tatstes beautifull scenery, but a tourist trap. I live way up north, about 60 miles from the Canadian border and on the vermont border, the conneticut river is within walking distance from my place.
If you guys do decide to relocate here, your faced with a delema. Up north is extremely quiet nothing but a bunch of small towns and mountains, but not much oportunity. The southern half has a lot more in the way of jobs and exitement, but it is more like massachusits, more urban, more crime and all the other fun stuff that comes with that kind of life. I'd say your best bet s probably Littleton. it's one of those little big towns (or big smal town) it has a smal industrial park, ots or retail like walmart, target, etc and a good main street with all the kinds of shops you'd expect on a small town main street, (you definately have to check out "aylakai") and some good restaurants too.
1 person likes this
