21 States already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty ***

21 States already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty ***

www.mrstep.com

NOTE: Soveriegnty is NOT the same as Secession.

Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out. As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with. However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:

States That Already Are Sovereign / Passed 10th Amendement Restatement Legislature:
- California (CA): [CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO and HERE - result: PASS]
- Texas (TX): [THIS WEBSITE] has some good info on the Republic of Texas

States Claiming Sovereignty:
- Arizona (AZ): [CLICK HERE]
- Georgia (GA): [CLICK HERE]
- Hawaii (HI): [General info: HERE or HERE -- SCOTUS Case: HERE for docket & HERE or HERE for summary]
- Michigan (MI): [CLICK HERE]
- Missouri (MO): [HR 212 replaced by 2 bills! CLICK HERE for more info]
- Montana (MT): [CLICK HERE]
- New Hampshire (NH): [CLICK HERE]
- Oklahoma (OK): [CLICK HERE]
- Washington (WA): [CLICK HERE]

States Planning / Motioning Toward Claiming Sovereignty:
- Alabama (AL): (see Source links below*)
- Alaska (AK): (see Source links below*)
- Arkansas (AR): (see Source links below*)
- Colorado (CO): (see Source links below*)
- Idaho (ID): (see Source links below*)
- Indiana (IN): (see Source links below*)
- Kansas (KS): (see Source links below*)
- Maine (ME): (see Source links below*)
- Nevada (NV): (see Source links below*)
- Pennsylvania (PA): (see Source links below*)

[Source # 1 for the "pending / planning" states] & [Source # 2 for the "pending / planning" states]

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
American States Declaring Sovereignty
New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War
Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law

I know there other threads discussing the same story, which are noted below. Sorry if I missed any others.

This link updates it and gives some resources to contact your congress and senators to give them a shout out or a letter of gratitude. It also gives some resources to allow people to follow the progress of the states that are still in the discussion stages.

Interestingly, I did a google search to see what, if any mainstream media is reporting on this story, and I could find absolutely NONE!!!! within the first page. You would think this would be the first thing that would show up.

People, we have to contact the mainstream media about their lack of reporting on this issue. I would think this is one of the bigger news stories of the past few years!!! This just goes to show what who*res the media has become.

Also, send these stories out as e-mails to your regular contacts you would send jokes etc. to.

We also need to be aware, this may be the tipping point that could send us into MARTIAL LAW.

Will the government allow this to go to much farther, when some states are passing laws to ensure the citizens get to keep their guns if martial law is declared?

www.abovetopsecret.com...





www.mrstep.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sezsue


I think New Hampshires bill was shot down?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are links to Contacts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A partial re-posting of my input on a related thread focusing on the NH document:



"...Essentially, there is a growing awareness, in both public and private areas, that the Federal Government has been undergoing an increasingly rapid evolution. Much more rapidly than the citizens of the nation can possibly keep up with, lacking true representation and leadership in vital institutions we complacently considered as reliable. This fact leads to several key matters of vital significance to the common citizen. There are a number of factors in play, and also a number of troubling possibilities that must be addressed in regards to the changes we, the actual "states" that comprise the union are experiencing.

If you will indulge my opinion, please read on;

I have no doubt that the United States of America constructed its conceptual 'collective' governance with a clear mandate towards this basic aim:

Never diminish freedom, minimize the centralization of authority, ensure the governed consent to the governance, unswervingly uphold the power of redress, and earnestly represent and protect the sovereignty of our union against all who would impose their agenda above that of the people of our nation.

This is not the direction in which the Federal government seems to be heading.

Lincoln struggled to maintain the Union largely because he believed in the truth behind the axiom "A house divided against itself cannot stand." His goal to maintain the union was fundamentally focused on forging compromise and providing adequate interstate relations, despite the political environment which seemed bent on 'control'. Imagine that. Even then, Mr. Lincoln struggled with office seekers and petty political rivalries which all centered around the usual exploitation of resources and who was going to get the 'profit' from it. Personally, I think his efforts to install a new currency (the greenback) was instrumental in the muddling of his objectives, and perhaps could have had something to do with his eventual murder. But that is a topic for another thread.

Comparing those days to these seems a stretch. Romantic, but a stretch nevertheless.

What some state legislators seem to be doing is 'reminding' the Federal government that it is not IN CHARGE of anything. They are there to SERVE. They seem to be signaling that there is a visible and tangible disconnect between the Constitutional nature of our Republic and the federal machinery setting up shop in our nation. There seems to be a misunderstanding, commonly held, and repeatedly propagated by some agents of ignorance, that the Federal government "IS THE LAW," when clearly, this is NOT the case, nor had it ever been so intended.

The question of how this happens, is where the details of our despair live.

At most, the federal government is "the keeper of the law the States have developed", not the "law" itself.

Our problem seems to have become increasingly exacerbated as 'career politicians' with 'classist' attitudes and a collectively inflated sense of 'entitlement' became entrenched within the District of Columbia. A social culture evolved, some might contend was cultivated by 'private' interests, which literally glorified politicians into celebrity stature, and created a 'show business' like atmosphere around their lives.

Once removed from the 'common' people - it became easy to attract them into a shift of ideological stance. Essentially the public servants' commitment to the oath of Constitutional loyalty was usurped by one of loyalty to a 'profession' or 'class.' This brought about a general posture of collectively (nearly conspiratorially) building the Federal Government (Senate, House, Exec, and Judicial) into an "enterprise" which was devoted to the prospect of centralizing controlling power over ALL states as subordinate entities. It bears repeating that this had never been intended by the framers or the American people.

Economic power provided the means to reach this goal. Once established those in the business of profit were well-situated to begin an increasingly effective means to reshape what it means to be a politician. In today's environment it appears that the culmination of any politician's career is corporate leadership. The more influential and effective a politician is in furthering the financial success of a corporation, the more likely it is he or she will be secured by his benefactors.

However, the plan has several weak spots, most notably in the area of controlling the numerous State-level government officials. The means to consolidate loyalty from them comes through the power of the support of political parties. Hence the downfall of the honorable political party affiliation, now reduced to a club membership, with money being the driving factor to one's position in the order. Not necessarily how much you have, but how much you can attract.

This decay of the hold our collective principles have on our political caste is increasing rapidly for a simple reason. People are starting to see (or at least suspect) that their is a shadow play in progress.

As the Federal government continues to extend its reach and authority, State sovereignty (such as it is) is in dire danger of vanishing completely. This may be an inevitability, although I suspect that resistance is NOT futile.

We never wanted kings and queens and barons to populate our leadership. So now we see that it is slowly being reforged into a different kind of proto-feudal form; one where economic serfdom is evident, and dissent is viewed as 'illness' or 'aberrant.'

We need the states to recognize this fact; we need the Governor's and local elected officials to be alerted, if only to ensure that they understand that the the citizens are not the dull-witted cattle they require us to be. We require diligent attention and oversight of our politicians. Such things must be codified and noted. Therefore New Hampshire is doing the right thing. It is not done with an expectation of change, but one of recognition.

Political partisanship is not the answer, violence is not the answer. Simple understanding and recognition will suffice to stop this trend. We now know that at least in NH, someone is paying attention.

....."

Perhaps it's just 'noise' to put the people back to sleep. I think the establishment will finds that it will be considerably more difficult to undo the awakening...

reply to post by Maxmars


Apluad.

So drunk with coruption that they fall over the barrel of karma.

Like any monestry in the past, (or government, church, etc) they get too greedy for power they go back on thier oath's and morals to gain more, untill too much has been done, people notice, and throw them over with civil war (most the time) or a revolution (not as many times) or just throw them out.

I hope that something does happen to them, all it takes is one domino to start the acelarating line.

(p.s. excuse the spelling, im awful at it and i dont know whats happend to me spell check)

reply to post by Maxmars As much as I appreciate and agree with the federalist form of government, especially in a diverse society where people can seek out the places which have the types of societies they prefer, I think this is mere grandstanding on the part of local politicians looking to publically distance themselves from the feds or aspiring politicians looking to make a name for themselves.I think there is far too much water under the bridge for this kind of movement to have any real legs.   In my opinion there are too many parts of the country that are so fundamentally broken that absent a federal system, they would fail.    The states have been proping up cities especially in the rust belt for close on two decades.  Now the states are broke and need the federal govenment to stay afloat.The very nature of a tightly coupled federalist system is that the weakest members have limited harm despite their failures.   What we currently have in this country is a macro welfare state, with states with reasonably run governments, e.g. business friendly, a more limited government and lower taxes are subsidizing those which are poorly run. It is no different that what happens in your town. Folks going to work pay the freight for the folks who don't.

This country was founded on the principal of a loose federation, which the elements binding the federation were extremely limited. Once the Income Tax was implemented and never repealed as was initially planned, FDR took the great leap forward with the New Deal, Johnson put the pedal to the metal down that road with the Great Society and then all presidents have allowed incremental movements away from that form of government.

The fear I have is that a major city really fails. Detroit is probably the most likely candidate. With the average home in Detroit listed for under $20K, folks are now simply turning the lights off and leaving. What will be left are those on government assistance and there will be no tax base to provide basic services. It will become a lawless environment and there will be very little to do to turn that around. It will essentially become a police state with little or no private industry and the vast majority of jobs being government related. Michigan does not have the money and will turn to the feds for assistance which they will get. That money will increasingly come from places with more limited and better run governments. Once one city goes, others will follow and what you will see is a flight of productive folks out of major parts of the country and that cycle will feed on itself.

This is exactly the same model that is currently happening in the EU right now. Again, by design a loose federation with very limited binds. What is going on is that certain states, Greece for example is close to bankrupt, yet should they go bankrupt they will have very limited consequences due to the Euro and the limited impact Greece has on the currency. Once Greece goes under, Spain and Portugal are right behind them. Same deal as in the US, but worse actually due to the cultural diversity.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Well said, and sadly, you may be right. Should a major city fail, there will be a great ripple throughout not only the state, but the nation.

Cities represent the most vulnerable of all locations in this crisis. As one contributor posted earlier today, a Thomas Jefferson quote:

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe "

I think that applies to the general propensity for people (and governments) to become abusive and cruel. I don't suppose their would be any real hope of the state's residents (or the nations) pooling their resources and helping to prop up the population there (I can hear it now, "We are in as bad a shape as they are in!" or, "We need to prepare for when it happens to us" or worse still "What's in it for me?")

Each state has it's own burden of responsibility for allowing things to get as bad as they have, and much of it has to do with their silent, and sometimes explicitly purposeful, acquiescence to the Federal 'enterprise' I mentioned earlier. The United States should have always focused more on being "united" "states" and less on being "the" United States. But that paradigm was 'overwritten' by the press and the media since the turn of the 20th century.

While I entertain many minor, and some major, conspiracy theories which most do not, I can't help but believe that this diminished image of our national integrity, and national identity (as a Constitutional Republic) is a function of purposeful manipulation of 'popular' perception.

"We have a chance for a new world order...," and all that.

Hamstring the strong, agitate the weak, and torment those in between..., then present yourself as the only solution; and people will do whatever it takes if they are willing to believe they will get what they love.

But unlike love, freedom cannot be 'given'. That, apparently can only be taken away. And the only way to 'take' freedom, seems to be to seize it.

Our constitutional republic was specifically designed to allow the people to TAKE their freedom if it is ever withheld. Yet, the Federal enterprise in place seems hell-bent on controlling that human commodity.


[edit on 13-2-2009 by Maxmars]

So, the proverbial line in the sand is being drawn.

But the big question still looms--What happens next?

W. all but wiped his @** with the Constitution, Bill of Rights over the last several years. The President can declare a national emergency/martial law for a myriad of reasons now. And I don't see Obama getting rid of all of that newly acquired authority that was gained by the Office of the President under W. Assuming that this scenario plays out, how can the States actually stop the Fed from coming in, apart from physical, violent confrontation? The PTB are die hard when it comes to "national security"; what makes you think that they will let a few state legislators stand in the way when "national security" is on the line? And furthermore, why do people assume that US soldiers will be doing the door-to-door gun-grabbing, road blocks, etc? Why not Blackwater, or some other merc army or private security firm, that only cares about profit and the well-being of their corporate mommies and daddies?

Bottom line, when it comes down to it, what is truly more powerful, the sword or the pen?

I guess we'll find out.

reply to post by dolphinfan

Yes, I was reading that Detroit is very close to collapse. And what about California, letting prisoners go, and I also read recently they are suspending a lot of Governmental services. I can't remember the basics of it, I am bad, but I really don't pay too much attention to what's happening out there, because every time I read about what is going on I just get outraged.

I live in Ohio and things don't really seem that bad here. (in my area) I only know one person who has been laid off recently, and things seem pretty normal.

Course, as Mark Twain supposedly said: “When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it’s always 20 years behind the times.”

Not QUITE 20 years behind the times, but it is a pretty laid-back kinda place to live, hopefully it will stay that way. Although, Wright Patterson airforce base is just about 35 miles up the road from me.......

Clearly the government has no interest in the citizens expanding their liberty.   Folks in government are not fools.   They believe in government the same way a bond trader believes in open markets and cash.   The more services they provide the more dependant folks become on government and the more power they have.    Most of our politics stems from this issue and frankly most of the worlds politics runs via this basic principal.   Give folks what they want and you get to keep power.   It is a time tested methodology for the acquisition and maintenance of power.   You can call it what you want, but it is the rare politician who understands that by giving people less, you actually give them more as by creating a limited government model you force people to fend for themselves and through that they develop self worth and confidence and realise that they can in fact do more with their lives.   The rub is that folks who are more independant will expect better performance from their government, will get involved and hold the government more accountable - and that is not what most politicians want - they want passive folks who will believe what ever they say and do what ever they are told

The best I think that come out of this NH business is that it focuses folks on fundamental elements of our constitutional model and provides a lever to educate folks about what is going on.   Perhaps that will create a situation where alternative candidates can gain more legitimacy.   Beyond that, who can predict what will happen.

I can tell you one thing for certain.   When this business gets through the financial system, interest rates are going to be back at the Jimmy Carter rates and many of these dudes who just voted for an 1,400 page spending bill that is the largest in our history when they just got it last night and therefore have not read it, will make a ton of dough, since about 95 of the 100 Senators are multi-millionaires.

Wow! Some excellent posts on this thread. Reminds me of the "democracy" talk lately, as if they were not aware of constitutional republics.

Contact Your State Legislators and Governor

Bring Us Back To What Our Founders Envisioned.

I have already shared this with my State Legislators & Governor.

If Your State Is Not Already Doing Something Like This, Please Request That They Do.




[edit on 2-13-09 by atoms.2008]

reply to post by PH43DRUS


W was just furthering legislation that has been on the books for years, and years. Yesterday I was looking up a bill on "National service" to see how far it had gotten in the legislative process. It was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel...back in 2005, I believe, but in my search, I found similar Bills out there going back to JFK, and maybe before that.

Anyway, the bill by Rangel is still in two different committees. The problem is, they sit there collecting dust, and then, when the time is right, they dust them off and get them started back up again, after people have had a period of time to forget about them.

OH, by the way, this particular bill would have an age range of 18 - 42 and would also include women......I believe the length of time of service would for two years, NOT voluntary!

This comment (of mine) may have been a little off topic except for the fact that things like this are what is causing all these states to restate the freedoms our Constitution guarantees, both to remind the Federal government that what they have been trying to do is unconstitutional, and to remind the People of the states what their freedoms should be.......

edit ... spelling

[edit on 14-2-2009 by sezsue]

Its possible one of the resons main stream media isnt reporting is the states are trying to get this through without much attention. It would behoove them to do so. Once its there there isnt alot that can be done about it on the federal end, but it can be stopped before it arrives.
Let the states handle it, its a step in the right direction for them. When they feel safe enough to make it public they will.
There are some politicians who have a bit of sense.
Rossa

reply to post by sezsue


Thanks for the research. The difference between us here at ATS and our 'elected' "Representatives" is that we read the legislature and place in context; they don't. Nor are they easily persuaded to do that - ever.

Most of them are unclear about history and the principles of governance - because most of them are simply 'talking-heads' for a 'political party'/'reality TV show celebrities'. They are entertainment and opinion molders, nothing more.

Our mistake is that we trust them with money, for which they are ultimately unaccountable.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by sezsue
Georgia Senate - 1995/1996 Sessions
SR 308 - U.S. Constitution - state sovereignty under 10th Amendment
Georgia:

2- 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the State 2- 2 of Georgia hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth 2- 3 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all 2- 4 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal 2- 5 government by the United States Constitution and that this 2- 6 measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal 2- 7 government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective 2- 8 immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its 2- 9 constitutionally delegated powers. 2-10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is 2-11 authorized and directed to transmit copies of this 2-12 resolution to the President of the United States, the 2-13 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the 2-14 President of the United States Senate, each member of 2-15 Georgia's congressional delegation, and the Speaker of the 2-16 House and the President of the Senate of each state 2-17 legislature in the United States of America.

www.legis.state.ga.us...


over 14 years ago georgia declared state sovereignty. i am looking for georgia to succeed from the Union.





[edit on 21-9-2009 by musselwhite]

Of course I am not seeing Virginia on the list. The state is too whipped by Washington DC and the various federal authorities located within it today, from the Pentagon and CIA at Langley to the underground ARPA lab near Virginia Tech. It's a shame considering what Virginians accomplished during the revolution, and its role fighting for state sovereignty during the Civil War. Virginians have traditionally been a very independent and anti-authoritarian citizenry.