Thread: New Hampshire rebels!

HCR 0006

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and...

Oh boy, lookie here! Arizona, from 2000

HCR2034 - 442R - I Ver

Oklahoma, from LAST YEAR!

http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documen...JR1089_int.pdf

Ah ha ha ha .....

California's not very happy with the feds right now either... :laughing:

Secede Now!

Montana Threatens To Secede If Supreme Court Rules Against Individual Gun Rights | KXNet.com North Dakota News

http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/art...rg-story-50056-

Does Hawaii Want To Secede From

GOOD Magazine | Goodmagazine - Most Likely to Secede

That Texas Magazine - Articles

Article Manager

ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY: Platform and Goal- TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION

and these are just a few of the ones I found.. mybe we should .. that would send a message to DC that we have had enough of their bullshit

The problem here is the states have allowed them selves to be funded by the federal government. They may want to secede but in reality, they can't. Now if they were to cut federal funding, and shift the responsibility to the citizens of the state, then they have a chance.

Originally Posted by michaelr

The problem here is the states have allowed them selves to be funded by the federal government. They may want to secede but in reality, they can't. Now if they were to cut federal funding, and shift the responsibility to the citizens of the state, then they have a chance.

please explain why getting fed aid would preclude a state from seccession. I don't follow this... but I seem to remember reading somewhere I think its the Lincon papers that all states signed an agreement that they would never seceed from the union.. I am trying to find it but so far no luck in that respect.

Originally Posted by wingrider

please explain why getting fed aid would preclude a state from seccession. I don't follow this... but I seem to remember reading somewhere I think its the Lincon papers that all states signed an agreement that they would never seceed from the union.. I am trying to find it but so far no luck in that respect.

The federal government would simply cut them off. States have allowed them selves to be federally funded through various projects. They fell into a trap and now are dependent on the federal government for their survival.

yes but doesnt that work 2 ways? The Fed also relies on the states for those funds that they redistribute.. IE Gas taxes, and such... by the way if A state seceeds from the union are its citizens still liable to pay federal income tax?

Originally Posted by wingrider

yes but doesnt that work 2 ways? The Fed also relies on the states for those funds that they redistribute.. IE Gas taxes, and such... by the way if A state seceeds from the union are its citizens still liable to pay federal income tax?

Tax on gas, tobacco, alcohol, etc are taxed federally and locally. The feds would receive their share.


It would seem that the citizens would be that of the state and not country, I think.

Originally Posted by michaelr

It would seem that the citizens would be that of the state and not country, I think.

Yes - they're called "sovereigns".

You can do that today, some States will actually let you do that.


What is Sovereign Citizenship?

Sovereign Citizen Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Separation of Dual Sovereign Powers

RECLAIMING YOUR SOVEREIGN CITIZENSHIP

The states would have to have their own money to fund their operations and a very large military to protect itself from the federal government. Ain't neither one gonna happen with any states so succession is out of the question. I think they have made a political statement that they intend on enacting laws that may very well differ from the federal government and may limit federal involvement in their affairs.