New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Visit the Underground Wiki

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Anyone interested in secession?  (Read 6216 times)

Dreepa

  • Guest
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT »

Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.

More come everyday.
Logged

CNHT

  • Rattler's Girl
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 158
  • Posts: 8313
  • Pauli Girl
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2007, 12:51 AM NHFT »

Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.


Get yourself here and I'll put you to work for sure.
Logged

painted

  • Guest
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2007, 01:04 AM NHFT »

Yuck, even NH is going towards socialism and big government?  Do we have any hope left in US?


Well we've had to brace for this, but I figured the arrival of 500 FSPers might help. Some do not like to get involved with this stuff, some do. I wish more would.

That is sad.  I thought the whole point of FSP was to have activists, not ppl who will do nothing.  When I get there, I wana be like Alex Jones and bullhorn these issues in big towns.


Get yourself here and I'll put you to work for sure.


Sounds great.  I'll be done with military in two years. :)
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2007, 12:50 AM NHFT »

:clap:


Yay Denis!

WHY do people fail to see the URGENCY OF THIS?

It not a lack of urgency. Its an understanding of the system. In NH, Legislators are largely whores... they are always in campaign mode. This is why the issue is never put to rest.
The masses want lower taxes... but do not understand that lower spending is required to achieve this result.
So the politically astute legislators always look to tax either minority groups, or those without the vote.
General income, sales, or property taxes don't meet this criteria.
The 'floated' solution I heard recently will look to place a statewide property tax on non-primary residences (missing those pesky voters)... and imposing a luxury tax on goods over $10K/$30K for autos (hitting those minority groups). But even this mastery of politics will still only raise $800M, and will cause towns with high priced vacation properties to see a drop in valuations going forward.

The biggest threat to the Dems would have been a SC order to solve the problem this next year... or face a open judicial declaration that the current system is unconstitutional. Leading to thousands of property owners ignoring that part of their taxes.

An issuance of State funding also includes the threat of vouchers... that local funding has less risk of.
Logged

CSAnarchist

  • Guest
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2008, 09:04 PM NHFT »

Secede by force. So obviously sanity in NH isn't at a straight point, but those who are like anarchists can still do something about it. Why sit around waiting for people who are insane to learn how to not be insane? When has that ever happened?? Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.
Logged

FreelanceFreedomFighter

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 60
  • Posts: 233
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2008, 08:24 AM NHFT »

Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.

No... That was pretty far down the list. The War for Southern Independence was started over economics. The U.S. was heavily taxing the products from the South being sent North or to other countries and then giving that money to the Industrial barons in the North. In 1856 ~65% of the U.S. revenues were coming from the South, but over 65% of the funds/subsidies given back from the U.S. went to the North. The South finally had enough and seceded. It had already been agreed by that point that any new territories/states would be slave free States. (There was a short period where new territories/states were allowed to chose which to be, but that was quickly stopped and the enforcement of "free" states started.)  I don't want to get into a "South vs. North" debate/discussion/argument, but thought it necessary to clarify the primary reason for secession.

BTW, another tidbit of information that is interesting concerning secession. The first state to ever threaten secession was... (drum roll puhleeze) Massachusetts (long before the South ever did)... and the next handful that threatened secession were, RI, Conn & NY, going along with Massachusetts in protest against actions of the U.S. government. I don't have my reference material right at hand, so I don't remember what the egregious act of the Feds was exactly... but it wasn't slavery.

Regardless, until Appomattox (where "State's Rights" died), it was the common feeling and belief by the citizenry that secession was a completely legitimate and viable path. In fact, initially the seceding Southern States were simply allowed to leave. It wasn't until Abe figured out that the treasury wasn't filling us so fast that he decided that it shouldn't be allowed. Most folks in the North basically said "fine" in regards to the secession of the South. That is why Abe had to instigate conscription to man the U.S. army, but the C.S. was basically a volunteer force. That was just a round-about way for me to say that secession shouldn't be an issue, especially from the perspective of our inalienable Rights.


« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 08:32 AM NHFT by FreelanceFreedomFighter »
Logged

BillKauffman

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 6
  • Posts: 464
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2008, 10:38 AM NHFT »

Quote
The first state to ever threaten secession was... (drum roll puhleeze) Massachusetts (long before the South ever did)... and the next handful that threatened secession were, RI, Conn & NY, going along with Massachusetts in protest against actions of the U.S. government. I don't have my reference material right at hand, so I don't remember what the egregious act of the Feds was exactly... but it wasn't slavery.

The issue was the war of 1812 and Madison's ending legal trade with England crippled the New England economy (England actually blockaded). See the "Hartford Convention" in 1814/1815.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention
Logged

bigmike

  • That Damn Guy
  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 68
  • Posts: 331
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2008, 11:40 AM NHFT »

maybe we need some threats to the feds like the sooners did.

Saturday, June 14, 2008
Are the winds of secession blowing in Oklahoma?

Not really a statement of secession so much as a statement to piss off, but these days any degree of standing up to the federal cronies is worthy of some praise.

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA
    2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
    HOUSE JOINT
    RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
    AS INTRODUCED
    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; and directing distribution.

    WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
    "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."; and

    WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

    WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

    WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

    WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

    WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

    THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

    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.

    THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

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

    http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Vot...e=okh01983.txt
Logged

David

  • Secessionist, Peacemaker and Non-violent
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1124
  • Posts: 2819
  • Came home on feb 3rd '07'
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2008, 12:49 PM NHFT »

Secede by force. So obviously sanity in NH isn't at a straight point, but those who are like anarchists can still do something about it. Why sit around waiting for people who are insane to learn how to not be insane? When has that ever happened?? Think back to the Civil War, we seceded over slavery. Secede, now, over the mental, physical, and political state of the government.
Violence and threats of violence are not welcome on this forum. 
They will murder you like they did the waco people. 
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2008, 08:04 AM NHFT »

NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] 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.

June 2, 1784


Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2008, 08:54 PM NHFT »

NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] 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.

June 2, 1784


Ink on a page. When’s the last time they did anything substantive to remind the Feds of this?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2008, 10:49 PM NHFT »

They do it a lot, but more and more to increase the amount of the bribe.

The last real time I can attest to was when Benson refused to obey the commerce clause and set up a State website to purchase pharmaceuticals in Quebec. Not that I agree with it, since the Canadian system is not free market in this area... but I did like the sentiment. It was as close to a secessionary statement that NH has gotten in a long time.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT »

They do it a lot, but more and more to increase the amount of the bribe.

The last real time I can attest to was when Benson refused to obey the commerce clause and set up a State website to purchase pharmaceuticals in Quebec. Not that I agree with it, since the Canadian system is not free market in this area... but I did like the sentiment. It was as close to a secessionary statement that NH has gotten in a long time.

Excellent—hopefully we’ll see more of this after the upcoming elections… >:D
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2008, 04:29 PM NHFT »

Its doubtful.
His Excellency Craig Benson was after all in violation of other parts of the NH Constitution, but was trying to make a point. Just didn't have another politically expedient example at hand.

If we truly were to see something along State Sovereignty lines... I would be largely amazed.
As I've stated much of what the Federal Government does is contractually-based, not constitutionally-based.
The best I could hope for would be a revision from the current course of relying on the federal government financially. Maybe not all at once... but in small provisions.
It would at least show we're moving in the logical direction.
Logged

BagOfEyebrows

  • Guest
Re: Anyone interested in secession?
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2008, 07:30 AM NHFT »

NH already declared its sovereignty... in 1784.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] 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.

June 2, 1784




and Oklahoma did just the opposite in their state constitution, which starts off like this:

  Section I-1: Supreme law of land.
     The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal
Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law
of the land.



They'd have to ammend their state constitution first, in order to unbind themselves from the union, I think?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up