Partial Secession? by UT, AZ

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1402
Partial Secession? by UT, AZ

A referendum placed on the Nov. 6 ballot by the Legislature would amend the Arizona Constitution to declare sovereign control over air, water, minerals, wildlife and public land including national parks -- a move to sidestep federal environmental laws and open up 25 million acres of public space to more livestock grazing, logging and mining...It amounts to a “partial secession,” said Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University.

“If you want to start a war, this is the way,” Bender, dean emeritus of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, said by telephone. “When the state passes its own immigration law, people say, ‘Well, that is crazy Arizona.’ But if people go to the Grand Canyon and find a uranium mine there, they are going to be very upset.”

Supporters say the proposition -- which follows a Utah law signed in March by Governor Gary Herbert demanding some U.S. land be handed over by 2014 -- sends an important message in a battle against an overreaching federal government, which controls more than half of the land in the West.

(read the full article here)

Lawmakers in New Mexico, Nevada and other states are working on bills to seek control of federal land within their borders, too, said Ken Ivory, a Utah state representative who sponsored his state’s legislation and serves as president of the American Lands Council, which advocates for local control of land. (Edited to note that the US Federal government owns HALF of all of the continental USA west of the Mississippi river.)

This is all part of the 10th Amendment Movement, an effort to push back on a state level against what many consider to be unconstitutional federal laws and regulations. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many of America's founding fathers. It's increasingly popular with strict constitutionalists. The following list is from their website:

Current Nullification Efforts -

They are considering working toward nullifation of the Patriot Act and the Federal governement's No Child Left Behind legislation.

So let's discuss this. Does it signify the begining of the balkanization of the USA, or is it merely impoverished, debt-ridden states trying to help their citizens by tapping unused resources? Is it a potential environmental disaster or will it mean that state and federal parks, now strapped for cash, will get better protections?

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Love It

I lived for 14 years in NM. From 1975 to 1989 - really great years. I felt free there. I did not worry about the police because I did not do anything wrong. I bought several guns at stores - you just walk in and buy the gun you want. Beautiful. I got jobs when I needed one. I got paid decent and except for in the ski resorts the cost of living was reasonable. No traffic jams except for rush hour in Albuquerque. No toll roads. Very little government madness. Low taxes. It was all good. I do not know what it is like now but Gary was the Gov and it is said he did good. I live in NJ now. I am surrounded by heavy duty government. Government everything. Even with Christie there is still government everything. Taxes are high. It is very expensive to live here. It is messed up and I do not see how it gets fixed. The cities are full of class of dependency people. Take a drive through Newark, Camden, or Trenton and you will get an eye full. It is a long way from NM.

The constitution is good. It defined a form of government that was designed to protect the rights of the people - not take them away. I felt A LOT more free in NM than I do in NJ. Bless the people out west. They are tough. They want to be free and they may just be a little piece of the puzzle of how we get out of the mess we are in now. If they are able to create a "freedom zone" in America then they will end up with better schools, more economic activity, less crime, and a better quality of life.  People will want to move there.  Companies will create jobs there. 

This will be opposed by every power one can imagine. The masterminds will oppose this all the way. This is one of the very few things that could really mess up the current mastermind gig. Washington will do everything within its power, and that is a lot, to try to stop a mountain states "freedom zone".  If they really try to do it they will be crushed.  The Fed Gov simply can not allow such a thing to happen.  The Fed Gov will not give up its accumulated power over the states without a true struggle.  They simply do not care what the constitution says.  As a matter of fact, people who believe the constuitution is a good thing are now believed to be "problem people".
 

growmakestore13's picture
growmakestore13
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 16 2012
Posts: 6
Tricky subject

Wow, this is a tough one. On the one hand we need some rules for everyone, because for example,  if a company poisons the water table in one state, that water table could affect a neighboring state who had no control over that company's choices. And yet I like the idea of a state controlling it's own lands, so long as there is transparency over what will be done with that land. The danger is that once the land is in the state's control, they just sell it to business people who extract the profitable materials and leave it unlivable through polluted air, water, and soil. So far, I am not impressed with the short-sightedness and profit-mongering of many politicians and do not trust that balkanization would be the answer.

ThinkerGirl's picture
ThinkerGirl
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2012
Posts: 1
I understand the desire for freedom...

but I fear the main ones benefitting from this freedom will be the profit-makers. Yes, there are too many regulations and laws, period. The problem comes with getting rid of the ones restricting innovation, and keeping the ones that provide for a higher quality of life. Therein lies the rub - different groups will have different definitions.

For example, deregulation can spur innovation. It can also result in a uranium mine in the Grand Canyon (but, heh, no problem - think of the revenues and the jobs!) Strip-mining in the national forests? Absolutely! The trees will grow back!

I have ZERO faith that any state government will act in the long-term best interest of the people. It will act to gain short-term revenues, and the corporations will be spending millions in lobbying to ensure they gain access - with as little restrictions or responsibility as possible - to do whatever they please. Once again, the average citizen will lose out.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Welcome ThinkerGirl

ThinkerGirl

Welcome to the forums.  Most people here will agree with your post.  A lot of those regulations were spurred by some very bad behavior by businesses focused on profits at the public expense.  So we all get penalized.  You can't regulate pirates.  They just make a game of finding the loopholes or paying fines.  So we get even more regulation, rinse and repeat.  It will take drastic actions to change this.

Travlin

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1402
states' rights

The comment about a uranium mine at the Grand Canyon (in the article I quoted) was disingenuous. I've been to the Arizona side of the Grand Canyon. They get so much tourist business because of that place they would be insane to jeopardize it in any way. Some of the state's sparse pastureland is near there, too: I went to a buffalo farm and saw grasslands and forests near the canyon rim. The very fact that someone commented that residents might site a uranium mine there meant the commenter was not a resident.

Central, distant control will work less and less in a post-peak-energy world. Local control will work more and more. If you really want the 1% to scoop up all the resources, then just let Federal control of the Western USA to continue: they will then control all the land and resource leases, and hand out those leases to their political donors. Local control of western state resources will at least leave us with local corruption, which is somewhat limited in scope, and therefore potentially easier to deal with.

My personal belief is that human nature will have people doing bad stuff, no matter what, but I'd rather have a local bad guy whom I can deal with locally than some bureaucrat a thousand miles away. I'm for states' rights, especially in the case of mineral rights and land leases for things like solar power farms.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
freedom

I will always vote for freedom. Freedom of the people. We do not really have freedom now. We have some kind of semi-freedom. We are not nearly as free as we used to be just 20 years ago. The government is clamping down and will continue to clamp down. As the debt crisis deepens, things will get worse and the government's answer will be to clamp down even more. Capital controls will be implemented. Surveillance will be increased.

There are going to have to be cuts in government spending. Big cuts. It is going to cause a lot of pain for the class of dependency. There will be a lot of misbehavior. I think the end result of the government cuts will be more freedom for the people.

tictac1's picture
tictac1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 25 2009
Posts: 166
Simple Solution

Eliminate limited liability.  Contrary to apparent popular thought, limited liability is a new concept, and one that not only destroyed jobs, it also resulted in speculative investment, short-sighted environmental practices, and the ability to separate risk from reward; i.e. societal risk and private reward.  Does this pretty much sum up what's wrong with corporate America?

Regulations aren't needed when the consequence for polluting someone's water table is death.  How many CEOs would you have to execute before business practices became ethical?  I'm guessing zero, because once you eliminate the limits on liability, the possible results will become painfully obvious.  CEOs are not stupid, just amoral and opportunistic.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
this is beautiful...

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/04/nine-states-voting-on-nullifi...

There needs to be more of this stuff. We are not allowed to put stuff up for a vote in NJ. In the states that can do this they should do this. These will be immediately attacked by the Fed Gov and it will go to the US Supreme Court. Then it will all depend on the 9 justices. Will we live in freedom or tyranny ?  Nine people will decide.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
From the election...

by Michael Boldin

tenthamendmentcenter.com:

Yesterday, Barack Obama won the presidential election. But, the people of six states voted to take their freedom without federal “permission.”

In ten states – Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Alabama – voters had a chance to resist DC and approve ballot initiatives which would nullify unconstitutional federal acts. Six of them passed. And here’s a brief rundown of each:

1.  Montana, Referendum 122

LR-122 is an act “prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance.”  It also prohibits the imposition of “penalties for decisions related to the purchase of health insurance coverage.”

The measure passed overwhelmingly, 65%-34%

Full report HERE

2.  Colorado, Amendment 64

Section 3 allows the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

Colorado, after Washington State (info below), is the 2nd state in the country to have passed full legalization, and one of only a handful in the entire world.

The measure passed by 54%-46%

Full report HERE

3.  Alabama, Amendment 6

This legislatively-referred amendment frees Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program. The ballot language reads as follows:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.

It passed, 59%-41%.

Full report HERE

4.  Washington State, Initiative 502

Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose.

But yet, 18 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. Washington’s I-502 takes it a step further. It ends marijuana prohibition and treats pot in the same manner as alcohol. People are allowed to grow, produce, sell, buy and consume the plant – in direct defiance to all three branches of the federal government.

The Initiative passed, 55%-45%

Full report HERE

5.  Wyoming, Amendment A

Wyoming voters passed a health care freedom amendment to the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution.

The Wyoming Constitution now guarantees citizens of the state the right to make their own healthcare decisions with minimal governmental interference.

Article 1, Section 38 – Right of Health Care Access

(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.  The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.

(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.

It passed by a huge margin, 76%-24%

Full report HERE

6.  Massachusetts, Question 3

A YES VOTE  on Question 3 enacted “the law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.”

The 18th state to nullify federal laws on weed did it in a landslide. The final tally was 64%-36%

Full report HERE.

The only chance for liberty is for activists to focus their time, energy, money and resources on a state and local level, rejecting and nullifying every unconstitutional federal “law.”

OptOut's picture
OptOut
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 24 2012
Posts: 14
"The only chance for liberty

"The only chance for liberty is for activists to focus their time, energy, money and resources on a state and local level, rejecting and nullifying every unconstitutional federal “law.”"

This is the TRUTH. Nothing can be done at a federal level.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
OptOut wrote: "The only

OptOut wrote:

"The only chance for liberty is for activists to focus their time, energy, money and resources on a state and local level, rejecting and nullifying every unconstitutional federal “law.”"

This is the TRUTH. Nothing can be done at a federal level.

It is going to be interesting to see how it goes. The Fed Gov is going to reject the rights of the states. We saw this when AZ tried to enforce the Fed immigration laws to try to stop being overrun with illegal people. The Fed Gov (Holder) immediately when to court to try to stop them. The same may well happen here. If the states exercise their rights under the constitution then then entire massive all powerful central government thing the democrats (and to some extent the republicans) have been pushing for many years will be toast. The states exercising their constitutional rights might make the people happy and better off but it is going to anger the powerful and the politicians at the Fed Gov level.  They will be so upset they will have trouble sleeping at night.

This is all going to be very very very interesting. It will end up in a constitutional show down. I don't care about the pot smoking ones but the land use and the Obamacare related ones are going to create a lot of unhappy masterminds in Washington DC.

10th 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.

Ratified by Required Number of States, December 15, 1791.

In the constitution, the Fed Gov has very clearly defined powers.  Article 1 section 8 is very clear about what the powers of the Fed Gov are -

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, the Fed Gov as currently formulated is operating WAY outside of its constitutional powers. However, masterminds believe that they are much smarter than the rest of us and should be empowered to control us and "rule" us. Since the Fed Gov is unable to control itself and specifically does things that are not in the interest of the people, states asserting their rights are going to be a major problem for it. The big part of this is the supreme court. If the supreme court does it job then the states will have their right. If the supreme court is subverted and does not uphold their honor and function, then I don't know what happens. I suppose that means America descends into tyranny and violence.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1402
Whoa, but will they get enough signatures?

Per Politico, here is a list of all the states with petitions to secede on WhiteHouse.gov:

  • Delaware
  • California
  • Ohio
  • Nevada
  • Pennsylvania
  • Arizona
  • Oklahoma
  • Arkansas
  • South Carolina
  • Georgia
  • Missouri
  • Tennessee
  • Michigan
  • New York
  • Colorado
  • Oregon
  • New Jersey
  • North Dakota
  • Montana
  • Indiana
  • Mississippi
  • Kentucky
  • Florida
  • North Carolina
  • Alabama
  • Texas
  • Louisiana
Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1402
a form of protest?

http://whnt.com/2012/11/13/secession-petitions-what-they-mean-in-the-context-of-history/

An historian weighs in on the secession petitions. Money quote:

If it fits the historical pattern of secession, maybe it isn’t just anger that certain values didn’t triumph at the ballot box, but instead fear that those values won’t get their proper due going forward.

As for the secession petitions though, Dr. Busick argues, “I think this is largely symbolic.  If you’re serious about the secession, you don’t ask the federal government’s permission.”

FWIW, Dr. Busick is married to my friend (and fellow safety engineer), Jen. I had no idea the first American secession movement happened in the North at the time of the War of 1812.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Secession Low Probability

There is very low probability of any secession. A state would have to do that - indiviuals can not - and things would have to get a whole lot worse before any state would do such a thing as it would probably trigger another civil war.  Obama would never stand for that and would bring in the military to stop it.

However, the next best thing are the state referendums asserting their constitutional rights. This is a very big deal. It goes against everything the statists believe in. They believe they are masterminds doing the good work of building a massive central authoritative government ruling over the stupid people because they are unable to think clearly or function properly - and the masterminds know so much better how things should be. States asserting their constitutional rights will be seen with a dim view indeed. At this point they have not said a word in public but I am sure there is a lot of secret activity behind the scenes on this issue. The US Supreme Court as it is currently staffed is risky for them because it just might generate a 5 to 4 decision against them and thus destroy everything they stand for. Too risky. They would need to replace one of the 5 with a liberal activist statist type before they would allow it to go to the supreme court.

If I had to guess I would say first they will try extortion - we will not give you your medicaid funds, education funds, and/or highway funds etc. unless you back off your position. If the states don't back off, he will not be able to get it past the House of Rep so Obama will claim he has the authority to write an executive order denying them the funds. When the state(s) go to court to dispute that authority under the constitution the crisis will begin. I have no idea what would happen. It should be really interesting.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
interesting discussion

due to the length of the link you may need to cut and paste into your browser...

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/4/4/d/44df0dac3104db2a

/John_Rubino_11-16-2012.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089

ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cd8434d9c95fb425&c_id=5147589

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
being thrown to the crazy...

We are being thrown to the crazy. It is like we are insane and the meds are not working. What about a quick look at what is being sold as the "fiscal cliff" ?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the course of a decade the sequestration cuts would reduce the federal debt by $153 billion. Which is about what the United States government currently borrows every month. No sane person could willingly countenance brutally saving a month’s worth of debt over the course of a decade. The problem facing the United States government is that it spends over a trillion dollars a year that it doesn’t have. It is just that simple. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in the New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year’s federal deficit. Obama tells lies and worse - he is misleading the people of America. Raising taxes on the top 2 percent is not going to do jack. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem.

This is where states rights come in. States like Calif and Illinois are going to go broke and default because states can not print money. States like Texas and Alaska are doing much better. When the irresponsible states go broke the Fed Gov is going to bail them out and force the debt into the Federal deficit/debt. That means the responsible states are going to be forced to pay for the irresponsible states. Many people will see this as an injustice - the irresponsible will be rewarded and the responsible will be punished. The states can work to avoid this by asserting their constitutional rights. The Obamacare referendums are the beginning of this. The Fed Gov exists because the states created it. They can control it if they so desire. Of course this will bring on a crisis. But that is probably what it is going to take to cut spending enough to bring Fed Gov spending in line with revenue.

One way or another Fed Gov spending is going to come in line with revenue. No matter what path you take to get there it is going to cause a crisis. What crisis would you prefer ?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments