STATES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUCCEED FROM THE UNION.

MUST BE WHY THEY ARE FAILING.

SPELLING, GIT YOU SOME.

WHY IS EVERYONE SHOUTING?

HEY FUCK YOU I'M THE CAPS LOCK KING. YOU'R JUST A LITTLE BULLSHITTER.

Maybe they are not, just too lazy to use the keyboard.

`

They are not trying to succeed. They are trying to take their rights/powers back from the Federal Government.

And they SHOULD...as we all should!

good stuff

Not about Secession
About State's Rights!
Totally Constitutional



Hands Off, Feds! -- New Hampshire Seeking to Reclaim State Supremacy

Thread: Hands Off, Feds! -- New Hampshire Seeking to Reclaim State Supremacy

YOU WERE ALLOWED TO SUCCEED FROM THE UNION... OF YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER.

PITY.

NOW LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES SOMEONE TO CLUE YOU INTO YOUR SUCCESSLESS HEADLINE.

Now that is a good tutorial ;~)

`

congress can not stop the states from seceeding as the feds and congress have no power over the states body.. The feds can cut federal funds to states but that is about it.

First off it doesn't sound like the States are actually succeeding anyway...instead it looks more like they are reclaiming State appointed rights. It makes a big statement to the Fed Government but is not succession. Most of the OPS posting threads on this are not saying succession. One OP did that I recall and he was corrected throughout his thread.

You are absolutely right in that if they were trying, they would not be allowed to succeed.

Congress doesn

"STATES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUCCEED FROM THE UNION."

What do you mean by saying the states will not be able to come after the Union?

Oh, sorry, you mean SECEDE. Again, spelling optional in America.


`

I divorced this faux gov in 1998.

YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT ONE CAN USE CAPS LOCK WITHOUT A KEYBOARD?

YOU MAKEY NO SENSEY.

If you did not claim your nationality, I doubt it.

`

I am a Texan from the Republic of Texas

Now is not the time for thoughts of seceding...
The New World Order will have all other countries with
their installed puppet governments attack all who resist them.

All people of America must ban together at this time and take their nationalities back.

`

Fuck Texas!

Montana politicians are now on record in suggesting that a “Collective Rights” Supreme Court ruling in the Washington, D.C. gun ban case would violate an agreement made with the United States when their state joined the union one hundred and nineteen years ago.

Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson sent a letter to the Washington Times, and many Montana politicians have signed onto a resolution, notifying the United States Supreme Court that any “Collective Rights” holding in the D.C. V. Heller case, currently before the court, will violate Montana’s compact with the United States by which it entered the union in 1889. Secretary of State Brad Johnson’s Communications Director, Mr. Bowen Greenwood, confirmed the resolution by telephone with me this afternoon.

The text of the resolution is as follows.

AN EXTRA-SESSION RESOLUTION OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS OF THE 60TH MONTANA LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ELECTED MONTANA OFFICIALS URGING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT ANY "COLLECTIVE RIGHTS" HOLDING IN D.C. V. HELLER WILL VIOLATE MONTANA'S COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE CONTRACT BY WHICH MONTANA ENTERED THE UNION IN 1889.

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court (Court) has agreed to review and decide the case of D.C. v. Heller appealed to it from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals;

WHEREAS, the Court has agreed to consider the question, "Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes";

WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

WHEREAS, the wording of the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms, now Article II, Section 12, exist today in form and wording identical to that agreed upon by the citizens of Montana and the United States in 1889 and unchanged since then; and

WHEREAS, a contract, compact or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time entered into.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and

2. That the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms are both statements securing a preexisting right from government interference, and do not confer any boon of government upon the people; and

3. The level of review for the Montana right to bear arms and for the Second Amendment are specified within those declared rights -- "shall not be infringed" for the Second Amendment, and "shall not be called in question" for the Montana right to bear arms;

4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller;

5. The undersigned incorporate by reference here a more thorough, attached explanation of the contract argument advanced; and

6. The undersigned legislators appreciate the attention of the Court to this argument on behalf of Montana and its citizens.


Including the Montana Secretary of State, the initial 39 signers of the resolution include Montana United States Congressman Denny Rehberg, and various Democrat and Republican Montana state legislators.

In addition to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 12 of the Montana State Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The text is as follows:

The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

We in Montana, who are tired of seeing our United States Constitutional Rights violated in many areas, applaud this declaration by our lawmakers and are happy that they are in effect drawing a line in the sand. Perhaps we can also get them to do something similar regarding the 4th Amendment and the FISA reauthorization that was passed by the United States Senate currently under consideration in the House.

Links:

[link to www.dailypaul.com]


Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller: [link to www.progunleaders.org]

Not About Secession
About Constitutional State's Rights.

IN FACT~ State's Rights will PREVENT the NWO!

I think it's a protectionist move by the States to better prepare for what's coming down the pike.

I AM NOT SHOUTING I AM USING A FUCKINGHG BLACKBERRY ..CAPS ARE EASIER TO READ..GET THE FUCK OVER IT .MANY FOLKS NEED CAPS ON THIER BLACKBERRY .EYE SIGHT ISSUES ..GLPP ERS MUST ACCEPT THE NEW NORM BECAUSE OF BLACKBERRY USE ON NETS FORUMS ARE COMMOM NOW .A 2 AND HALF INCH SCREEN IS TUFF TO READ ..LOTS OF SPELLING ERRORS ARE VERY EASY FROM POOR EYESIGHT ISSUES..ON TINY BLACKBERRY SCREENS .LOL..

Your caps lock is not preventing spelling errors. Turn it off.