State of Washington declares sovereignty

California:
- total payments to the federal government exceed total receipts from the federal government
- has a coastline which facilitates foreign trade
- has an economy variously ranked as the 7th to 10th largest in the world; Spain, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and India survive with smaller economies
Click to expand...
Even your strongest argument does not work. Who holds the trade agreements that benefit the ports of California? The federal government does. Who buys that vast majority of the products imported into California through those ports? The other states of the union do...that is who. Who buys the oil that comes out of California? The federal government does. Where does California get it's natural gas from? Other states of the union. Where does the majority of California's power come from? From that natural gas it receives from outside the state. And so on and so on...

You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.
 
You need to think through your assertions a bit more thoroughly next time.
Click to expand...

As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.

Back to the legal aspect of this thread...

There is a huge gap between war or succession and silent acquiesence to federal overreaching. The trend of states voicing their displeasure with federal dominance may be a small step, but it is a positive one.
 
As do you, PBP. Iowa would have difficulty being independent while surrounded by an unfriendly neighbor, but California has the key ingredients for independence, even with an unfriendly neighbor.
Click to expand...
Not really, they are super dependent on inter-continental sources for power, food, timber, etc. To import them from over-seas would further bankrupt an already failing economy.

You are also forgetting that the only reason they have more going out then coming in is taxes on extremely high income residents. If these residents agreed to succeed from the union they would have to agree to pay greatly increased state taxes for the state government to have a any real money coming into it. They would also have to realize they would then lose one of their major sources of income which is TV and films. Since they would not be exporting these products to the USA as easily profits would disappear.
 
Shelby Foote(was a living breathing encyclopedia of the Civil War) said that before the Civil War, people referred to the U.S. as "The United States are..", meaning a reference to a collection of independant states joined in a union. and after the Civil War, people said "The United States is...". "the United States are..." is a concept long gone today, and I think its the concept our Constitution was written around. The 10th amendment carried so much more meaning than it does today. i dont know food for thought i guess...
 
Hoo ha and off it goes... I am personally acquainted with a couple of the sponsors (before they were elected). Severe right wing rowdies. But the text of the bill is interesting. I wonder what they wish to accomplish. Don't see any of it changing...

One of the interesting points though, is that the 10th Amendment reflexively refers to the Constitution which can (and does) change. Especially with the Judicial Review (supposedly) granted by the third amendment.

For what it is worth - when I was a youngster (1950's) my Arkansas born and bred forbears believed that the term "Civil War" was reconstructionist Yankee propaganda. It was more correctly, in their eyes, called the War of Northern Aggression.
 
El Paso Joe said:
Especially with the Judicial Review (supposedly) granted by the third amendment.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you meant Article III, as the 3rd amendment deals with the quartering of soldiers.

By common law, judicial review was long a power of the judiciary. It is not something granted, rather it is something that was always there. That common law authority was never codified by statute, but under case law: Marbury v. Madison.
 
Hey guys

I have not been on this site but a couple of months and I have noticed one very important thing, AL aka (Antipitas) is very smart. Al, you should run for office, seriously, we need to start promoting like minded people again for the people. Anyone up for game, I am considering running locally to start.
 
I ran for Mayor of my town, back in 2003. In 2007, I was working for a different company and couldn't take the pay cut (Mayor is paid as a part time job) - they said they would "accommodate" my hours, but refused to put it in writing.

Now I content myself to being a thorn in the side of the current Mayor/Council; Police Chief; Sheriff; and my State and Federal Reps.

ETA: Forgot to mention that I lost by 33 votes.
 
Last edited:
Al, God bless you for making a difference. Even if it is from the sidelines. But I am taken back by the brazen and bold belief that California could actually succeed as a nation if it were to secede. The arguments are compelling, but given the financial problems facing California today, it is highly unlikely Hollywood could pull this off.

First, lets pull out the Federal government completely. This would include all Military bases, the shipyards currently under contract to the federal government, the federal prison guards (you can keep the facilities and the bodies to feed), Customs Inspectors, subsidies to the universities and colleges, etc.

The National Guard itself would have to be significantly ramped up to provide the National Defense of this new country. Think of the cost to secure your border with Mexico--no US military to assist you. And the cost to monitor the entire coastline you brag about. And the inspection all the goods that come into your ports. Drug enforcement?

Now what about the need for Ambassadors and embassies. A new country would need to have visas and passports to travel. Who will regulate this. I know, Arnold would just create more government jobs. While he is creating new government jobs, maybe he could employ more prison guards to replace the Feds.

We haven't even touched the cost for education, medical, and shelter for the homeless, the migrant workers, the unemployed. Just look whose hand is out there the furthest for this so-called "stimulus" bill.

It is moot to think a state, maybe other than Texas and that is still a reach, could follow through with the threat of seceding alone. But the idea of the states banding together to limit the land grab by the federal government, that is a possibility.
 
Al-

You are correct - it is Article III (I KNEW that...:o). Thank you.

But I still wonder what the object of the Bill in the WA House is. If the Federal Gov't wants to exercise control, the 10th Amendment does not stop them. As I understand the meaning, it just says that the states control what the Fed Gov't hasn't already passed (or will pass) a law to control. The only hope (in our dreams) is that the Supreme Court will hear a case and overturn whatever the Feds have done (this time).
 
push for state sovereignty, will it work, is it for real?

http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/states-stand-firm.htm

The above link from JPFO discusses movement/actions taken in that direction. I personally have no idea as to how far this might go, though there have been significant objections raised re the Real ID Act.

In any event, it might be worth while or interesting to read the material at the above link, your choice.
 
I've been trying to get someone to explain to me whether these state soverignity issues, which apparently some members of this forum support, gee and haw with "incorporation" which other members support. Can you tell me? (Or maybe I need to explain "gee and haw".)
 
Please people. . .

If we're going to engage in a discussion, albeit a good one. . . let's at least get the words right.

"Succeed" is what Obama is going to do at tearing our rights to pieces. "Succeed" is what the "stimulus" plan is NOT going to do.

"Secede" is what the states that made up the Confederate States of America did to remove themselves from the Union, constitutionally, and legally.

"Secession" is the noun form of the word, secede (see above).

"Succession" planning is what conservatives did a poor job of in the 2008 election and the years leading up to it, which is why we're having this discussion right now.
 
hmm.

Ok, it was tried before, and, under force of arms, prevented.

Will the next series be successful? This is a long time coming, as the Federal Govt has gotten huge since Lincoln, and has effectively continue to grow ever since...
I think it will depend on the federal government's ability to stop it... A good example would be the collapse of the USSR and how its states seceded, after the effective governmental collapse...
So, if the Fed Govt is, well to over simplify, too broke to prevent it, and it is in the best interest of the State, I see little to stop it...
 
Al

Instead of running for mayor this time, why not try a State Rep position? It could not hurt. I assisted on a campaign several years ago for my hometown rep in District 180 as I recall in Ga. He won and served several years before retiring. Harder to campaign and get elected than it actually is to serve, we are going to have to put "Ouselves" back in office and the sooner the better, lets get rid of the "professional" red tapers and bring speed, common sense, duty, respect and pride back to our heritage.
 
"I would point out that Missouri, Georgia, and Washington have thousands of nuclear weapons within their borders."

I don't know about Missouri or Georgia...but can you cite a reference for the thousands of nuclear weapons in Washington?
 
The highest concentration of nuclear warheads is at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific in Bangor, Washington, which is home to more than 2,300 warheads – probably the most nuclear weapons at any one site in the world. In fact, if Washington were to secede from the United States with this nuclear power intact, it would be the third (possibly fourth) most powerful nuclear state in the world.

Malmstrom in Montana has over 500 warheads. King's Bay, GA has over 1,300 warheads.

That is a combined total of 3,100 warheads.



Map here.
 
It is a big thing about nothing. All of those states are on the federal dole. If the feds cut off funds for those states that feel good legislation would be repealed over night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top