State of Washington declares sovereignty

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 If the feds cut off funds for those states that feel good legislation would be repealed over night.
Click to expand...

The money the Feds get is generated by the states. States send the money to Washington, Feds skim off the top to fund their "departments" and redistribute the money to the various States (some get more than they paid in, most get much less than they paid).

And before you say "But what about Fed income taxes" check the Grace Commission Report. Below is what wiki says, if you want more sources, google "Grace Commission Report".

n 1982, President Ronald Reagan requested an investigation into waste and inefficiency in the Federal government. For this purpose, he initiated a Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, or PSSCC, generally known as The Grace Commission, and asked the members of that commission to: "Be bold. We want your team to work like tireless bloodhounds. Don't leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency."[1]

[edit] The report

The Grace Commission Report was presented to Congress in January 1984. The Report claimed that if its recommendations were followed, $424 billion could be saved in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. It estimated that the national debt, without these reforms, would rise to $13 trillion by the year 2000, while with the reforms they projected it would rise to only $2.5 trillion.[2] In reality, the debt reached $5.8 trillion in 2000.[3][4]

The Report said that one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government, and another one-third escapes collection due to the underground economy. "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."[2]

The Congress did not act on the recommendations.

[edit]
 
More importantly the people did not act on congresses inaction. All hail to the two party system combined with boomer complacency and Xer ignorance
Click to expand...

Got to agree about the complacency and ignorance. IMHO, the boomers,Xers and whatever generations are equally guilty of not paying attention.
The media did almost no reporting on this (sound familiar?) and even the few that knew about it played hell getting their "Representatives" to do anything (again, sound familiar?).
The present sovereignty declarations coming from the states are the voices of the people finally being heard, I think. We'll know soon ... maybe.
BTW, check this out. I don't know how much is true and how much is speculation:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Print-Page.htm?EdNo=001&InfoNo=045290
 
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.
 
I'm with PBP. Personally I would have no problem marching against the Confederate States of the West Coast if they tried to secede, especially that giant over rated one with all the problems:)

I'm not really with PBP. The transition would be very interesting, it certainly would not be smooth, even if the US in general let states or regions slide a way. The major thing would be if or how much debt those states would take with them. By the time this is over the national debt will be about 13 trillion. California, Oregon, Washington, etc. would possibly be in better shape in two years if they could walk away from the national debt. Their share of it proportionate to size of economy or populace likely exceeds 2 trillion dollars. Once they diverted all that money that was going to the fed back into their own pockets I do not see how they could be worse off.
 
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

You pointin' that remark at me ,PBP? If so, enlighten me! I'm easy.
 
PBP,
It would certainly cause some problems for California if they had to renegotiate all their trade agreements, build some sort of military, put embassies around the world, fill n the legislative holes left after national laws were abandoned, but it would certainly not be impossible as you seem to think. Many countries have don it. It is very normal for an area the size of the west coast to be an independent country. The transition, which I would gauge to take two years if allowed to secede peacefully, would be a bit messy but in the end the west coast could certainly stand as a viable economy without the US at large. THe midwest and western states would really be the only ones in trouble as they have no direct route to the outside world.
 
FWIW...

Yesterday (Thursday) morning, Glen Beck announced on his radio talk show, that TWENTY states were now considering this same type of resolution. He didn't specify which ones, just that 20 states were now involved. :D
 
I think the bill that the OP posted may have more to do with border patrol issues here than anything else. The BP has been shaking down regular citizens here on a regular basis and it's causing a ruckus. They set up road blocks on the US side sometimes 30 miles south of the border and check every car. Seems like they oughtta do that at the border to me but then, as I understand it, the legal border that they can cover extends 100 miles to the south.

Aunt Betsy writes her governer when she gets harassed by the feds. We aren't used to this stuff up here.

My one case of heartburn here is that they have found hundreds of illegals this way which is great. What angers me is the sorry liberals that are protesting against them being deported, many of who are aliens as well.

I don't agree with them harassing locals though.
 
Playboypenguin said:
The total lack of understanding of the state economies and how they function shown in this thread is almost frightening. Add it to the complete shortsightedness on the realities of defense, tax base, and infrastructure and this thread is almost an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
As we should all know, this Republic was founded upon the ideals of shared sovereignty. Certain powers were ceded to the general (national) government and certain powers were retained by the States.

We have really strayed from that ideal. Of that, there can be no question.

As I see it, the purpose of these various declarations of sovereignty is to place control back where it should have stayed in the first place. How the mechanics of that would proceed, is open to discussion.

Would the States suffer (financial) hardships? No question there. Yet, the end game could result in returning both power and fiscal responsibility to the States, as Federal involvement (and expenditures) shrank.

This would possibly be a good thing. This is not to say, it would be easy or without pitfalls. It is however, a workable idea, as long as the citizens understand that hardships would increase. At least for the time that it took to right the "Ship of State," as regards Federal involvement in State affairs.

Remember, we are not talking secession. We are merely demanding that the Feds uphold that Constitution that we all hold so dear. The entire idea of a national mandate to solve a problem, is the idea that legislative "one size fits all" solutions can work in States as diverse as what had then, and still have now. That thinking is anathema to our Republic. It is also what has brought us to the present point in our history.

The only real obstacle to returning our country to its Republican roots, is the people themselves.
 
Perhaps the advocates for secession, both past and present, took these words to heart?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
 
Re the several posts on this thread, and what appears to be a somewhat heated discussion, concerning "you cannot fight city hall", city hall being a blank that the individual might fill in for themselves, from my PERSONAL experience, you, the individual not only can, but you can win. I note that the affairs, I was involved in with were SMALL matters, one with the IRS, another with the state revenue dept. Penn State Income Tax. No great amounts of money were involved, and there was nothing about sovereignty either, however sometimes, individuals or a relatively small number of individuals not only can fight "city hall", they can do it successfully, and they can win.

My personal experiences might well NOT transfer to other areas, however whenever I hear that old saw about one not being able to fight "city hall", I think back to the admittedly small matters I was involved with, and wonder about larger issues.
 
Does this effect the state sovereignty issue?:confused:


The case of In re Merriam’s Estate, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, lays down a solid foundation for something far more ominous that the mere fact that the United States is a corporation:
“It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, [*485] so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub. 18.) The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.”
-- In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
In Volume 19, CJS (Corpus Juris Sec.) § 968 one finds the statement that “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State.” The above case is cited as the authority. That the United States is a foreign corporation is exactly what the court held. By affirming the decision, the United States Supreme Court concurred in U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896). The legal definition of a "foreign corporation" is different from the colloquial use of the phrase.
Two attorneys made argument for the United States in the New York Court of Appeals. One attorney, Jesse Johnson, argued that “stock held by decedent in foreign corporations should not be included in the value on which the tax is to be levied.” However, Charles Baker argued that the “legacy in question on the death of the testator vested immediately in the United States, and became at once their property, free from liability to taxation.” Baker then confronted the court with an either/or position. Either the United States was not a corporation at all, and therefore not within the meaning of those terms employed in the New York laws, OR the United States was a domestic corporation entitled to all the privileges and immunities respectively. The court did not find for either argument. It held the United States was a corporation, it was not domestic, and was not immune from being taxed on the legacy of the estate. It further held that the tax imposed was on the right of succession and not on the property itself, rendering the United States argument with respect to stocks of foreign corporations completely moot. The Supreme Court affirmed New York’s holding by stating that the legacy became the property of the United States only after it had suffered a dimunation to the amount of the tax. However the Supreme Court also made clear that the United States was not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt from taxation and that the United States was indeed a government corporation.
There is no arguing to the contrary. The United States is a foreign corporation. In fact, if one reads Title 28 USCS § 297, the “compact states” of subsection (a) are clearly defined as “countries” in subsection (b). So if the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a group of “countries,” then what are the ramifications to those who have dual citizenship, especially when the foreign corporation formally enters into bankruptcy and becomes pledged to a third party creditor?
This is also supported by the statement; "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20, Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 based on the definitions § 1783. "Definitions" and § 1784. "What Are Foreign Corporations".
For supporting material and evidence see the following with references...
"Essay on Citizenship"
"The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top