New Hampshire wants OUT! Others may follow?

[Shooter]

New Hampshire wants out!
http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d16-Guns-and-the-Constitution-A-legislator-finally-gets-it

Look at this Crack-Pot! Or is he?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

The US according to Panarin. Or should that commie-pinko-bastard just STFU? :crazy:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AO116_RUSPRO_NS_20081228191715.gif

OK, I know the deal behind the NH thing, etc. but since this is a highly intelligent and eclectic bunch here at JBF, what says you? Secession? Revolution? Civil War? Do I need to stock up on the beer and ammo reserves so that I can hold off the Chinese? Or is that a futile endeavor given their sheer numbers?

[Sponsored Links]

[Tilehelperdan]

Both links go to the same page.

I would be worried if the Russians had not proven themselves incompitent(sp).

[cx]

Why would Texas hafta take Florida and Georgia and Missippi and them? That don't make no sense at all. We might take New Mexico and Colorado and such so's we'd have us some better mountains, and maybe Louisiana could just kinda be more of EastTexas (can't tell'em apart anyways), but that's about it.

Tell your guy his map ain't worth ten cents, Confederate. :shake:

[ob1kanobee]

I love the way CX splains things. Why would anyone want Florida? If Florida wanted to secede the U.S. government would give it to Cuba real fast LOL.

Who in the world wants to be a part of California either? Isn't it supposed to fall into the ocean?

If California and Florida leave then we wouldn't need the stimulus and Nancy Pelosi would have to go play in some other sandbox. Crisis solved. All those tree huggers out in California gone! Free health care from the Cuban Government in Florida (according to Michael Moore).

He wishes they could take Alaska. Yea right.

[Shooter]

The first link was updated. It talks about a bill for New Hampshire to leave the union.

[Tilehelperdan]

Well, the way I see it, this is no longer the United States of America. Some other corrupt, hollow entity has replaced this great nation, and I fear it may need to fail and be rebuilt. I am slowly becoming more in favor of an insurrection against this govt to force a return to our founding principles. It actually makes me sad.

Sic semper tyrannis

[muskymike]

Yeah and why does Wisconsin gotta be under Canada? Eh? :D

Pretty scary. :eek:

[LGB]

It's not just NH. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88218

People are fed up... And on Monday the O man is gonna preach on fiscal responsibility. :bang:

[scuttlebuttrp]

Check out CX talking smack. Like Florida wants anything to do with Texas?
Like ANYONE would want Texas?
Aren't yall just a kinda barren desert out there?

[ddmoit]

I'm loving it. The federal government should fear the states, and the states should fear their people.

[cx]

Aren't yall just a kinda barren desert out there? Well, we do have a large portion of that, Royce, way out inna western part of this very large state. Plenty room left over for other geography, too. Hell, we got plenty room to store y'all's swamp with the little sand fringe all around if you wanna keep it outa them hurrycanes, even. 'Course that wouldn't leave y'all with much of a state remaining then, would it? :D

Guess there'd be that little sandy part barely stickin' up outa the ocean way down to the south end, but I guess that already belongs to Puerto Rico or Cuba or one of them bigger islands, don't it?

Naaa, Texas'll be better off without them places. We'll have plenty to keep us busy still tryin' to 'splain to Mexico how it is that we really did steal the place fair and square. :shades:

[Davestone]

NOBODY WANTS FLORIDA?....Good, then we'll stay right where we're at..America's wang.:D

[ddmoit]

In this economy, Florida is definitely on sale right now. It might be worth it for Texas to buy Florida for no other reason than to get a few gators to put in the Rio.

[John Bridge]

We've already got gators. Got warning signs in the subdivisions near the bayous. Besides the desert and prairie out west, this part of Texas is semi-tropical. Our climate (and latitude) is about the same as Orlando's. :)

I would like to caution you folks on talk of insurrection. That's not a good choice of words. And it's certainly not advocated by anyone officially connected with the John Bridge Forums and/or John Bridge & Associates LLC, the operator of the forums.

Now you wanna talk of secession, go for it. :D

[cx]

Yep, yep, see my disclaimer at the bottom of my posts. My bidness partners ain't officially in support of no insurrection. Nope, nope, not an official position.

I, on the other hand, being fully aware that the Texas Constitution clearly indicates that succession is a perfectly legitimate option at any time, don't need to talk of insurrection, only succession.

But I am personally in favor of removing us from the current confederation by whatever means that might prove the most successful. :)

My opinion; worth price charged.

[jvcstone]

Curious about one thing--If some of the states do manage to strike out on their own, or in the more likely collapse of our federal government due to it's excessive and growing financial burden--- could a fellow just move on to some of that vast (and empty) federal land holding and claim it for his own self??? Some mighty nice country in those national forests , parks, and preserves.

BTW CX--what with all this new money being printed in the white house basement, you're not charging near enough for your opinion these days.;)

JVC

[ob1kanobee]

If the United States needed an enema right now (which I think it may) then Florida is the place where you would insert the tube. Either it or Camden NJ.

[ddmoit]

Interesting question, John.

I have to figure someone is going to contest a claim on current federal land.

I see a few possibilities. A state could claim that "federal land" within state borders should never have been federal to begin with. It would become state property. A state, in peacefully seceding, may compensate the federal government for federal land. A state could insist that the federal government must divest itself of such land by selling it to whomever they can.

Anyone interested in land currently owned by the federal government in a state that left the union should expect to have to pay for it somehow - either by purchasing it outright, or by agreeing to a set of conditions for taking ownership. Such conditions might include occupying the land or improving it in some manner.

[scuttlebuttrp]

Just messing with ya CX.:D

You guys do realize that any state that seceded would be expected to deal with it's share of the National debt don't you? You have a certain % of the land/ and or people. You inherit a certain % of the nation's debt.

[MudMaker]

Good, then we'll stay right where we're at..America's wang.

Then what is California Davy??

[ddmoit]

Well, that's one way to look at it, Royce. I suspect a seceding state would take a dim view of that line of reasoning though.

[ob1kanobee]

They would probably just print more money to make up for the seceding state.

[Davy]

Hey MudMaker, that was Stoner that said that. I'm trying to stay out of it.:D

[John Bridge]

I don't see states seceeding; what I do see is individual states or groups of them refusing federal laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional -- a take-off on the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. That (peaceful) rebellion failed because other states did not join in, and the states that did were the less populous. Sentiment might lean the other way today.

For years I have advocated a re-evaluation of the Constitution, a second convention it you will, not necessarily to change the document significantly but to bring it into modern vogue. Congress through the years, for example, has proven that it cannot, will not, constrain itself when it comes to spending. Maybe the revised Constitution would contain some sort of spending restriction.

I think many of you know I love the Constitution of the United States. If we would all, or if the majority of us would, adhere to it we would be in much better shape. :)

[Paulie Walnuts]

Mike, if we became part of Canada we could go walleye fissin' and grow mullets. I also hope Illinois goes to Mexico.

Paulie

[ddmoit]

http://www.freestateproject.org/node/16210

[LGB]

John, with the knee jerk reactions coming from Washington and the mentality of the American people these days, nothing would scare me more than a constitutional convention.

[John Bridge]

Scares a lot of people, Leon, but at least what came out of it would be "constitutional." You're afraid what came out wouldn't suit you. I'm thinking there's nothing to lose and everything to gain. :)

[LGB]

You sure have more trust than I do. Our current constitution is just fine. The principles apply just as well today as they did 200 years ago. People in power are producing stuff like this in my state.


http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/49675-sb-415-persons-prohibited-no-longer-based-conviction.html

[ddmoit]

I have to say that I see it Leon's way here. I don't even want to think about the abomination of a constitution that would arise from the efforts of the folks in charge today.

[cx]

JB and I have argued the issue of constitutional convention vs. revolution a good number of times. I, of course, give serious consideration to his side, and am quite willing to compromise. I think there should be a constitutional convention just like the first one, just as soon as the revolution is over.

But I do hafta agree that having a convention without the revolution would bring about some changes. Things would be no worse than they are now, nor would they be any better, of course. But at the end, all this madness that will hopefully cause a revolution will at least have a constitutional foundation. Maybe that will make some folks happy while the revolution is in progress, but I really don't understand that part at all. :shrug:

Maybe John can 'splain us more. :)

[John Bridge]

Revolution is fine as long as it's peaceful. :)

1. It's never been done, but in a second Constitutional Convention the current folks in charge wouldn't have much to do with it. It becomes a matter of the states and of the people. The feds are out of the process. The political power thing would be between the people and their respective state legislators.

2. As CX indicates, the Constitution is being ignored at present, and prospects for the future are not any more encouraging. What has replaced the Constitution is a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, much of which is unconstitutional if one reverts to an original understanding of the document. So I see nothing to lose by reviewing and clarifying. If what results goes against my way of thinking, so be it. At least it will be current and "constitutional."

3. In my view the original document wouldn't be changed, but a couple of clarifying amendments might be added. It gets a bit windy here. Enough for now. :)

[cx]

3. Wouldn't need no steenkin' "clarifying amendments," whole thing would be re-written , non? Alla "amendments" would just be part of the new Constitution.

I've got notes for a few, and only a few, changes myownself.

Proper revolutions ain't never peaceful. If the changes could be made peacefully, wouldn't be needin' no revolutions. But I suppose you could write your representatives and ask them nicely to all step down peacefully so's a few necessary changes could be made in their absence.

Actually, I can think of only one way to even start a peaceful revolution and that's to simply stop paying taxes. Period. That, of course, would result in the violence being started by the current government. They still got a lotta guns and prolly a lotta ammo stored up. But the battle would last only until "their" troops missed their first payday. :)

My opinion; worth price charged.

[ddmoit]

Actually, I can think of only one way to even start a peaceful revolution and that's to simply stop paying taxes. Period.I've reached the same conclusion, CX. That's the way it's gonna go. I still remain hopeful that it can happen fairly peacefully.

[Hamilton]

I wonder how many construction workers have money to pay their
taxes this year? Can we all say I-O-U?

[John Bridge]

"But I suppose you could write your representatives and ask them nicely to all step down peacefully so's a few necessary changes could be made in their absence."

If you mean U.S. representatives they have no say-so in the matter once they are directed by the states to call the new convention. There is nothing in there that says the federal government has to be included from that point forward. They call the convention. That's it. Delegates would be appointed by the states.

And I wouldn't necessarily fire the representatives; I would remind them who they work for. ;)

[sdaniels7114]

Yeah, but then the people of the individual states would mostly send their current federal representatives as delegates. Its all the other Congressmen or Senators that everyone hates, not their own.

[ddmoit]

I don't know, Steve. I have no use at all for my two senators, my governor, or my congressional representative.

[tmcguinn1]

Who has to take DC? Could we just cut it out like a cancer? If so, doesn't that mean we don't have to have a revolution as there is nothing left to revolt against?

Always thought a well timed bomb on DC (when ALL politicians, including local, are present) would solve all of our problems.

If they succeed, I'm moving to the US of NH. Beautiful country.

______________________
Definition of Politics: "Poli" in latin meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood-sucking parasites."