Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lawless
    Video of the fantastic bill that was heard in committee yesterday: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81954 **************************************** I would remind
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Video of the fantastic bill that was heard in committee yesterday:
      http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81954

      ****************************************
      I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

      --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...> wrote:

      From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...>
      Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 12:42 PM






      http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html

      Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)

      --
      Carol Moore in DC
      http://carolmoore. net/
      http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
      http://youtube. com/carolmoore
      http://secession. net
      http://stopthewarno w.net
      http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
      http://radicalbutto ns.com

      NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
      the National Security Agency may have read this
      email without judicial or legislative oversight
      or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
      recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • GaryT
      Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt, actually get it . Most poignant to me was the passage: That they will concur with
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt, actually "get it".

        Most poignant to me was the passage:

        " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution"

        Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the years.

        Gary T


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net
        To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
        Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"


        http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

        Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)

        --
        Carol Moore in DC
        http://carolmoore.net/
        http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
        http://youtube.com/carolmoore
        http://secession.net
        http://stopthewarnow.net
        http://whatwouldgandhido.net
        http://radicalbuttons.com

        NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
        the National Security Agency may have read this
        email without judicial or legislative oversight
        or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
        recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tim Condon
        The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State House and Senate by several libertarian-conservative legislators. Regretfully,
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
          House and Senate by several libertarian-conservative legislators.
          Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
          wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so that
          everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
          espousing. ---Tim Condon


          On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

          > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
          > actually "get it".
          >
          > Most poignant to me was the passage:
          >
          > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably
          > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
          > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
          > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of
          > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the
          > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with
          > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
          > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their
          > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
          > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving
          > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
          > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will
          > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
          > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of
          > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
          > Constitution"
          >
          > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
          > years.
          >
          > Gary T
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net
          > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
          > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
          > movement"
          >
          >
          > http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
          >
          > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
          >
          > --
          > Carol Moore in DC
          > http://carolmoore.net/
          > http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
          > http://youtube.com/carolmoore
          > http://secession.net
          > http://stopthewarnow.net
          > http://whatwouldgandhido.net
          > http://radicalbuttons.com
          >
          > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
          > the National Security Agency may have read this
          > email without judicial or legislative oversight
          > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
          > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Chris Lawless
          turgid, archiac, prolix language.   Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.  
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            'turgid, archiac, prolix language.'
             
            Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.
             
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions

            ****************************************
            I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

            --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

            From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
            Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"
            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 6:11 AM






            The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
            House and Senate by several libertarian- conservative legislators.
            Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
            wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so that
            everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
            espousing. ---Tim Condon

            On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

            > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
            > actually "get it".
            >
            > Most poignant to me was the passage:
            >
            > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably
            > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
            > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
            > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of
            > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the
            > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with
            > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
            > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their
            > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
            > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving
            > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
            > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will
            > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
            > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of
            > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
            > Constitution"
            >
            > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
            > years.
            >
            > Gary T
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Carol Moore/Secession. Net
            > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
            > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
            > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
            > movement"
            >
            >
            > http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html
            >
            > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
            >
            > --
            > Carol Moore in DC
            > http://carolmoore. net/
            > http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
            > http://youtube. com/carolmoore
            > http://secession. net
            > http://stopthewarno w.net
            > http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
            > http://radicalbutto ns.com
            >
            > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
            > the National Security Agency may have read this
            > email without judicial or legislative oversight
            > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
            > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------ --------- --------- ------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tim Condon
            Yes, as you can see, they were written in 1798. That s not the way people write, or talk, today. Hence my wish for someone to decipher the language of the
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, as you can see, they were written in 1798. That's not the way people
              write, or talk, today. Hence my wish for someone to decipher the language of
              the proposed legislative resolution into common, everyday, current American
              English. --Tim


              On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@...> wrote:

              > 'turgid, archiac, prolix language.'
              >
              > Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions
              >
              > ****************************************
              > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And
              > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
              > virtue!
              >
              > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
              > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
              > movement"
              > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 6:11 AM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
              > House and Senate by several libertarian- conservative legislators.
              > Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
              > wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so
              > that
              > everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
              > espousing. ---Tim Condon
              >
              > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:
              >
              > > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
              > > actually "get it".
              > >
              > > Most poignant to me was the passage:
              > >
              > > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so
              > palpably
              > > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
              > > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
              > > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States,
              > of
              > > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of
              > the
              > > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government,
              > with
              > > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
              > > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with
              > their
              > > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
              > > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one
              > deriving
              > > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
              > > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal,
              > will
              > > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
              > > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others
              > of
              > > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
              > > Constitution"
              > >
              > > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
              > > years.
              > >
              > > Gary T
              > >
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: Carol Moore/Secession. Net
              > > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
              > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
              > > movement"
              > >
              > >
              > > http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html
              > >
              > > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
              > >
              > > --
              > > Carol Moore in DC
              > > http://carolmoore. net/
              > > http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
              > > http://youtube. com/carolmoore
              > > http://secession. net
              > > http://stopthewarno w.net
              > > http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
              > > http://radicalbutto ns.com
              > >
              > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
              > > the National Security Agency may have read this
              > > email without judicial or legislative oversight
              > > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
              > > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.