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

The "secession-leaning bill."

Expand Messages
  • Tim Condon
    This is on the home page of the Free State Project: A secession-leaning bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4, sponsored by NHliberty.org. Only
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 1 9:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning
      bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by
      "NHliberty.org." Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning." In
      fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at
      "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Marcy Ch
      Tim, as I read the bill, it states: That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 1 11:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim, as I read the bill, it states:

        That any Act by the Congress of the
        United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of
        America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of
        America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United
        States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America
        and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
        States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
        Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
        United States of America.

        The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution.   Most of them are stated goals of the current administration. 

        Sounds like secession to me. 

        Marcy



        --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
        From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
        Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
        To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM












        This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning

        bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by

        "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In

        fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at

        "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon



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































        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lynne Masters-Lee
        Coming into this very late, and while still residing in a southern state, how long has this bill been kicking around, and is the new administration providing
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 1 10:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Coming into this very late, and while still residing in a southern state,
          how long has this bill been kicking around, and is the new administration
          providing goals that take away more liberties of the citizens than what the
          previous administration actually has done?

          On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...> wrote:

          > and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
          > States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
          > Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
          > United States of America.
          >
          > The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that
          > would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution. Most of them are stated
          > goals of the current administration.
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • GTriest
          Yep, that is how I read it too. Sussession may not have been explicitly stated, but that is exactly what it implies. Gary T ... From: Marcy Ch To:
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 2 4:42 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Yep, that is how I read it too.

            Sussession may not have been explicitly stated, but that is exactly what it implies.

            Gary T



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Marcy Ch
            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:31 PM
            Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."


            Tim, as I read the bill, it states:

            That any Act by the Congress of the
            United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of
            America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of
            America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United
            States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America
            and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
            States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
            Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
            United States of America.

            The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution. Most of them are stated goals of the current administration.

            Sounds like secession to me.

            Marcy

            --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
            From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
            Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
            To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
            Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM

            This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning

            bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by

            "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In

            fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at

            "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon

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











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




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tim Condon
            Marcy, that s a little selective quotation of the Bill, and even that goes not even suggest secession. What it DOES suggest is that the state of New Hampshire
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 2 5:09 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Marcy, that's a little selective quotation of the Bill, and even that goes
              not even suggest secession. What it DOES suggest is that the state of New
              Hampshire is serious about insisting that the federal government comply with
              the CONSTITUTION of the United States, not that we're going to quit if the
              feds don't do what we want them to.
              I call everyone's attention also to the following part in Rep. Itse's bill,
              which explicitly disclaims secession, and explains what the point of the
              whole exercise is:

              That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall
              have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the
              Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues
              in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested
              from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union:
              that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly
              to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace,
              happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact,
              according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and
              acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its
              preservation....

              ----Tim Condon


              On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...> wrote:

              > Tim, as I read the bill, it states:
              >
              > That any Act by the Congress of the
              > United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of
              > America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of
              > America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United
              > States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America
              > and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
              > States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
              > Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
              > United States of America.
              >
              > The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that
              > would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution. Most of them are stated
              > goals of the current administration.
              >
              > Sounds like secession to me.
              >
              > Marcy
              >
              >
              >
              > --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
              > From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
              > Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
              > To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
              > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A
              > secession-leaning
              >
              > bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by
              >
              > "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In
              >
              > fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at
              >
              > "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon
              >
              >
              >
              > [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]
            • Thom
              Marcy,   That is not secession.  Secession occurs when a group seeks to secede, right?   This is saying that nullification is caused by the FEDERAL Govt,
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 2 5:13 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Marcy,
                 
                That is not secession.  Secession occurs when a group seeks to secede, right?
                 
                This is saying that nullification is caused by the FEDERAL Govt, the govt of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not by any action of any state.
                 
                What is says, in effect, is that Federal laws and regulations and orders that EXCEED Constitutional authority are null and of no effect, having no Constitutional basis, and the States, who are bound by and following the Constitution, do not need to abide by them.
                 
                It is the OPPOSITE of secession: The State is abiding by the Constitution, the Feds are breaking it.
                 
                Thom

                --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...> wrote:


                From: Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...>
                Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 2:31 PM






                Tim, as I read the bill, it states:

                That any Act by the Congress of the
                United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of
                America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of
                America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United
                States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America
                and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
                States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
                Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
                United States of America.

                The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution.   Most of them are stated goals of the current administration. 

                Sounds like secession to me. 

                Marcy

                --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net> wrote:
                From: Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>
                Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com>
                Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM

                This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning

                bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by

                "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In

                fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at

                "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon

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











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
















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Seth Cohn
                ... secession-leaning bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4, sponsored by ... No, Tim, the video podcast, by Dave Ridley, was sponsored by
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 2 6:08 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tim Condon wrote:
                  >
                  > This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A
                  secession-leaning bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4,"
                  sponsored by
                  > "NHliberty.org."

                  No, Tim, the video podcast, by Dave Ridley, was sponsored by
                  NHLiberty.org.

                  > Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning." In
                  > fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at
                  > "NHliberty.org" read the bill?

                  Your question should be directed at the person who wrote those words:
                  Dave Ridley. Not the sponsors of his podcasts. Do you also rail at
                  companies whose commercials air during shows you disagree with?

                  It was very obvious to me it was a Ridley Podcast, perhaps you need to
                  read more carefully.
                • Marcy Ch
                  I am not an expert  (far from it) but the five elements listed in the bill --  which was created in this session of the Legislature -- seem to be in response
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 2 2:58 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I am not an expert  (far from it) but the five elements listed in the bill --  which was created in this session of the Legislature -- seem to be in response to specific measures taken by the Federal Government in the present and previous administrations --  Blue text is the Federal Action and the red are my comments on what the concern is.

                    I. Establishing martial law or a
                    state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United
                    States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State. Beginning October 1, 2008, battalions were brought back from Iraq for the declared purpose of handling civil unrest.  Civil unrest?  When they did this, the original bailout hadn't even been passed.   Congressional bill HR 645 introduced 2 days after the inauguration calls for the creation of "national emergency centers" which can be used for a whole lot of things, including concentration camps.



                    II. Requiring involuntary servitude,
                    or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or
                    pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process
                    of law.  Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have been quite vocal about instituting an unpaid, mandatory 3-4 month period of civil service for all Americans, with special emphasis on creating a Hitler-Youth type corp among 18-25 year olds.   



                    III. Requiring involuntary servitude
                    or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than
                    pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process
                    of law.  Obama and company's agenda includes a  mandatory 50 hours / year of unpaid, civil service for high school children under the age of 18  (youngest age, unknown). 



                    IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.Possible Blackwater operations on US soil??  I don't know.


                    V. Any act regarding religion;
                    further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further
                    limitations on freedom of the press.   



                    VI. Further infringements on the
                    right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity
                    of arms or ammunition;   There's much info out there (morebans.org, for one) that indicates that under Obama, the Second Amendment will be essentially toast.
                     
                    Marcy

                    --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Lynne Masters-Lee <masterspieces@...> wrote:
                    From: Lynne Masters-Lee <masterspieces@...>
                    Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                    To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:56 AM












                    Coming into this very late, and while still residing in a southern state,

                    how long has this bill been kicking around, and is the new administration

                    providing goals that take away more liberties of the citizens than what the

                    previous administration actually has done?



                    On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@yahoo. com> wrote:



                    > and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several

                    > States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the

                    > Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the

                    > United States of America.

                    >

                    > The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that

                    > would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution. Most of them are stated

                    > goals of the current administration.

                    >

                    >



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































                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Marcy Ch
                    Best place to go is the state intent of the author. Check out You Tube interview with Dan Itse   (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) who authored the resolution.   He
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 2 3:43 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Best place to go is the state intent of the author. Check out You Tube interview with Dan Itse   (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) who authored the resolution.   He addresses all the concerns brought up. 



                      --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Thom <benchpress59@...> wrote:
                      From: Thom <benchpress59@...>
                      Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:13 AM












                      Marcy,

                       

                      That is not secession.  Secession occurs when a group seeks to secede, right?

                       

                      This is saying that nullification is caused by the FEDERAL Govt, the govt of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not by any action of any state.

                       

                      What is says, in effect, is that Federal laws and regulations and orders that EXCEED Constitutional authority are null and of no effect, having no Constitutional basis, and the States, who are bound by and following the Constitution, do not need to abide by them.

                       

                      It is the OPPOSITE of secession: The State is abiding by the Constitution, the Feds are breaking it.

                       

                      Thom



                      --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@yahoo. com> wrote:



                      From: Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@yahoo. com>

                      Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."

                      To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com

                      Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 2:31 PM



                      Tim, as I read the bill, it states:



                      That any Act by the Congress of the

                      United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of

                      America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of

                      America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United

                      States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America

                      and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several

                      States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the

                      Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the

                      United States of America.



                      The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution.   Most of them are stated goals of the current administration. 



                      Sounds like secession to me. 



                      Marcy



                      --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net> wrote:

                      From: Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>

                      Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."

                      To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com>

                      Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM



                      This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning



                      bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by



                      "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In



                      fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at



                      "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon



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



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



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































                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • GTriest
                      Well, I could accept this as a reasonable interpretation. Secession could be interpreted as a State wanting independence of the Federal Govt, irrespective of
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 6 11:26 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well, I could accept this as a reasonable interpretation.
                        Secession could be interpreted as a State wanting independence of the Federal Govt, irrespective of the federal govt behavior.

                        What you are suggesting, is that when the federal govt doesn't live up to the terms of the original agreement, then that the seeking of such indpendence is not secession, but rather an annulment due to the performance breach of the federal govt.

                        Well, that may be playing with words. It seems to me that the word secession does not require a reason to be descriptive. It simply means the act of breaking existing legal ties to the main body. The reason you cite may be justified, but I think it still would be defined as secession.

                        Gary T



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Thom
                        To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:13 AM
                        Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."


                        Marcy,

                        That is not secession. Secession occurs when a group seeks to secede, right?

                        This is saying that nullification is caused by the FEDERAL Govt, the govt of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not by any action of any state.

                        What is says, in effect, is that Federal laws and regulations and orders that EXCEED Constitutional authority are null and of no effect, having no Constitutional basis, and the States, who are bound by and following the Constitution, do not need to abide by them.

                        It is the OPPOSITE of secession: The State is abiding by the Constitution, the Feds are breaking it.

                        Thom

                        --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...> wrote:

                        From: Marcy Ch <marcyinnh@...>
                        Subject: Re: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                        To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 2:31 PM

                        Tim, as I read the bill, it states:

                        That any Act by the Congress of the
                        United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of
                        America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of
                        America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United
                        States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America
                        and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
                        States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the
                        Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the
                        United States of America.

                        The bill goes on to name those actions by the [federal] government that would constitute nullifcation of the Constitution. Most of them are stated goals of the current administration.

                        Sounds like secession to me.

                        Marcy

                        --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net> wrote:
                        From: Tim Condon <tim@timcondon. net>
                        Subject: [FSP] The "secession-leaning bill."
                        To: "FS FSP" <freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com>
                        Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM

                        This is on the home page of the Free State Project: "A secession-leaning

                        bill goes before the New Hampshire House March 4," sponsored by

                        "NHliberty.org. " Only problem is, the bill is NOT "secession-leaning. " In

                        fact, it specifically disclaims secession. I wonder...has anyone at

                        "NHliberty.org" read the bill? ---Tim Condon

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

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

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




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