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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 6, 2009
      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.