WE THE SHEEPLE

 Hannity: States could Secede

On his Friday radio show, conservative talker and Fox News host Sean Hannity warned that the United States may fall apart if tax rates remain high ... (more)

There's been talk of it. People have had enough, almost anyway, of this occupier and his regime. I'd personally go for seeing him bodily carried out, and the rest of his comrades told they better flee the country if they know what's good for their treasonous azz as well. That, or warned they better keep their nose out of anything to do with politics again, in any fashion, behind the scenes included, and one warning is all they should ever get.

    I'm too cynical to think that Secession will happen over money.  Corporations make way too much money through interstate commerce, for Secession to ever be in their interests.

    Secession can only happen as a grassroots movement.  Presently, Americans have freedom of movement throughout the country.  If tax rates and living expenses are too high in some State, for what the citizen believes they get back in return, then they move somewhere else.

    I'm one of those.  I lived in Seattle for 11 years.  No income tax in WA, but living in Seattle became financially untenable for me.  I went back to NC, which prior to the recession had the most rapidly growing urban areas in the country (Raleigh and Charlotte).  I came back because I have family in the Carolinas, and because the Raleigh area has a viable tech industry.  I didn't like living in Raleigh, and now I'm a nomad all over the South, or even the country, but that's another story.  The point is, it was an economically better proposition than Seattle.

    I'm unclear which states, or portions of states, are subsidizing who.  We had that debate in WA.  The coastal liberal Western Washingtonians, dominating the state's agenda from the huge population center of Seattle.  VS. the conservative farmers east of the Cascades, producing all the food.  I traveled all over the state for my petition signing job, and I lived in Spokane briefly, thus earning the title of "Washingtonian," not just a Seattlite.  People are Seattlites the minute they land in Seattle.  I figure to be a Washingtonian, you have to live in the state 10 years, and be involved with more of the state than just Seattle.

    Anyways the Western WA liberals say that they're the ones actually making all the money, and subsidizing the Eastern WA conservatives.  So they'd be happy to get rid of Eastern WA, they say.  I think New York says the same thing about Arkansas and Alabama.  Texas, well maybe they're in a self-supporting situation.

Yep, Texas pays in more than it gets from the govt.  WND has an article that the whitehouse has responded to the secession petitions.. Surprise ...the answer is NO

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

here's a map

White House responds to secession petitionsHundreds of thousands of Americans have petitioned the White House to allow their states to secede from the union. 

Tens of thousands have asked the White House to deport those who want to secede. 

Now the White House has issued its official response ... to BOTH groups of petitioners ...Read the latest now on WND.com. 

Born and raised in the Tri-cities. Lived for years in Everett, also lived in Marysville, Lynnwood, and in Mountlake Terrace for a short time when a teenager. Left in '83, stayed 3 mo. in Alabama before S. Carolina, also FL, then Louisiana before back to Everett in '92, after divorce. That moving was due to exe's job. Then to Port Orchard, which I loved, in '96 and worked in Seattle, commuted by ferry. 2006 we moved to Texas. 

I'll look to read that link when we get back Ivonne. Going to my grandson's BD party. He's a big 6 today.

    The secession petitions have been kind of silly.  The Founding Fathers attempted to work with the uppity Brits for a *long* time before resorting to violent revolution.  We haven't gone through anything *remotely* like the drama they went through.  "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."  The Declaration of Independence lists a whole pile of specific abuses.

    By comparison, not liking who got elected President is just whining, a bunch of crybabies.  I wouldn't even want such people as revolutionary allies.  They're spineless, worthless.  They have no idea what it takes to forge a nation.  Tossing off about how you don't like the democratically elected President is *not* the liberty principle at stake here.

    The US Civil War proved that if you're the victor, you get to write the laws.  Yes, that's a Southern perspective.  Talk to indigenous people about their perspectives on the legitimacy of US laws and treaties.  It's all about the Golden Rule - them's with the gold, makes the rules.

I have to say that Bob Unruh at WND is writing some "come to Jesus" articles that everyone should read.  I love his stuff and it's a blessing to have someone like him telling the truth.

Brandon it's not a matter of not liking Obama....it's a matter of him usurping the constitution he swore to uphold.  Dubya was no better either & I was just as disgusted with his treachery.  Both would be king if we let them.

Ha!  They need to arrest Al Gore for selling his station to al Jezeera.  That will never happen though.

    "Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.

    Nullification vs. Constitutional Challenge

    Nullification should be distinguished from the situation in which a state brings a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. A state may challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute by filing a lawsuit in federal court seeking to declare the federal law unconstitutional. Such a lawsuit is decided by the federal courts, with the Supreme Court having final jurisdiction. This is the accepted method of challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute. This is not nullification, even if the federal courts uphold the state's position and declare the federal statute unconstitutional. The theory of nullification is that the states have the unilateral power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws, and that a state's determination of unconstitutionality cannot be reviewed or reversed by the federal courts. Thus, nullification involves a declaration by a state legislature (or a state court) that a federal statute is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced within the state. Under the theory of nullification, such a declaration by a state is final and binding, and cannot be overruled by the federal courts. On the other hand, when a state files a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute, the ultimate decision on constitutionality is made by the federal courts, not by the state legislature or state courts. Because such a lawsuit recognizes the authority of the federal courts to make the ultimate decision on constitutionality, it is not a use of nullification."

Many federal judges and some supreme court judges need to be REMOVED for failure to uphold the constitution.  The framers never meant for those appointments to be for life under any circumstances.  Let's take Robert's decision on Obamacare for example....congress should have removed him.

I disagree nullification is a constitutional principle that should be upheld.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/03/kirk-wood-nullification-a-constitutional-history/

10th Amendment/Nullification Movement

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
–Thomas E. Woods

    Rhonda, these are nice ideas, wish fulfillments, whatever, but the actual Federal law is very clear on this matter.  SCOTUS has tried it and found no legal basis for it.  This isn't new stuff.  It's 200 year old stuff.  If you think a law is unconstitutional, you can try your case in Federal court.  The court, and ultimately SCOTUS, may or may not agree with you.  It's SCOTUS; it doesn't admit some "side court" of the individual States to gainsay its decisions.

    The only remedy to that is armed resistance.  Which has been tried.  It's not a good idea unless you really, really have something worth fighting over.  Short of that, you work with the actual laws of the land.