http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/tag/new-hampshire-nh-hcr-0006/ Looks like New Hampshire's bracing itself for a possible seccession. The language refers to a nullification of the US Constitution due to Federal violation of it, which I guess serves to circumvent Congress's approval under Article IV. Every now and then towns and counties chatter about secceeding, but they generally refer to a transfer into another state's domain, not a state-level rejection of Federal government. The language of NH HJ 0006 is quite explicitly that, no? This recent bit by Mike Ruppert is worth bearing in mind:

Quote: I am watching closely how (the number keeps growing) five state legislatures have introduced resolutions announcing their secession from the Union in the event that certain things happen. Er, excuse me... when they happen.. Doh!, as they happen. (Matt Savinar's tracking them at LATOC). The answer to all this fragmentation/secession/break up discussion is obvious. Why reinvent the wheel. Just break up the 50-state union and turn the states loose. That is actually provided for in the Constitution. It doesn't require creating new governments, legislatures and courts. It's obvious. These resolutions didn't just spring up since January 20th. Following a dissolution of the Republic into a federation, large states like California and Texas are likely to break up within a few years after that. Hell, when it was drafted, the Texas state constitution provided that Texas could break itself up into five states if it wanted to. It still can! If it did, it would automatically become a federation and become the "Russia" to Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Eastern New Mexico. Shoot, and also to a big chunk of Mexico (and the Gulf) too. Texas would be the de facto seller of energy to much of the rest of the continent...

Dramatic, but perhaps not unrealistic. Strange days we live in...

Proposing something is widely different than having it pass.

So some republicans(?) proposed a house resolution in their state legislature.

Watch CSPAN, there are some very ridiculous things that are introduced with no real chance of passing at all levels of government.

Texas would seceed before New Hampshire anyway.

New Hampshire's not good for anything anyway. As long as we've Got PA, we'll be in good shape.

Holy run on sentence batman! Seriously, they have some sentences the size of paragraphs in that.

I approve, though. I've never been a fan of the consolidation of power (and the tyranny of the majority -- when it even manages to be the majority desire) within the federal government. It served a purpose when ceding from the British, but I'm far from convinced that the purpose it serves now is worth the cost to our fundamental liberties.

Of course, it's not all that interesting unless it actually happens.

This HCR-006 bill is still in the New Hampshire State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs house committee...Where it looks like it died on 2/12 as there seems to be no calls for future committee action on it. Most bills die in committee before ever reaching house or senate floor.

Honestly this is nothing new. Secessionist movements started within a year of the ratification of the constitiution, and has been ongoing ever sense. Currently active groups like the Alaskan Independance Party, New england Confederation Alliance, Republic of Texas, Second Republic of Vermont and dozens more year after year try to push for secession.

As it stands today the only way legaly recognized by constitutional law for a state or all states to succeed from the union is by mutual agreement of both the state and federal legislators. Which means the legislators in the state must approve such a measure as well as a federal constitutional amendment recognizing the states succession.

Its kinda funny how this HCR-006 bill calls upon Thomas Jefferson principals. Especialy sense when Jefferson was president some of his own policies ignited a seccession movement particularly over the Embargo act of 1807.

[Edited by - MSW on February 14, 2009 1:34:12 PM]

It seems to me that 600,000+ Americans died nearly 150 years ago deciding the question of secession. I don't know why neo-Confederates waste other people's time revisiting the issue. I'm glad to hear the measure died in committee. It smacks of make work for a wack job politician. And yes I know that New Hampshire wasn't part of the Confederacy, but those who talk up secession deserve the label.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
... Confederacy, but those who talk up secession deserve the label.

As a member of a nation built on Confederation, I wouldn't mind knowing just how you are choosing to define that label.

Honestly, if a large number of citizens feel that the best way for them to live is to stop being part of the United States, then all the power to them to leave the union peacefully and build their own lives.

However I can't really see any part of the USA splitting away in an overly violent way (beyond extremist radicals in small isolated groups) and building walls to cut themselves off from the rest of the USA. At best I think we will see a restructure of the Federal level of government, and different parts of the USA being more independent, while still holding open boarders as they do now.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I'm glad to hear the measure died in committee.

That is just a guess on my part as the last reported committee action on it was Thursday, with no future plans for actions reported...Might have died, or might not have been enough time to update the public record.

Bill likely started with a seccession movement like Republic of New Hampshire whom got it to ride on the wave of gun owner groups long held fears and concern of being under the thumb of a anti-gun Obama administration. With a larger public voice behind it, it landed upon the desks of congress critters looking to score some points.

But I think its safe to say it will die in committee. The bill was sponserd but four Republicans (one senator the rest house critters) none of whom sit in the committee. So the bill was just refered to the committee, didn't originate there. Even then the committee has 11 dems and 9 republicans.

Further guessing on my part is that the bill is even in committee (was sponsered) is in large part due to the validity of the legal question of the federal government overstepping its constitutional authority -interesting angle to take even though it creates a catch-22. And as the bill isn't a declaration of seccession itself, the sponsers likely thought there was some merit to putting it on the table. A sort of trial balloon, not so much for the bill itself but to draw up debate over its reasoning, happens more often then most think.

Catch-22 of course is that the bill proposes the creation of a NH committee to decide the constituionality of federal government policys...in effect declairing itself above the suprime court (whom are entrusted with that authority) and the constitution itself (which doesn't give a state such authorty to begin with)...which I suppose could be interpreted as a declaration of rebellion.

It will most likely die off in committee and the sponsers can go back to thier constituents with stories of how them commie pinko Dems killed it (which in all fairness might be some truth to that), And the Dems can go back home telling everybody how the Republicans tried to start a war over fears that Obama will take away your guns (again, might be some truth there) and we can all go on our merry way resenting each other :P



*sigh - I need to learn to not be so verbose over such pointless endeavors.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
As a member of a nation built on Confederation, I wouldn't mind knowing just how you are choosing to define that label.

See Civil War of the United States of America.

The use of the Confederacy label has really has nothing to do with a confederate form of government. Really if the South had chosen to refer to themselves as followers of the "Articals of the Dumzits"...Lessbread would be useing the label of Dummzies instead.