Montana to Secede? (2009, live in, move)

[burt49]

hello, ive been following this interesting thread and concur that as uncle sammy continues to systematically erode our constituition and bill of rights each state must surrender more and more or find a way to unite and break away, but consider this: have any of you guys read in full what all of the execuitive orders say? that the presidents have written since FDR, and Kennedy added to it, then Nixon, Clinton and especially George W. Bush.. Please read what the E.O.s say the president can do in the event of a war or disaster... then read the Homeland security laws, Patriot act and homegrown terrorism bills that are now law... basically to sum them all up, the feds can do whatever whenever to whomever for however long they want..and i dont think they are very vocalabout all this YET, because it would be wise for them to disarm the people first before the full understanding of these laws is widely known. also i forgot to mention the doing away with possee comitadis(sp?) and the writ of habius corpus... which means, they can now use the military against the civilian populous and arrest you without probable cause and you dont have a right to trial with attorney representation,,, they have not pushed these new laws very hard yet but i think they are now on the books waiting for some emergency before they break them out... please correct me if im wrong.... it looks like when the $#@$% hits the fan the president can declare martial law and do whatever , some of the states may object and if enough states get into agreement maybe this foolishness can be reversed, but i think we the people need to hold our local and state governments feet to the fire... but no kidding, do a google on the Execuitive orders and read all of them, they give a president more power than a dictator.. even though the constituition says any law passed that is unconstituitional is null and void, no one knows or enforces that..... basically all of the patriot act , NAIDs, homeland security act, and federal reserve , IRS ect is unconstituitional but whos gonna junk them??

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by princeabc

In lieu of Heller v. Washington D.C. Montana is threatening to secede if the case is decided as a collective right versus as an individual right. The following is a letter written by the Secretary of State, Brad Johnson of Montana, delivered to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision.

Eh? What's this?? the cited letter was absent.

I saw the Heller decision, but nothing about MT's reaction?

[later] Okay, I found a copy of the referenced letter; here it is:

http://progunleaders.org/johnson.html
==================================
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Montana Threatens to Secede
A letter from the Secretary of State of Montana:
=================================
http://progunleaders.org/ has a whole bunch more documents including the state resolution.

[wizzardproduction]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Yes Timberwolf,

The one and only state that can succeed at this time, is Texas.

And you are absolutely correct. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that any state could succeed. The only ones that could benefit would be Alaska or Hawaii. Because they are pretty much independent now, except for federal funds.

No state would do it if they could. Like you mentioned, there is way too much infrastructure that they depend on. Federal monies keeping schools open, teachers paid, extra police, Colleges kept open, College grants, Tax reliefs for new companies coming on line, and lots and lots of other things.

Dare program, welfare, medicare, medicade, WIC,. Now people are going to argue that Medicade and wic and welfare are state run. Yup. State run with Federal money.

So I personally don't believe, any state can afford to opt out.

TEXAS hahahahaha

you better get more knowlegable on napolyonic law the primary law in Louisina as agreed to in the Louisina purchase agreement contract number 3 of 12 in the purchase agreemeent .

the entire purchase parts of oklahoma ,texas,lousina,and more sections could all be revolked by france or its old propertys of land .

read up folks its law

and it would be the best thing to happen every body talks about all the fed support the states get please give me a break thats plain funny lol lmao

[Timberwolf232]

Originally Posted by wizzardproduction

TEXAS hahahahaha

you better get more knowlegable on napolyonic law the primary law in Louisina as agreed to in the Louisina purchase agreement contract number 3 of 12 in the purchase agreemeent .

the entire purchase parts of oklahoma ,texas,lousina,and more sections could all be revolked by france or its old propertys of land .

read up folks its law

and it would be the best thing to happen every body talks about all the fed support the states get please give me a break thats plain funny lol lmao

Yeah, we are really worried about France. Now THAT is funny.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

Yeah, we are really worried about France. Now THAT is funny.

Heh heh... tho it gives one pause to think: what if all the terms of acquisition and treaties pertaining thereto were gone over with a fine-toothed legal comb? what if all the ignored or violated terms were magically enforced? one suspects a great deal of the world would abruptly belong to someone else (quite possibly a someone-else that no longer exists). Would make an interesting project for an advanced history student.

Just for the exercise, what if MT *did* successfully secede?? occurs to me that a smart next move would be an economic alliance directly with Alberta (which of all the provinces, is the only part of Canada that could presently make it on its own as a country). And that North Dakota might well follow, being also generally of more independent mind than some other states. Could have a cascade effect after that, mainly for farming states with low populations.

Highly doubtful of course, but makes an interesting hypothetical scenario.

[Timberwolf232]

Sure would be interesting. I agree that a Canadian alliance would be smart, as well as with the Dakotas and Wyoming.

Would be a good project for a student. The topic makes me want to go take a class or two myself!

[TJDAVISSR]

You are illinformed about The Republic Of Texas. It does not need to seceed it still is a Republic. Check out The Republic of Texas on the web. Texas and GA both have bills in process to re-afirm articl 10 of the Constitution.

[Kristynwy]

Originally Posted by TJDAVISSR

You are illinformed about The Republic Of Texas. It does not need to seceed it still is a Republic. Check out The Republic of Texas on the web. Texas and GA both have bills in process to re-afirm articl 10 of the Constitution.

This post is a couple years old, why do you try and start a new post out on the main forum instead? Thanks..

[bigskydude]

From a geopolitical perspective, I can see where various certain states would team up to create their own Republics.

From Alberta, all the way down to Texas, we stand pretty much connected, through our politics, views and lifestyles.

Once the splits begin to happen ... and they will ... I can see Alberta, Montana, North/South Dakota, Wyoming, portions of Nebraska and Idaho, forming it's own Republic.

Likewise, with Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisianna, and portions of Colorado, Mississippi, and Georgia forming their own Republic.

So these might be populated states on the lower end, but we have to take into account that though these be collectively lower in population, the states mentioned can account for nearly 80% of all of the oil that is produced in this country, and roughly 75% of all of the food.

Take these states out of the equation with regard to the union, and the liberal coasts would have to either starve, or be subjected to doing our bidding.

Remember, most if not all of the policies born of late in Washington, have come from the coastal regions of this continent.

[Broz]

Originally Posted by bigskydude

From a geopolitical perspective, I can see where various certain states would team up to create their own Republics.

From Alberta, all the way down to Texas, we stand pretty much connected, through our politics, views and lifestyles.

Once the splits begin to happen ... and they will ... I can see Alberta, Montana, North/South Dakota, Wyoming, portions of Nebraska and Idaho, forming it's own Republic.

Likewise, with Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisianna, and portions of Colorado, Mississippi, and Georgia forming their own Republic.

So these might be populated states on the lower end, but we have to take into account that though these be collectively lower in population, the states mentioned can account for nearly 80% of all of the oil that is produced in this country, and roughly 75% of all of the food.

Take these states out of the equation with regard to the union, and the liberal coasts would have to either starve, or be subjected to doing our bidding.

Remember, most if not all of the policies born of late in Washington, have come from the coastal regions of this continent.

Agreed..