Posted on 11/13/2012 8:25:48 PM PST by publius321
A great deal of discussion has taken place on conservative message boards today due to the fact that Glenn Beck has referred to those in twenty states who have signed petitions to “secede” from the union. These petitions seemed peculiar to me since it would be the job of their elected state legislators to secede if such an activity were to take place, not individual citizens.
As I elaborated in my video today, on his radio program Glenn has repeatedly urged listeners to move from northern states to Oklahoma and Texas. The inference is obvious.
Yet, he implies that people who see secession coming are insane.
This to me is a form of hedging that is taking place. Later, depending on what happens, these radio hosts can all say they always said these people were kooks. But when they see it become more inevitable as God fearing, red states defend their citizenry against brazen evil - then - the talking radio heads will go out on a limb and bravely “predict” secession.
I have been predicting secession since Obama was elected for reasons enumerated at TableOfWisdom.com and again today at the video following. However, the way in which the possibility is being handled by signers in these twenty states is unrealistic and will not take place as a result of this apparent endeavor.
If or when it happens it will occur as a result of Obama forcing states to protect their citizens against clear violations against the constitution. The beginning stages where Obama has waged war against states can be seen in the lawsuits launched against Arizona for simply trying to enforce federal law in protecting its borders against outside invasion. One can also point to Obama’s election ploy where he proclaimed that deportation laws against illegals would not be enforced.
It will get much worse once Obamacare fully kicks in over the next few years but with the aforementioned examples, one can see states exhausting all options through the legal system before they have to resort to secession. One can see these state representatives doing what our founding fathers did step by step through every channel before they were left with no other choice. Our founders were mostly “loyalists” to the crown until they had no other choice. Enter the Declaration of Independence where they expatiated in full – why they had no choice.
We have not reached that point yet, but I have no doubt in my objective mind that WE WILL. Obama has had no other intention from day one then to FORCE this upon the states.
There are some on the conservative boards that believe that the federal government will simply implode as the currency dies, thereby preventing this from happening. They are erroneously leaving out one important factor. The Obama administration is rapidly seeking to empower and surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations. This administration is treasonously participating in UN resolutions to take over our rights.
Regardless of whether this encroachment comes to full fruition before or after Bernanke prints our currency to worthlessness, they are coming with the United Nations and nations who hold the gold – like China.
In the days of the confederacy, the states were fighting a federal government that had arrogated power onto itself that was never intended by our founders. Similarly, the final confederacy will be fighting against a UN that was initially sold to us as a symbolic organization with no power or authority over US citizens.
I observed a few posts by some RINO types who will no doubt be similar to the implacable loyalists who refused to see the writing on the wall to the bitter end. One such post castigated a conservative as follows:
“As much as I don’t like the outcome of the election, I’m not ready to give up on America yet.
Anyone who wants states to leave our nation had better take a long look in the mirror. How dare you disrespect the sacrifices of our fallen veterans who gave their lives for America. And you call yourselves Patriots...I would use a different term...Quitters." (end quote)
If you want to leave America, then I suggest you follow in the footsteps of the forefathers you constantly use as an example and go find your own island, move there, and start your own nation. Leave America for the Americans. We may be a flawed nation, but I’d rather live in America than anywhere else in the world...including your new nation.”
We are seeing this type of rhetoric from some of the very people, including talk radio hosts who were the very people who were telling us that this election is for the fate of our nation since it was all coming down to this election since John Roberts left it to the electorate to overturn Obamacare. Now, when push comes to shove, it seems there stance has morphed into the old "well, there's always next election". Presumably they are now in denial and are conning themselves into the notion that once the kids and unmarried women suffer through four more years of Obama - THEN they will finally see the error of their ways and then elect the next Romney, McCain or Dole (as though that would save us).
What would it take to stop these RINOs from deluding themselves? Will they still be telling us "wait until 2016 as they are handcuffed to a pole in Gitmo?
I would agree these people should not be doing this because it is up to their sovereign states to handle this. From that standpoint, they should be petitioning their state legislatures, not the federal government.
It is also too soon.
Where I disagree with the sentiments is in his perspective about them being unpatriotic. These common assertions sound like sanctimonious platitudes that would fly 10 years ago but not now.
I’m not shouting but need to capitalize this for emphasis.
THE UNITED STATES FOR WHICH YOU AND I LONG NO LONGER EXISTS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN SECEDING FROM THE CONSTITUTION BEGINNING AT LEAST IN 2008.
THE ELECTORATE HAS CHANGED. THE DEGRENERATE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN OF THE BOOMERS -SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY!!!
DELUSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS ARE IN DENIAL.
THE “BLUE DOG” DEMOCRATS ARE DEAD AND THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK – SO STOP DELUDING YOURSELF INTO THINKING THEY WILL BE BACK IN 2016.
OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN OUTPOURING OF EVIL THAT WILL DEMAND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE UNLESS YOU ARE EVIL YOURSELF.
THEN - STATE LEGISLATURES (RED) WILL HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE (LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, THE WAY THEY EXHAUSTED EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BEFORE THE DECLARATION).
I LIKE BECK - BUT HE IS WRONG ABOUT THIS BECAUSE HE IS UNDERESTIMATING THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION.
MARK MY WORDS, A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW HE WILL BE TELLING US HOW HE PREDICTED SECESSION EARLY ON – BECAUSE HE WILL PREDICT IT ONCE OBAMACARE KICKS IN AND HE SEES HOW WICKED IT TRULY IS.
IT IS INEVITABLE - BUT NOT NOW AND NOT BY PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IS NOT TO DO THE WORK OF THEIR ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS.
To the RINOs like the loyalists to the crown who cannot part with the gravy train from which they make their fortunes, I offer this favorite quote of mine by Samuel Adams written to the loyalists who put their status quo first - rather then the principles enumerated by our founding fathers:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
As for me I stand for the constitution, which is the true America that our founders created 236 years ago. America is NOT a government that murders babies, the handicapped and the elderly. America is NOT a government that sees its citizens as mere resources to be disposed of the moment they deen them a burden.
"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States. But serenely conscious of that fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." at 454.
"In another sense, according to some writers, every State which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign...As a citizen, I know the Government of the State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, - one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge in this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as part of the 'People of the United States,' did not surrender the Supreme or sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State..." at 457.
In the same case, Justice Iredell made the following statements:
"...A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. A State, though subject in certain specified particulars to the authority of the Government of the United States, is in every other respect totally independent upon it. The people of the State created, the people of the State can only change, its Constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the Constitution of the United States; that it must be of the Republican form.."
Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist No. 23":
"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several Legislatures; it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be, to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature, proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority."
As stated by James Wilson:
"It [sovereignty] resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government....They have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare....they can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper." (Gordon S. Woods, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, W.W. Norton & Co., c 1969. at 530.)
Once this is understood, only then is it possible to grasp how the people "may take from subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place these powers in the general government...They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle called the State governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States." (Creation at 530-31)
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 2"
"It is a compact by which the several states and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government.
"Having shewn that the constitution had its commencement with the body politic of the several states; and, that its final adoption and ratification was, by the several legislatures referred to, and completed by conventions, especially called and appointed for that purpose, in each state; the acceptance of the constitution, was not only an act of the body politic of each state, but of the people thereof respectively, in their sovereign character and capacity: the body politic was competent to bind itself so far as the constitution of the state permitted, but not having power to bind the people, in cases beyond their constitutional authority, the assent of the people was indispensably necessary to the validity of the compact, by which the rights of the people might be diminished, or submitted to a new jurisdiction, or in any manner affected. From hence, not only the body politic of the several states, but every citizen thereof, may be considered as parties to the compact, and to have bound themselves reciprocally to each other, for the due observance of it and, also, to have bound themselves to the federal government, whose authority has been thereby created, and established."
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1"
"The mild tone of requisition was exchanged for the active operations of power, and the features of a federal council for those of a national sovereignty. These concessions it was seen were, in many instances, beyond the power of the state legislatures, (limited by their respective constitutions) to make, without the express assent of the people. A convention was therefore summoned, in every state by the authority of their respective legislatures, to consider of the propriety of adopting the proposed plan; and their assent made it binding in each state; and the assent of nine states rendered it obligatory upon all the states adopting it. Here then are all the features of an original compact, not only between the body politic of each state, but also between the people of those states in their highest sovereign capacity."
I suggest you read this: The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse Delivered the 30th of April, 1839 http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm
"At his residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organization of means differing from that of a compact between the state Legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of delegates from the state Legislatures, independent of the Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself for effecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress for the regulation of commerce, as the object for which this assembly was to be convened. In January, 1786, the proposal was made and adopted in the Legislature of Virginia, and communicated to the other state Legislatures.
"The Convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. It was attended by delegates from only five of the central states, who on comparing their restricted powers, with the glaring and universally acknowledged defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates to meet at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, from all the states and with enlarged powers.
The Constitution of the United States was the work of this Convention. But in its construction the Convention immediately perceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign states, to the constituent sovereignty of the people, from power to right - from the irresponsible despotism of state sovereignty, to the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence...
"The Convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no state government; no combination of them was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A Constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederation Congress, by the state Legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing upon it."
"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States. But serenely conscious of that fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." at 454.
"In another sense, according to some writers, every State which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign...As a citizen, I know the Government of the State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, - one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge in this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as part of the 'People of the United States,' did not surrender the Supreme or sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State..." at 457.
In the same case, Justice Iredell made the following statements:
"...A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. A State, though subject in certain specified particulars to the authority of the Government of the United States, is in every other respect totally independent upon it. The people of the State created, the people of the State can only change, its Constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the Constitution of the United States; that it must be of the Republican form.."
Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist No. 23":
"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several Legislatures; it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be, to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature, proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority."
As stated by James Wilson:
"It [sovereignty] resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government....They have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare....they can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper." (Gordon S. Woods, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, W.W. Norton & Co., c 1969. at 530.)
Once this is understood, only then is it possible to grasp how the people "may take from subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place these powers in the general government...They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle called the State governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States." (Creation at 530-31)
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 2"
"It is a compact by which the several states and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government.
"Having shewn that the constitution had its commencement with the body politic of the several states; and, that its final adoption and ratification was, by the several legislatures referred to, and completed by conventions, especially called and appointed for that purpose, in each state; the acceptance of the constitution, was not only an act of the body politic of each state, but of the people thereof respectively, in their sovereign character and capacity: the body politic was competent to bind itself so far as the constitution of the state permitted, but not having power to bind the people, in cases beyond their constitutional authority, the assent of the people was indispensably necessary to the validity of the compact, by which the rights of the people might be diminished, or submitted to a new jurisdiction, or in any manner affected. From hence, not only the body politic of the several states, but every citizen thereof, may be considered as parties to the compact, and to have bound themselves reciprocally to each other, for the due observance of it and, also, to have bound themselves to the federal government, whose authority has been thereby created, and established."
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1"
"The mild tone of requisition was exchanged for the active operations of power, and the features of a federal council for those of a national sovereignty. These concessions it was seen were, in many instances, beyond the power of the state legislatures, (limited by their respective constitutions) to make, without the express assent of the people. A convention was therefore summoned, in every state by the authority of their respective legislatures, to consider of the propriety of adopting the proposed plan; and their assent made it binding in each state; and the assent of nine states rendered it obligatory upon all the states adopting it. Here then are all the features of an original compact, not only between the body politic of each state, but also between the people of those states in their highest sovereign capacity."
I suggest you read this: The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse Delivered the 30th of April, 1839 http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm
"At his residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organization of means differing from that of a compact between the state Legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of delegates from the state Legislatures, independent of the Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself for effecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress for the regulation of commerce, as the object for which this assembly was to be convened. In January, 1786, the proposal was made and adopted in the Legislature of Virginia, and communicated to the other state Legislatures.
"The Convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. It was attended by delegates from only five of the central states, who on comparing their restricted powers, with the glaring and universally acknowledged defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates to meet at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, from all the states and with enlarged powers.
The Constitution of the United States was the work of this Convention. But in its construction the Convention immediately perceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign states, to the constituent sovereignty of the people, from power to right - from the irresponsible despotism of state sovereignty, to the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence...
"The Convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no state government; no combination of them was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A Constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederation Congress, by the state Legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing upon it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.