How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government (Forget Secession)

Nolan Chart ^ | July 22, 2009 | Skip Sanders

[broken_arrow1]

Thirty four (34) is the number of Legislatures from the several States necessary to call a States Convention or a Constitutional Convention. This also known as an Article Five(5) Convention, or a Convention to Amend the U.S. Constitution. With fifty (50) States in the U.S. Federal Compact today, thirty four (34) is the Constitutional number of legislatures from the several States needed to cross the threshold for such a convention.

Let's look at Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution :

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Thirty eight (38) is the number of legislatures from the several States that is necessary to ratify and thus amend the U.S. Constitution after such a convention. This amendment could be "to dissolve". By "dissolve" I mean the whole compact between the several States. Yes, the entire Federal Government and every thing it has or was created under it's jurisdiction. This would include but is not limited too, the Federal Debt, the Federal Reserve Bank, the FDIC, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, etc. etc... Think of it as a Constitutional self destruct mechanism.

This would leave the fifty (50) several States and the numerous Federal Territories, sovereign and under their own rightful and direct jurisdiction. Of course each State or Territory would then be free to individually or in groups engage in new compacts and trade arrangements. That is up to them to decide at a further date.

I know this information is very powerful and the far reaching ramification of such a decision may be a little hard for the reader to grasp or understand at first glance. I openly admit that I am not capable of understanding all the possibilities or consequences of such a decision. That being said, please allow me to entertain some ideas that immediately come to mind.

The Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Notes are gone. The National Debt under the Federal Governments' promise to pay, evaporates Of course the IRS and all Federal Taxes. Social Security , Medicare and all that has been promised, owed or collected. Any claim to Federal Park Lands, highways, military bases, equipment, buildings, assets of any kind inside the several States. Any and all Federal agreements or treaties such as NATO, the UN, WTO, NAFTA,CAFTA, GAT and so on. I invite the readers to speculate and comment on any of the challenges or possibilities that could result if such a course was taken.

I will leave you with this final thought, "That which has been created can NOT be greater than the creator." It is time for the people through their several State Governments assert their power over the Federal Government over which they created. 100% Legally with pen and paper!

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yup. No need to change the constitution, just follow it. States have the most power to enforce that, but how and just when might they do that?

On second thought, eliminating direct election of Senators would be a very good thing, but first things first.

[Uncle Sham]

"A Constiutional Amendment to ban the government from spending money it doesn’t have"

It's already there in Article Four, Section 4.

[DNME]

Under no circumstances would an Article V “Constitutional Convention” simply erase the existing Constitution and force something new and weird down our throats. Please folks, relax.

Article V describes how to AMEND the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution — anywhere — about dissolving the Union. Zero. Nada. And if such an assembly even TRIED to write a new Constitution (good luck with that!) then any such proposal would require the approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures for ratification, which I simply don’t believe would ever get off the ground. We are not idiots and they are not forcing anything down our throats. Period.

The Framers originally planned for a States’ Convention as the ONLY way to offer amendments. They allowed Congress as a second means to amend the Constitution only at the last minute. (On the second to last day of the Constitutional Convention, if I’m not mistaken.)

Personally, I no longer trust any of those bums in Congress, so it SHOULD be up to the States to propose amendments. Let’s start with term limits, which Congress will NEVER approve. Or a clarification of the Commerce Clause.

I do like jdirt’s proposal to amend Article V such that a Convention may ONLY offer ONE amendment at a time. That would cool a lot of fevered brows and give the States much more confidence to propose needed amendments. But no Convention will take place until Congress calls one, at the request of 2/3rds of the States, which they have steadfastly refused to do.

I also agree with volunbeer, that even one more liberal on the Supreme Court will doom the Constitution to irrelevancy. We all agree that the feds should abide by our founding document, but how do we punish them for failing to do so? Only the States have the power to put pressure on the feds, and so far they aren’t doing much about it.

Without federal compliance to the Constitution, we have no government. Simple as that.

[broken_arrow1]

AMENDMENT II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

SCOTUS 5-4 decision - How can this language mean something different to 4/5 SCOTUS justices?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

[tomkat]

+1

[EternalVigilance]

Much simpler, and safer, to simply throw all the bums out...and replace them with men and women who understand the basic obligations of their sacred oaths of office.

[EternalVigilance]

Much simpler, and safer, to simply throw all the bums out...and replace them with men and women who understand the basic obligations of their sacred oaths of office.

[Alas Babylon!]

Consider that the individual states get a vote; not the delegates except through their position of representing their state, it is doable. The states wanting to disolve would have to be very careful in selecting their delegates in ensuring they will represent the people of that state. No backstabbing the conservative legislatures! Men and women who are like George Washington: uncorruptable.

First of all, consider the following states, and the fact that the majority of the individual states in the USA are conservative:

Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Texas
Tennessee
Kentucky
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Mississippi
South Carolina
Indiana
Arkansas
Kansas
Georgia
Louisiana
North Carolina
Virginia
New Hampshire
West Virginia

That's 25 states we can usually depend on to be conservative. The next group are iffy:

Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Missouri
Ohio
Florida
Iowa

That's 32. We'll still need 2 more from one of these more liberal states:

Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Maine
Delaware

Depending on how bad things get, it might be doable.

Finally, states that would stab us in the back (in order of their conservative minority to liberal majority--in my opinion):

Minnesota
Illinois
New Jersey
Washington
Oregon
Rhode Island
Hawaii
California
New York
Vermont
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts

So that would be how the Constitutional Convention would line up. Your mileage may vary!

[ASouthernGrl]

Supposedly a majority of States have already taken action, filing a Notice with the International Court in the Hague that we are no longer members of the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES (see The US is a corporation, not a country http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm). According to the folks @ www.freedomreigns.us, we will be going back to the original Constitution before the “Act of 1871” was forced upon us, which turned us into slaves to the corporation. If you listen to the recording done on March 28 (under Alerts tab) with David Wilcock and an “insider” named Drake, they give some specifics. Supposedly this action gives the Military the authority to follow the orders of WE THE PEOPLE. Again, according to them this plan has been in place for over 20+ years but no one was willing to do it, until now. Whether this is for real or not is anybody’s guess at this point but I’m sure we’ll soon see if it is.

[nonsporting]

How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government (Forget Secession)

Out of the frying pan, into the fire!

Say goodbye to a government which is supposed to protect God-given rights. Say hello to a godless, hedonistic, totalitarian state (pretty much what we've become), but enshrined in charter form.