Somthings up in at least 9 states including OKLA

[85Sooner]

Below are links to the nine states (so far) that have made sovereignty declarations of one type or another.


Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/Formatdocument·asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Michigan
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf

Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/state-legislator-charles-key-wants-to-limit-federal-power/

Hawaii
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/
Posted by HalTurnerShow.com at 2/05/2009 09:51:00 PM 19 comments


and there is talk down in texas about joining in.

Excellent post made by one writer. States accept the billions, then declare themselves independent and tell the feds to go get repayment from the entity that now would no longer exist. Thats going a bit far but still interesting.

[Viking Kitten]

I don't know about the other states, but in Oklahoma this has to do with rejecting the federal government's Real ID Act. I spoke with State Rep. Charles Key about this last year, and he did a good job explaining why Washington D.C. has no business telling a state what it must put on its drivers licenses.

[Scott D]

Texas just wants to rejoin with Mexico.

[yermom]

i don't see what the big deal with that is

if i can travel freely between states shouldn't my ID be same everywhere?


though i haven't heard anything good about NCLB but i haven't heard much

[1890MilesToNorman]

States fighting for their constitution rights is all. The FED wants everything. Nice to see the states fighting back.

[badger]

States accept the billions, then declare themselves independent and tell the feds to go get repayment from the entity that now would no longer exist. Thats going a bit far but still interesting.

Not to be biased, but when has Oklahoma EVER gotten more than it's paid into the system. We are not a high-delegate state. We don't have an early-early-early primary. The closest we ever came to having an Oklahoman in power was Carl Albert. Our roads and bridges are not comparable to our neighbors. Our citizens' health is ranked incredibly low.

So really, what is the federal government providing Oklahoma? It sounds to me like Oklahoma's giving the rest of the country it's road funding, it's best students and workers and not getting anything in return.

[OklahomaTuba]

Word.

Oklahoma provides *** kicking football to these states united, and we don't even get a little bling on the side from the federalles. Its a crime.

Its always good to have a plan B, just in case this whole USA thing doesn't work out though.

[Scott D]

States fighting for their constitution rights is all. The FED wants everything. Nice to see the states fighting back.

Except Hawaii has been on again off again on complete secession for the last 20 years or so. They are about as flaky on the thought process as Quebec is with Canada.

[Vaevictis]

Not to be biased, but when has Oklahoma EVER gotten more than it's paid into the system.

Since always. It doesn't take lots of delegates, it takes delegates with clout, like say, Bob Kerr, Carl Albert, David Boren.

Research:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

In 2005, apparently, for every $1 Oklahoma sent to the Feds it got back $1.36.

[JohnnyMack]

Texas just wants to rejoin with Mexico.

http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/612capture_tombstone03.jpg

[swardboy]

I hope the .36 was paid by Texas.

[Vaevictis]

I hope the .36 was paid by Texas.

Most of it is paid by Blue States, actually, to Red States.

Which is one of the most ironic things around, in my opinion. Generally, the states that rail against "socialism" are the ones that benefit most from it. The states that tend to be for "socialism" are the ones that benefit least.

It's epic.

[TMcGee86]

Two words.


Cockfighting.

[badger]

In 2005, apparently, for every $1 Oklahoma sent to the Feds it got back $1.36.

So... um... where'd the money go then? Did we send it all up to Nebraska for their surplus corn?

[Vaevictis]

So... um... where'd the money go then? Did we send it all up to Nebraska for your surplus corn?

It doesn't say that Oklahoma got a ton of money from the Federal government, just that it got 36% more back than it put in.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't know about the other states, but in Oklahoma this has to do with rejecting the federal government's Real ID Act. I spoke with State Rep. Charles Key about this last year, and he did a good job explaining why Washington D.C. has no business telling a state what it must put on its drivers licenses.

Yeah, I'm going to read the legislation from the other states tonight but I had a friend incorrectly call these "secession bills." It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the states trying desperately to retain their rightful constitutional power.

I've never met Kay, but after he introduced this legislation I had a nice e-mail exchange with him. He's a very smart man, and his constituents are lucky to have him.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not to be biased, but when has Oklahoma EVER gotten more than it's paid into the system. We are not a high-delegate state. We don't have an early-early-early primary. The closest we ever came to having an Oklahoman in power was Carl Albert. Our roads and bridges are not comparable to our neighbors. Our citizens' health is ranked incredibly low.

So really, what is the federal government providing Oklahoma? It sounds to me like Oklahoma's giving the rest of the country it's road funding, it's best students and workers and not getting anything in return.

The truth is, Oklahoma shouldn't have to give up anything at all. The Federal government takes money out of the state for programs that it has no business creating. If the Fed would keep to their proper constitutional role then we'd have those resources back in the state and we could spend that money on state programs that strictly help Oklahoma citizens instead of having our tax dollars help some crack addicted teen mother in Compton.

I'm not so conservative that I don't believe in any government assistance or programs at all, but they should be done in the proper way and at the appropriate level of government. I'd love to see much better state programs in areas like education and healthcare, but the Feds suck all the resources out of the state and leave us with little resources to create programs that are already duplicated on the national level.

I don't care if it's terrible to say, but I honestly have very little love for the Federal government. They're like a parasite leeching off the state governments until they're all dead and totally dependent on a strong central government.

[Vaevictis]

So... um... where'd the money go then? Did we send it all up to Nebraska for their surplus corn?

And, if I were to take a wild guess, I bet a goodly chunk of it went to Altus, Tinker, Vance and Fort Sill.

[SicEmBaylor]

Except Hawaii has been on again off again on complete secession for the last 20 years or so. They are about as flaky on the thought process as Quebec is with Canada.

If the people of Hawaii want to leave, then why not let them? Shouldn't they have a right to choose their own government? I think it's a bad idea, but I have no more business telling them what they should or shouldn't do as anyone else in the other 49.

[JohnnyMack]

SicEm, were you sexually abused by someone dressed up as Abraham Lincoln at a halloween party when you were younger?

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm, were you sexually abused by someone dressed up as Abraham Lincoln at a halloween party when you were younger?

No, I can read the Constitution though. I also know this isn't how a constitutional federal republic is supposed to behave. Believe it or not, the Federal government doesn't have the right to do anything and everything it wants just because it says so.

[Scott D]

If the people of Hawaii want to leave, then why not let them? Shouldn't they have a right to choose their own government? I think it's a bad idea, but I have no more business telling them what they should or shouldn't do as anyone else in the other 49.

probably because it's been voted down every time. Amazingly enough, just like it has been with Quebec.

[SicEmBaylor]

probably because it's been voted down every time. Amazingly enough, just like it has been with Quebec.

That's my point though. Let them freely choose one way or another.

The Quebec problem though is another issue entirely since they have an entirely different political tradition in which their territories have no claim to sovereignty. Canada has absolutely no obligation to allow Quebec to leave.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, but the 13 colonies agreeing to a perpetual union (c.f. Articles of Confederation) kind of throws that obligation out.

[Scott D]

That's my point though. Let them freely choose one way or another.

The Quebec problem though is another issue entirely since they have an entirely different political tradition in which their territories have no claim to sovereignty. Canada has absolutely no obligation to allow Quebec to leave.

Truthfully, the Maritimes won't allow Quebec to leave. But that is a fish to fry in another skillet another day.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, but the 13 colonies agreeing to a perpetual union (c.f. Articles of Confederation) kind of throws that obligation out.

Au contraire!

If the Congress, established by the Articles of Confederation, had been the ones to create, pass, and establish a new Constitution then your argument would have a degree of validity. As it was, the Congress under the AOC had virtually no idea what was going on at the Constitutional Convention. In fact, there was a considerable amount of subterfuge at the Constitutional Convention in an attempt to keep the established Congress in the dark about what was going on. It was, in some ways, a sort of coup.

The point though is that the states themselves, by calling the constitutional convention, collectively resumed their right to establish a national government and did so free and independent with any and all existing contracts and obligations.

[Vaevictis]

The point though is that the states themselves, by calling the constitutional convention, collectively resumed their right to establish a national government and did so free and independent with any and all existing contracts and obligations.

Read the Articles. The States perpetually gave up their right to secede unless certain conditions were met, e.g., authorized by Congress and all other states.

I'd like to see the document, authorized by the Congress under the Articles, subsequently authorized unanimously by all other states, which restores this right.

You might argue that the Constitution itself is invalid, but if so, that just means that the Articles are in full force. Resulting in a situation where there is still no right to secede.

And given that the right was forfeited, you need something returning it. Which document, having legal force, does so?

[SicEmBaylor]

Read the Articles. The States perpetually gave up their right to secede unless certain conditions were met, e.g., authorized by Congress and all other states.

I'd like to see the document, authorized by the Congress under the Articles, subsequently authorized unanimously by all other states, which restores this right.

The Articles of Confederation have no validity. The states themselves violated every letter and spirit of the AOC by calling a Constitutional Convention. Individual state sovereignty was reclaimed when the states decided to scrap the existing government and create an entirely new one. Now, you would be right if the Congress (under the AOC) had themselves called the convention and voted on the document...in which case you have a seamless transition from one government to a new one with the official sanction of the previous government. That didn't happen.

The AOC was like a bad slice shot off the tee and the Constitution was a mulligan. You don't count the first shot as part of your score which is the whole point of a mulligan. If the states hadn't reclaimed their sovereignty then they'd have had no right to call a constitutional convention and the document itself would be invalid and illegal. The fact that the states voted to ratify the Constitution and not the Congress that existed under the AOC is the evidence that proves my point.

[SicEmBaylor]

The proper way to ban a state from seceding is through the proper process of amending the constitution to explicitly forbid secession.

[Vaevictis]

It doesn't prove anything. They forfeited the right. It's documented.

I'd like to see some documentation that indicates that the right was restored. Absent that, I don't think it was.

[Vaevictis]

Note that I'm mostly responding to this:


The Quebec problem though is another issue entirely since they have an entirely different political tradition in which their territories have no claim to sovereignty. Canada has absolutely no obligation to allow Quebec to leave.

You seem to be arguing that there is a political tradition that indicates that the States are sovereign and that the Federal government has an obligation to leave.

I am simply pointing out that the 13 colonies abandoned any such tradition by entering into the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they explicitly forfeited their rights under said tradition.

Absent some sort of document indicating that those rights were restored, I just don't think that they actually were.

[SicEmBaylor]

It doesn't prove anything. They forfeited the right. It's documented.

I'd like to see some documentation that indicates that the right was restored. Absent that, I don't think it was.

Okay, let me ask it this way. How does that provision still exist when the rest of the document was thrown away by the states themselves?

[SicEmBaylor]

You seem to be arguing that there is a political tradition that indicates that the States are sovereign and that the Federal government has an obligation to leave.

The Federal government doesn't have any sort of obligation to leave, but the states (and what I believe their right of sovereignty) created the Federal government, the states decided what power the Federal government could have, and I believe the Federal government is wrong to take away power the states themselves did not delegate to it.


I am simply pointing out that the 13 colonies abandoned any such tradition by entering into the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they explicitly forfeited their rights under said tradition.

Absent some sort of document indicating that those rights were restored, I just don't think that they actually were.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't make any logical sense to me. The Constitution itself provides the documentation you're looking for. Unless the states reclaimed their sovereignty from the AOC then they could not legally have called for a constitutional convention to abolish the AOC. The Constitutional Convention and anything that came out of it would be illegitimate. There's no logical way that the AOC could have been abolished (by the states) and replaced with a new government (by the states) if they were still bound to the perpetual union of the AOC.

[Vaevictis]

Okay, let me ask it this way. How does that provision still exist when the rest of the document was thrown away by the states themselves?

It doesn't have to. You claimed that there's a tradition that suggests that the States have the right to secede, yet we have a documented, perpetual repudiation and forfeiture of those rights.

To me, it's like a sovereign abdicating the throne. Just because the immediate successor dies or himself abdicates, that doesn't mean the original sovereign automatically gets his rights back. Something must restore them.

What document restores these rights that were voluntarily forfeited?

Additionally, if you read the Constitution itself, you'll note that it explicitly prohibits the creation of States from ones that exist without the consent of both Congress and the States in question.

I would argue that secession is, in fact, the creation of a State from another, and as such a State cannot unilaterally do so.

[SicEmBaylor]

It doesn't have to. You claimed that there's a tradition that suggests that the States have the right to secede, yet we have a documented, perpetual repudiation and forfeiture of those rights.

To me, it's like a sovereign abdicating the throne. Just because the immediate successor dies or himself abdicates, that doesn't mean the original sovereign automatically gets his rights back. Something must restore them.

What document restores these rights that were voluntarily forfeited?

Well, you make a valid point but I clearly disagree on whether or not anything written in the AOC remained valid after the states (independent of the government of that document) took it upon themselves to establish an entirely new government. There was clearly no document, but who would have created such a document? It seems clear to me that the states were acting in a manner that suggests they believed sovereignty rested with them, so I don't think the need to create a document would have entered their minds. The Congress (under the AOC) couldn't breathe in the morning before they asked the states for permission, so I don't think it would have occured to them to create a document reminding everyone of what everyone already knew...Besides, they were being replaced.

I'm out of new arguments really except to say, once again, the constitutional convention would not have been legitimate if the states hadn't reclaimed their sovereignty and the fact that the states had to vote whether to accept an entirely new government is further indication in my opinion. However it's just that, my opinion. :shrug:

[royalfan5]

So... um... where'd the money go then? Did we send it all up to Nebraska for their surplus corn?

Oklahoma gets Kansas's surplus corn. Nebraska's goes straight to export markets for the most part or the West Coast. With some going straight to Texas for feeding.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, but the 13 colonies agreeing to a perpetual union (c.f. Articles of Confederation) kind of throws that obligation out.

That, and the 1967 Oklahoma Constitution, IOW, the one now in force, states Oklahoma is an "inseparable" part of the United States.

This "sovereignty" dealio is about the declaring states saying they don't intend to pay for unfunded federal mandates. That's fine I guess. Especially in cases where it can be proven DC is making a state do something that is a federal reponsibility without paying for it. Like enforcement of immigration policy.

See, Oklahoma may not be able to have it both ways. With HB1804, it's trying to make and enforce immigration policy that is a federal power per the Constitution. OTOH, now it's saying it doesn't want to pay the freight on the Real ID Act that is 'sposed to cut down on illegals passing themselves off as legals. Seems kinda contradictory to moi. But what do I know?

Also remember, one pretty much absolute since FDR packed the Court, is the federal gubmint has the constitutional authority to attach strings to any money it gives a state. Thus, if DC ties highways funds or something to the states' willingness to comply with the Real ID ACT, a state has exactly two choices: 1) comply and get the highway $$$, or 2) refuse and forego the highway $$$.

[Boomer_Sooner_sax]

Texas is already a part of Mexico.

Fixed ;)

[bluedogok]

Since always. It doesn't take lots of delegates, it takes delegates with clout, like say, Bob Kerr, Carl Albert, David Boren.

Research:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

In 2005, apparently, for every $1 Oklahoma sent to the Feds it got back $1.36.
Up until the rewrite of the highway funding bill in 2005 states like Oklahoma ($0.88 per $1.00 paid in) and Texas (0.86) were donor states and had been for 20 or so years in terms of highway funding. Whereas states like Alaska received $6.60 for every $1.00 sent to Washington DC. That is a direct money paid to DC in fuel taxes, which I think they should never be routed through DC for them to take their cut and disburse how they feel. States should keep that money for their use.....So in some ways that is making up for lost time. Of course TxDOT would figure out a way to lose a billion or so of it every year....

Data from: USDOT TEA-21 FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND HIGHWAY ACCOUNT RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT - FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/fe221b.htm)

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, I'm fully aware. I hear about this from folks at ODOT all the time. "We're a donor state!" :O

But that's only one of the many sources of taxation/funding/expenditure.

[stoopified]

Secession from the union is underway.