A Joint Invitation to Return to States’ Rights

below is the essence of an email I sent to Minnesotan Rep. Kahn (D) who authored a Bill for lowering the legal age limit for consumption of alcohol in the State of Minnesota:

Dear Ms. Kahn,
I noticed the Federal government response to a rising interest in lowering the legal drinking age limit:
"...Congress, which has decreed that any state with a drinking age below 21 will forfeit 10 percent of its federal highway funds."
Yet another example of Congress usurping the power of the State (indirectly) through blackmail. What has seriously been needed for a long time is to rein in Congress. The Tenth Amendment CLEARLY STATES that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People. I just can't, off the top of my head, think of any retaliatory moves that states like Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota might make. I'm wondering if collectively they might be able to sue the Federal Government on the basis of blackmail or something? Or perhaps abuse of power by interfering where they have no jurisdiction? That it's unconstitutional? I feel that somehow it is illegal to blackmail the States into doing Congress' bidding. This is in fact, what Congress is doing. It's not like Congress said "Well, we need to cut your Federal highway funds because of the budget" or something like that. They're saying "If you don't comply with our wishes we will cut your Federal highway funds." Clearly that's blackmail.

The long and short of it: if you could, take a small bit of time to explain to me how monetary coercion be used legitimately by the Federal government? In other words, in your experience, what is the legal basis and rationale from the Federal government's viewpoint ?
If in fact they can do this: what stops the Fed from interfering with other state laws? where does it end? I've just never understood that !! It's VERY irritating!

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,
John R. Townsend

It is not the lowering of the legal age limit that I am concerned with here. But I question the response of the Federal government to laws made by a State in which the Fed finds itself in disagreement. Laws that are clearly out of the bounds of Federal jurisdiction and belong to the State only - and so the Federal government responds with blackmail.
I can't imagine how the States ever let the Federal government get into the superior position where they can exert this sort of coercion in the business of the individual states - where clearly they have no jurisdiction.

Sorry, the site is usa1911.com. My apologies.

I may need to eat crow. My thanks to Rep. Workman for sponsoring a States Rights Resolution in the Fl house. When U.S. Rep. Bill Posey initiated the Town Hall meeting in Melbourne(much thanks, Bill) Rep. Workman received the loudest ovation after mentioning the "States Rights" resolution. Other sites if you're not familiar: campaignforliberty.com, tenthamendmentcenter.com, 1911usa.com, and so many others. Don't forget the ACLJ-American Center for Law and Justice. Do your research. I don't intend to slight anyone, just too many to list(and remember). Don't forget "Freedom Watch" Wed. at two on Fox Streaming News with Judge Andrew Napolitano whose frequent guest Peter Schiff is making a run for Chris Dodds CT Senate seat. Together we can take back this country! God Bless you all.

Amen, Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
States rights is what the Civil War was all about. Regardless of the hype President Lincoln put on the situation.

A lot of people have had enough of BIG government!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awesome idea on the census. Personally, I never give them any data whatsoever. Ignore them completely. Of course, though I would be ecstatic over a return to the Constitution, my actual political leanings are of Anarchy. So, I have absolutely no use for any governmental body whatsoever. However, if we are going to have one, at least make them follow the rules they set down for the rest of us.

May I suggest that states specifically declare that they have not delegated to the federal government the power or authority to require residents to divulge to census information to anyone other than federal employees (thus excluding ACORN and other political advocacy groups), and that such information shall be limited only to that specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. May I suggest that states further make it a state crime for federal agents to claim legal authority to declare any additional information for the purposes of a census without a judicial order based on powers specifically enumerated by the states.

WHERE CAN I FIND THE BIG WOOOO PROFESSOR'S ARTICLE AND WHO IS THIS PERSON? I WENT TO HAWK'S CAFE AND DIDN'T SEE ANY ARCHIVE THAT MATCHED.

Nancy Russel:
You might want to go to www.hawkscafe.com and check out the archived bulletins. So far as I've been able to verify their material, they've been spot on. Also, you might want to find a copy of 'The Antifederalist Papers', which have, included, the Convention debates, the Consitution, and bushels of other relevant material. For comparing capatalism as it should most nearly resemble in order to be a 'perpetual engine', Ayn Rand's book 'Capitalism; the unknown ethic' is an excellent guide, with some rather astonishing contributions by Alan Greenspan before he turned his coat. 'Capitalism' is probably the least readable of her works, but well worth the unwavering determination to 'get through' it which is required; Ayn Rand's books warned people for many years of what could happen without the microscope focus on officials, banksters and stock weenies but did anybody listen? Yeah, the people she was warning us against, and they just tweaked their playbook about a half a degree and slid over/under/around the descriptions that would have seen them exposed, at least to those of us who paid attention.
Oh, yeah - - - watch out for this professor what's-his-name, the new Big WOOOO contributor, read his article very, very carefully. I've my own opinion of this guy, but it may be that my nose has become overly delicate from detecting the odour rats through the years. Let me know what ya think, kiddo.

DAD WAS GASSED A NUMBER OF TIMES AND WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE STATES HE WAS ILL AND DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL BETTER UNTIL HE WENT TO A HEALTH FOOD RESTAURANT AND WAS CURED EATING SAFE, NUTRITIOUS FOOD. HE WAS A CORPORAL AND TOLD US HE NEVER HAD ANY DOUBT THAT HE WOULD SURVIVE THE WAR AND AS A RACONTEUR HE PIQUED OUR INTEREST WITH HIS MANY AND ENTERTAINING TALES. I MISS HIM.

Nancy Russel:
Sure, Nancy, you bet. My dad wasn't born until 1918, but my great grand uncle fought at Chateau Thierry; he was an infantry sergeant with one lung (tuberculosis toasted one and killed his brother), and got gassed in the lung he had left. All his life he had occaccional ulcerated lesions on his legs from the nitrogen mustard, and a ropy cough in winter. I despise the people who think that chemical/biological weapons are cool; while they're burning in Hell there should be somebody standing over 'em with a barge pole to mash 'em into the embers every time they raise up for a breath of air.

THANKS ARKLIGHT, I'LL LOOK FOR A LOCAL GEEK. IT'S RELIEVING TO KNOW IT CAN BE DONE. I ACCESSED LXQUICK AND FOUND WHAT I WANTED. FUNNY YOU MENTIONED CHATEAU THIERRY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MY DAD FOUGHT IN WW1. YOU AND I MAY BE CLOSE IN AGE. IT'S ALSO REASSURING TO BELIEVE WE CAN BRING OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE EDGE. I BELONG TO OATHKEEPERS AND THAT IS A BIG COMFORT. THANKS AS USUAL.

Nancy Russel;
To get the Google off your machine, have the 15 year old geek in your neighbourhood to do it for you. That's what I did. Approximately 3% of Americans were actively involved in AR I (First American Revolution), and of the men who fought the regulars on April 19th, 1775 a very large number were veterans; the British were horrified when they saw Americans magically appear in droves, form and dress ranks, fix bayonets (those who had them) and advance with precision and determination that infantry of those days always displayed when going forward to engage the enemy at close quarters. That same fighting spirit is as much alive, here, today, as it was at Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, Belleu Wood, Chateau Thierry, Bastogne, Korea, and the numerous instances when the remnants of a platoon/company would charge a blazing tree line in Vietnam; is it any wonder that one of the top items on the agendas of Congress and the administration is that of disarming our veterans by sleazy lawyers quibbles? Our own veterans are being labeled as 'possible domestic terrorists, and enemies of the State'. In the entire country, there are 545 people who pass the bills, sign the laws and make the final determination of whether that law complies with the Constitutional parameters; there are 300 million of us. You do the math, kiddo, and you'll understand why the politicians are terrified. It's when the veteran, whose courage and honour are beyond question, gets into politics that they make the fatal turn away from what they'd been, up 'til then. I actually feel sorry for Randy 'Duke' Cunningham. At the end, I'm convinced that he understood that he had sold every personal trait of value for a few cars and a couple of houses - - - "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

YOU TWO ARE AMAZING. GETTING THE CITIZENRY TO RISE UP IS CRUCIAL BUT DEPRESSINGLY DIFFICULT. I READ SO MUCH FROM AUTHORS WHO RHETORICALLY ASK WHERE IS THE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION? I THINK HOW FEW THERE WERE WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AT THE TIME AND YET IT SUCCEEDED. WE NEED THOSE PATRICK HENRYS, NATHAN HALES, JEFFERSONS, REVERES ET AL. YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN AMERICANGRANDJURY.COM. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO SCRAP GOOGLE SEARCHES. IF IT'S SIMPLE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, ARKLIGHT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT YOU WOULD INSTRUCT ME. THANKS AGAIN TO OUTSTANDING KNOWLEDGE AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SHARE IT.

Nancy Russel: For a search engine try ixquick.com

Nancy, As you can now see that we are embroiled in a diabolical web of ensnarement that has been woven over MANY years by those hidden behind our puppet government whose intent is nothing less than total world domination and control. This was allowed to happen because man is corruptable under the influence of personal gain. Those in high places became corrupted and through their power and influence brought in those compatible with their agendas. Together schemes were perpetrated behind the backs of the American people who placed their full trust behind those who were elected to represent them and look out for their best interests. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt is a prime example of the epitome of corruption but to this day the MAJORITY of the American people still believe he was a "Great" president! TRUST is the key word that put us into the quagmire we are now in today! Most people are too busy trying to earn a living, getting up early in the morning, going to work all day and coming home dead tired and facing household problems, etc. Politics is the last thing on their minds and boring at that! They believe what they see and hear on the daily TV news and fall asleep in the chair, then start the whole routine over again the next morning. So you can see how easy it was for treacherous people to take advantage of this scenario. From the results I have been getting from Florida's Governor and my Congressional Representative and Senators it seems that these people have no interest in protecting Florida's sovereignty. As WE THE PEOPLE are the REAL and true source of power behind both the state and federal governments, these being ONLY a representation of us for unity purposes, WE have the RIGHT to declare our INDIVIDUAL sovereignty from ANY tyranical government if we are abandoned by either state or federal entities! WE THE PEOPLE are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Police, etc, etc that are being USED by government, supposidly for the benifit of the country as a whole. If and when it comes to the point that government becomes despotic and exposes itself to being a "domestic enemy" of our U.S. Constitution then ALL of us that have taken the oath to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic, MUST enforce the Jeffersonion Constitutional rule of law as this is a mandatory DUTY! Failure to do so makes one a TRAITOR to his country! So even though the hidden hand behind the scenes fooled and tricked the American people, through their corrupted minions, and kept them sound asleep over the years, all is far from lost! Our forefathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee that it lives into posterity so the DUTY is upon WE THE PEOPLE to ENFORCE the law of the land and bring to justice those who dared to tread on us and OUR U.S. Constitution! If need be I will stand and battle alone and die alone before I lose my freedom and my country to tyranny! I just pray that the MAJORITY of Americans will feel and ACT the same as I will. If not, then they do not deserve their freedom and will gain their just rewards for their cowardly treason! In the words of our brave Marines: "UH-RAH"!

Nancy Russel:
Google and Yahoo are very, very heavily involved with a number of alphabet soup angencies, and every search and search result is logged, somewhere. Go to www.thepowerhour.com and there should be a link to a secure search engine. I just use ask.com, since I'm sure I've got a whole page of 'The Red List' all to myself anyway, I don't use Google or Yahoo just for the H-E-double toothpicks of it. Oh, yeah: if you're wise you'll go through and manually delete every scrap of Google and Yahoo from your hard drive. If you've been using you machine for anything sensitive, download 'Eraser' or 'Scribble' and learn how to use it.

The Constitution is positive law, Nancy. It's the botom line. Congress figured out over 100 years ago that they can pass any kind of law, and once it's signed by the president, it has full effect until rejected by the courts; the various federal courts, even if they had the will to do so, cannot possibly hear every suit that's brought to overturn a law, code or regulation. 9A and 10A are alive and well, but Congress skirts them under color of law - - - that's something that looks, tastes, smells and feels like law but is not. In much the same manner that our economy is not formed around money, but it is around the color of money; you may remember years ago that the dollar sign was an 'S' with two vertical strokes through it, then in the sixties it suddenly dropped one of the strokes. That meant that the dollar sign no longer represented lawful money, but signified legal tender, color of money. The Brits have the same thing, where the pound sign has a single horizontal stroke through the 'L' where there used to be two. Once again, legal tender replacing lawful money.

MANY THANKS TO ANTICRIME AND ARKLIGHT FOR EXCELLENT RESOURCES. MY DAUGHTER TOLD ME ABOUT GRADE.GOV LAST WEEK AND WE WENT OVER THE FAILING GRADES JUSTIFIABLY RECEIVED BY THE FLOTSAM/JETSAM IN WASHINGTON. I USE GOOGLE TO ACCESS INFORMATION - LET ME KNOW WHY THAT IS A BAD MOVE ALONG WITH YAHOO. I'M AMAZED AT HOW MUCH INFO IS AVAILABLE AND HOW MUCH I HAVE TO LEARN - THANKS AGAIN. ANTICRIME - DID YOU GET THE IDEA FROM READING MR HARDISON'S ARTICLE THAT THE BANKRUPTCY STATUS PLACED ON US AS "CITIZENS" CANNOT BE OVERTURNED AND THAT THE 9/10 AMENDMENTS ARE IMPOTENT NOW?

Nancy, I only wish that I had the knowledge that Bob Hardison had when he wrote that essay! Unfortunatly Bob passed away on Jan 31, 09 but the bright side is that he has, and still is, educating a lot of folks through his website. Google: Barefootsworld.net and you will find an extensive listing of his writings. Like yourself, I'm still learning so I really cannot intelligently answer your questions. Another tid-bit of information that ALL active voters should know about is: www.gradegov.com where "we the people" can let our Congressional "employees" know what we think of them!

Nancy Russel:
If (when) you complete payment for your land, update your land patent, or get the alodial title to it. Alodial titles procurement varies from state to state, i.e. in Nevada you have to prepay the property taxes that would be 'lost' to the governing entities, and the title is only valid for the individual(s) acquiring the title; your kids/grandkids would have to go through the entire process again. I'm not sure, but I think a land patent is transferable, can be held by a family trust or corporation (which is not the same as a business corporation) under common law. Once you get ensnared in the equity/admiralty laws you're sunk. I'm sure that there are groups which specialize in the common law holding of land, and you might try www.thepowerhour.com and check their archives, or www.rense.com might have something on it. Anything you have that is accompanied by a 'Certificate of title/live birth, etc. only means that a title/birth certificate exists somewhere, but you don't got it. Somebody, somewhere, is holding the real title or birth certificate as surety for a debt of some kind. You might try Ask.com and type 'Alodial title' or 'Land Patent into the search bar. Once again, stay away from Google or Yahoo.

TO ANTICRIME - I READ THE BAREFOOTS ARTICLE ON HOW WE GOT HERE. DID YOU WRITE IT? I AM AWESTRUCK WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE BANKRUPTCY DESIGNATION WAS FORCED UPON THE USA. WHEN MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ARE PAID WHERE DOES THE MONEY ACTUALLY GO? IS IT DIVIDED BETWEEN THOSE FAMILIES AND THE BANK WHICH ORIGINATED THE MORTGAGE? I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE MY EXPLAINING IT TO SOMEONE AND I FIND IT'S NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME TO DO SO. CAN YOU GIVE A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PAPER TRAIL? IF I PAY CASH FOR THE PROPERTY DO I BYPASS ALL THAT PUBLIC POLICY ENSLAVEMENT? THERE'S A MOVEMENT TRYING TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY TAX AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER TAX. WILL THAT RUIN THEIR SCHEME OR WILL THEY FIND ANOTHER WAY TO COMPENSATE?

Nancy Russel
Aussie critters getting from the Ark to Aussie wasn't a serious question.
I hope you found the info you were looking for regarding 10 A.

ALL OLD NOAH DID WAS TO SPEND 150 YEARS BUILDING THE ARK. THE REST WAS A SUPERNATURAL MAGIC SHOW. YOU KNOW IF GOD CREATED ALL THOSE BEASTS AND CREEPING THINGS IN ONE DAY WHY COULD HE NOT FIND A WAY TO CREATE AND DEPOSIT THOSE AUSSIE ANIMALS DOWN UNDER?

Nancy Russel: you're welcome, Nancy. No, Arkight has nothing to do with Noah, although he were a righteous dude; if he parked his boat on Ararat, how did he get platypuses, kangaroos, ostriches and Koala bears to Aussie?

THANKS ARKLIGHT. BY THE WAY, IS YOUR NAME A REFERENCE TO OLD NOAH'S BOAT?
I AM FAMILIAR WITH MOST OF THE SITES YOU SUGGESTED AND WILL RESEARCH THERE.

Nancy Russel: www.newswithviews.com is pretty good, but if you go to ask.com, type con-con into the search bar, you'll get any number of sites, among them the lyin' bastards who claim that 32 states still have an active call for a Constitutional Convention. If you'll notice, the term 'con-con' is a cute trick to minimize the mortal import of a Constitutional Convention; this was deliberate, and banked heavily upon the deep, dogged, impenetrable and incurable stupidity of the American electorate - - - most don't care what happens, so long as nobody is kicking THEIR door down and beating/shooting their spouse and kids. Unfortunately, die polizei (the federalized police and sheriff's departments) are doing that, increasingly, all over the country but it doesn't make the mainstream news. For other sites of interest, try www.hawkscafe.com; www.rense.com; www.infowars.com; www.jpfo.org. I wouldn't use either Google or Yahoo as the search engine, kiddo.

Oh, yeah - - - check out the Chicago Tribune piece on the ballot initiative to demand a 'con-con'.

I found a website that I believe everyone here would benefit perusing as it explains in a condensed but thorough format the ungodly grip that has our country by the throat and the delema the individual states face! Please click on: www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

WOULD ANYONE KNOW HOW TO GATHER THE FACTS ABOUT THE CON-CON? I THOUGHT WHAT I READ WAS CORRECT. I BELIEVE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLEY WROTE WHAT I READ.

Larry Hughes:

If you think that a con-con would be limited to the subject of the 17th Amendment only, then you're inhaling/injecting/ingesting some hallucinogenic substance. Tighten up yer wig, dude! The dicks that were hot, hot, HOT for the con-con during the Ronnie Raygunz administration openly admitted that there were a lot of changes that would be made, and no one and nothing could get in the way once the opening gavel dropped. Do your research.

To Arklight and Nancy Russell: Any Constitutional Convention could and most assuredly should have the singular purpose of repealing the 17th amendment only. No other proposal should be heard; otherwise the convention would be a free for all. Surely the state legislatures are smart enough to pre-determine that fact.
Once the 17th is repealed, the Senators , once again representing the states, can cut off any appropriations of money the federal government needs to further impose it's will on the states and the people.

Hey, trust me, I'm on board, sooo..........what's the next move and where?
I live in the sovereign Republic of Texas with Chuck Norris as our next President.

If you have already read it -- then it is time to dust it off and read it again ... if you have never, you are in for an experience.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville,
de Tocqueville's book is available on line at

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

Written in 1835, it is a very lengthy work to be sure ... but also I believe required reading.
If you have an economy of time .... might want to read this section first, as it most applies with what is happening today ... almost prophetically so.
The section is "Section 4: Influence of Democratic Ideas and Feelings on Political Society."

As George Will wrote in his Sunday column in the Washington Post;

"In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Jim,
So very true ... can we say "dark ages" ... interestingly .. "correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions" - the framers of the Constitution did exactly that. They knew the pitfalls and vocalized their concern and desire to avoid them. ... and look where we are now ... I wonder if it speaks to the notion that theories of Governing are finite in their life expectancy? No matter how grand the construct ... it doesn't last indefinitely.
Even if attempts are periodically made to "rejuvenate" it ... the father the time frame or distance from the original ... the more it is bastardized. Might this even be unavoidable? How much - no matter how much might have been written by the framers - can we really know about what they thought. All too often their writings are interpreted by "scholars" .. But I am sorry ... no matter the extent of one's insight ... in the end, it is just an interpretation ... and opinion. No matter how well intentioned or critical and this needs to be understood with the appropriate "grain of salt." Also .. understand that the farther one moves not only from the original document .. but the moment in time that it was conceived ... the more it is subjected to the "I can make it better" syndrome. More often than nor .. the "better" really means .. "What I think is better ... based on my objectives," no matter how benign they might be. Two examples from my post above, in Justice John Paul Stevens' remarks;
"... that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”
and in Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence,
"... the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”
Both are centrists ... (and no, one cannot vilify then for that) .. and so this is the personal objective from which they interpret. Even though it could be strongly argued .. based on the document AND most especially the writings of those who framed it ... that this likely was NOT their intent.
It's the old story of .. is the glass half full or half empty.
It goes back to a notion I mentioned in an earlier post ... truth .. is nothing more than perception - the perception of the "beholder" ..
In its best form .. there is no "Truth" or more particularly, "Absolute Truth" ... as a very wise (well, I think) professor once told me ... "Truth is nothing more than the best possible GUESS ... based (ideally) on the best possible information at a given moment in time."
I can't help be say that we are in collapse ... in every aspect .. NO I am not being an alarmist ... or a fatalist .. I am being pragmatic ... history is NOT on our side with this. If it is of any consolation ... it has happened before, and undoubtedly ... will again and again ... we just happen to be witnessing a truly fascinating moment in time. But rest assured .. things will go on ... and start again.
To be VERY blunt .. I have terminal cancer .. that I have begun to think has a curiosity about all this - It is in a remission that has totally bewildered doctors, as it presently has lasted three times longer than any statistic suggests. I am willing to swear on a stack of bibles, I have heard it speak to me, saying, "this is just too damn fascinating ... WE ARE STICKING AROUND to see how this all comes out! Now, get busy and go make me some more popcorn."
really!!! LOL
That and I have ten grown daughters ... several of whom love running and have entered "Cancer Runs" for cancer survivors and plan on doing so each year ... thus compelling me to "damn, I have to stick around for the next one." Daughter ... no matter what their age .. are SO demanding of their dads.
Dale

Jim,
So very true ... can we say "dark ages" ... interestingly .. "correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions" - the framers of the Constitution did exactly that. They knew the pitfalls and vocalized their concern and desire to avoid them. ... and look where we are now ... I wonder if it speaks to the notion that theories of Governing are finite in their life expectancy? No matter how grand the construct ... it doesn't last indefinitely.
Even if attempts are periodically made to "rejuvenate" it ... the father the time frame or distance from the original ... the more it is bastardized. Might this even be unavoidable? How much - no matter how much might have been written by the framers - can we really know about what they thought. All too often their writings are interpreted by "scholars" .. But I am sorry ... no matter the extent of one's insight ... in the end, it is just an interpretation ... and opinion. No matter how well intentioned or critical and this needs to be understood with the appropriate "grain of salt." Also .. understand that the farther one moves not only from the original document .. but the moment in time that it was conceived ... the more it is subjected to the "I can make it better" syndrome. More often than nor .. the "better" really means .. "What I think is better ... based on my objectives," no matter how benign they might be. Two examples from my post above, in Justice John Paul Stevens' remarks;
"... that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”
and in Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence,
"... the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”
Both are centrists ... (and no, one cannot vilify then for that) .. and so this is the personal objective from which they interpret. Even though it could be strongly argued .. based on the document AND most especially the writings of those who framed it ... that this likely was NOT their intent.
It's the old story of .. is the glass half full or half empty.
It goes back to a notion I mentioned in an earlier post ... truth .. is nothing more than perception - the perception of the "beholder" ..
In its best form .. there is no "Truth" or more particularly, "Absolute Truth" ... as a very wise (well, I think) professor once told me ... "Truth is nothing more than the best possible GUESS ... based (ideally) on the best possible information at a given moment in time."
I can't help be say that we are in collapse ... in every aspect .. NO I am not being an alarmist ... or a fatalist .. I am being pragmatic ... history is NOT on our side with this. If it is of any consolation ... it has happened before, and undoubtedly ... will again and again ... we just happen to be witnessing a truly fascinating moment in time. But rest assured .. things will go on ... and start again.
To be VERY blunt .. I have terminal cancer .. that I have begun to think has a curiosity about all this - It is in a remission that has totally bewildered doctors, as it presently has lasted three times longer than any statistic suggests. I am willing to swear on a stack of bibles, I have heard it speak to me, saying, "this is just too damn fascinating ... WE ARE STICKING AROUND to see how this all comes out! Now, get busy and go make me some more popcorn."
really!!! LOL
That and I have ten grown daughters ... several of whom love running and have entered "Cancer Runs" for cancer survivors and plan on doing so each year ... thus compelling me to "damn, I have to stick around for the next one." Daughter ... no matter what their age .. are SO demanding of their dads.
Dale

And we all know how quickly Rome recovered from her fall. May our next revolution, and there will be war again though it is not to be looked lightly upon, correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions.

Arklight,
The case is found in United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514

Here is a first glance - from Wikipedia - which while helpful, not the end of of information but I do find it often a useful starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.

Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
“ No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 2), ”

and:
“ No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). ”

Also critical to the issue is the 17th Amendment, which transferred power to select US Senators from the state legislature, to the people of the state:
“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ”

Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.

***** My comment *******
I find it interesting, the rational that she uses in her suit that limiting the number of consecutive terms --- "unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications" ????????????????
Also curious to me is that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." was interpreted to mean a "transfer" of power - further, implying an abdication of power. If these three qualifications are taken then as the authority for their absolute and unconstrained power.
I really want to share this part - this is what was written by the Majority in the Supreme Court decision. In effect, they affirmed that this is a Centrist Government ... and the Federal or Centrist Government is supreme;

"The Supreme Court affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority articulated different views of the character of the federal structure established in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that:
'Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people."

It goes on to say;

"He further noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in "a patchwork of state qualifications" for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with "the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure."

What, to me is VERY troubling was the concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He wrote that the amendment would "interfere" with the "relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government."

By the way, yes the ACLU was involved in the case ... as one might have expected, they participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.

Why do I keep flashing on ancient Rome - and in this particular instance, when GENERAL JULIUS CAESAR was give absolute authority - supposedly by the people and became the first emperor thus ending in a very real sense the republic.
I can't strongly suggest enough for people wanting an understanding the patterns of history that are repeating here in the United States, it is so important to begin to look at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Do not fixate on the characters - or even the specific events, rather the patterns ... characters and events are peculiar to their particular moment in time - it is the PATTERNS that are the constant in history. (perhaps that's why history does seem to continually repeat itself, we never seem to recognize the patterns.)

Another thing, in reading the Wikipedia piece on Term limits in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

... I found the Historical background section particularly interesting.
let me quote some passages from that section;

"In June 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress...." The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term-limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789]). The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

In 1776, rotation experiments also took place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in even." Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, due largely to grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed by extra-constitutional means. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic." Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done....""

Finally - before I bore every reader to death, if I haven't done so already .. in the section on Federal Term Limits ... this line was particularly intriguing and really begs more research and explanation. In referring to the May Supreme Court decision it says this;

"Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress."

In a very broad sense ... I mean we are seeing it in most every facet of, not only our economy and government - but across society as a whole ... the parallels between what was Rome and what is the United States is a tad frightening.

Dale

"

Arklight,
The case is found in United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514

Here is a first glance - from Wikipedia - which while helpful, not the end of of information but I do find it often a useful starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.

Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
“ No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 2), ”

and:
“ No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). ”

Also critical to the issue is the 17th Amendment, which transferred power to select US Senators from the state legislature, to the people of the state:
“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ”

Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.

***** My comment *******
I find it interesting, the rational that she uses in her suit that limiting the number of consecutive terms --- "unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications" ????????????????
Also curious to me is that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." was interpreted to mean a "transfer" of power - further, implying an abdication of power. If these three qualifications are taken then as the authority for their absolute and unconstrained power.
I really want to share this part - this is what was written by the Majority in the Supreme Court decision. In effect, they affirmed that this is a Centrist Government ... and the Federal or Centrist Government is supreme;

"The Supreme Court affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority articulated different views of the character of the federal structure established in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that:
'Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people."

It goes on to say;

"He further noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in "a patchwork of state qualifications" for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with "the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure."

What, to me is VERY troubling was the concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He wrote that the amendment would "interfere" with the "relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government."

By the way, yes the ACLU was involved in the case ... as one might have expected, they participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.

Why do I keep flashing on ancient Rome - and in this particular instance, when GENERAL JULIUS CAESAR was give absolute authority - supposedly by the people and became the first emperor thus ending in a very real sense the republic.
I can't strongly suggest enough for people wanting an understanding the patterns of history that are repeating here in the United States, it is so important to begin to look at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Do not fixate on the characters - or even the specific events, rather the patterns ... characters and events are peculiar to their particular moment in time - it is the PATTERNS that are the constant in history. (perhaps that's why history does seem to continually repeat itself, we never seem to recognize the patterns.)

Another thing, in reading the Wikipedia piece on Term limits in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

... I found the Historical background section particularly interesting.
let me quote some passages from that section;

"In June 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress...." The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term-limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789]). The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

In 1776, rotation experiments also took place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in even." Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, due largely to grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed by extra-constitutional means. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic." Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done....""

Finally - before I bore every reader to death, if I haven't done so already .. in the section on Federal Term Limits ... this line was particularly intriguing and really begs more research and explanation. In referring to the May Supreme Court decision it says this;

"Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress."

In a very broad sense ... I mean we are seeing it in most every facet of, not only our economy and government - but across society as a whole ... the parallels between what was Rome and what is the United States is a tad frightening.

Dale

"

CONGRESS IS EQUIPPED TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO AFTER BEING SERVED QUO WARRANTO CAN BE TRIED IN THE D.C. COURT BY A JURY.

Dale Caruso: I've not read the brief for the case you cited, but my suspision is that it is much of a muchness with those presented by ACLU and NRA, in that they are presented in such a way as to ALMOST win, by design; when the dust settles and the precident is set, they can echo Maxwell Smart, 'Missed it by THAT MUCH.' I was once told that 'the law is a word game', and whoever uses the most compelling phraseology wins. So far as I can see, Congress was never granted any power to provide itself with sinecures in perpetuity, and I think the Tenth is the wedge. If a State, by referendum, were to dictate that: Pursuant to limitations placed upon the federal government by the Tenth Amendment, we the people of Pennslytucky reserve the right to limit the terms in office of anyone elected to office in, or from, the State of Pennsyltucky, and further reserve the right to recall any individual elected to office in, or from, the State of Pennsyltucky, excepting only the president of the United States, in that the President is elected to office by the people of all the States and may not be removed from office at the will of the people of any single State.

Whaddy think?

Nancy,
With regard to just who does a representative represent ... be the a member of congress or senator - you need to look more closely as just where does that individual receive their support. This applies to BOTH parties - as well as to conservative and liberal alike. The delegate is supposed to represent all of his constituents. However, this is rarely the case. Instead, the delegate usually represents the interests of the party who elected him or her. Unless the delegate commits an act that would ban him from the House or Senate, he or she can vote on any issues by personal decision. Understand that these "personal decisions" are more influenced by "following the party line" .... Lobbyists ... PAC's ... and other special interest influences.
I can tell you from nearly 40 years of association with members of Congress ... very, very few (if I were to be honest, perhaps a number I could count on one hand) TRULY "represent" totally the will and need of their constituency. Does this make the "corrupt" or "evil" - not by any stretch of the imagination - but since most members have been in office in Washington longer that most ANY CEO of a successful major cooperation, there is an enormous disconnect between themselves and "the folks back home."
This is why, perhaps when the last stimulus package was passed ... it was so riddled with "pork" ... this is perhaps all they know. In a very real sense - it is like the nobility trowing scrapes to the peasants ... a "well since I am being so benevolent, this is what they might like." Very, very reminiscent of the Feudal period of the Middle Ages. More often than not, this gift from the nobility leave even the folks in their home district wondering "What in the world is this?" It is all a manifestation of the disconnect that exists between elected officials and those they "represent"

Micheal - the one caveat to that is that it must originate in Congress itself.
I know that on many, many other websites there is so much talk of term limits.
We seem to have a very short memory - We need remember that membership in this exclusive club know as The United States Congress is determined by the members of that club.
Many apparently have forgotten that during the early 1990s initiative and referendum was used to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 23 states. Voters in every one of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of nearly two to one.
However, the joy in Mudville was short lived - In May of 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.
Apparently, earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress. Any hopes that Congress would self-impose term limits was certainly folly to be sure.
TO underscore that point - how many of you remember the Republican Party's "Contract with America?" - the right's version of "The change we need" - One of the tenants of this "contract" was that of imposing term limits on members of Congress - or at least is sounded good.
The Republican leadership did indeed, bring to the floor of the House a constitutional amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate to two six-year terms.
However, this rate of rotation was so slow (the life-tenured Supreme Court averages in the vicinity of twelve years) that the congressional version of term-limits garnered little support among the populist backers of term limits, including U.S. Term Limits, the largest private organization pushing for Congressional term limits. (U.S. Term Limits wanted House members to be limited to three two-year terms.) With the Republicans holding 230 seats in the House, three versions of the amendment got well under 200 votes, while the 12 year term-limits which overrode all the more stringent state measures managed a bare majority in the House of 227-204, well short of the requisite two-thirds majority (290 votes) required to pass a constitutional amendment. Defeated in Congress and overridden by the Supreme Court, this populist uprising was brought to a halt for the purpose of reforming the federal government.
I think this is an illustration of the futility of attempting to bring about change - accountability - and responsibility through the customary use of "the ballot box" - "gee we just need more good and decent men and women to run - that will fix things ..." Well, I would submit - that when you look at past elections (the the reference goes far beyond this most recent one) I would ask, "so how do you think your method is doing so far?"
Since the conclusion of the American Civil War (to be honest, not entirely sure of the time frame so I may be wrong) The viability and meat of "State Sovereignty" has been relegated to nothing more than a phrase - wasn't there a time when a state could "recall" they Federal representatives, much the same was a country can recall an ambassador or specific members of its legation for malfeasance of duty or some other impropriety. Representatives and Senators were the "ambassadors" of their particular state to the Federal Government. Now they view themselves (and with a self-established reality) as members of a very special club - in a very real sense, our ruling elite.
Let me make one observation - one base on decades and decades of knowing and dealing with these people - I was a journalist for nearly 25 years, I have been retired for 14 years - so for nearly 40 years, I have known these politicians - quite intimately so - of both parties (in a sense this is a very sad comment, as I first met many of them when I began my career and now 14 years into retirement, I still meet them for lunch on occasion IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DINNING ROOM, as they ARE STILL IN OFFICE!) Let me first say, that almost without exception, they are all wonderful PEOPLE - case in point - now Vice President Joe Bidden, he really is a hell of a nice man. But something happens to them when they journey inside the beltway, it is as if they are required to check their brain at some both before entering, only to get it back when they leave office. They have always been out of touch to the reality of the outside world, I also sensed this self assumed importance among the members. (I remember once being told by Tip O'Neil that you know you have passed the tip to leave office, when you believe that the country CAN'T run without you) Over the past decade or more, however, I have sensed a growing elitism among the members of Congress. More recently (and I don't mean as a result of this most recent election cycle) I am sense and even more overtly SEEING ARROGANCE on the part of both the membership of congress AND their staffers as well. This to me has become frightening.

Dale

I would like to know why an amendment can't be repealed without the worry of a Congressional Convention redoing the whole Constitution.

It was done before when the 21st amendment annulled the 19th amendment for prohibition.

I think we should be concentrating on annulling the 17th amendment which provides for the election of Senators and get back to the way the Constitution was originally written so there is a better balance of power in the Congress.

Once this was done these other issues might take care of themselves

Here is a link for all citizens of PA to advance the 10th Amendment Resolution that has been submitted for a vote in Pennsylvania.

State Representative Sam Rohrer has provided a web site where you can download a copy of the petition and sign it and send to your local representatives in the PA legislature.

It is imperative that you do it a.s.a.p. as it will come up for vote soon.

Make an extra copy and give it to your friend or neighbor and double the numbers!!!

http://www.samrohrer.com/?sectionid=98§iontree=98

LITTLE DID I KNOW WHEN I NEEDED SOME ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THE NEED WOULD BE SO LAVISHLY SUPPLIED. THE INFORMATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN, COPIOUS AND SUBSTANTIVE. I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TO CLASS.
DALE CARUSO: ONE OF THE BOUNDARIES THE FED GOV'T OVERSTEPPED IS: "EXCESSIVE TAXATION WITHOUT ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION". WHAT IS THE "REPRESENTATION" THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE GOV'T? THE CONCEPT AND THE SPECIFICS ARE FUZZY.
TEXAN STATISTICS ARE MIGHTY IMPRESSIVE. HOW DO TEXANS FEEL ABOUT GOV. PERRY'S ABILITY TO STEER THE SHIP OF STATE IN THESE PRESENT TURBULENT WATERS?

Dave Caruso; very well written piece, Dave. The only exception I have to it is that I would view secession as anulment, rather than divorce. Those of us who have been through divorce with a snarky ex understand that: she gets the house, you get the mortgage; she gets the kids and a very large portion of your paycheck, you get to see 'em sometimes, if she's feeling particularly benevolent; she gets the car, you get the payments; she gets the gold mine, you get the shaft - - - so, I prefer anulment where everybody walks away, quits.

Nancy; I've been giving some thought to individual States and their money.
The valid point was made by another contributor that 'yes, once a State has seceded, it has the right to coin its own money'. True, but absent a common determination in statute of 'what is a dollar?', the probability that parity would be absent is a real concern. When Canada went dollars and cents in 1858, their dollar was almost straight across a half crown, sterling, or about 6 bits US, which caused a lot of hard feelings down the road when americans who know there was a difference, but only had US currency, would ask 'How much is that in real money?' The same situation could easily arise if Vermont's dollar was equal to the US dollar, while Maine's dollar was more nearly the equivelant of 80 cents US, New Yorks about 90 cents and so on; a common statutory definition of the dollar (or whatever they decided to call it) would be essential to unemcumbered commerce between the free States, and the free States and the US. A monetary equivelant to the metrics fiasco would be unthinkable, as there was a huge dilemma within THAT fiasco; Russian, Japanese, German and UK metric nuts 'n' bolts are all slightly different, and there are various manufacturer's ideas of what a metric bolt is within the UK, so imagine what 15-20 different versions of the dollar would be like if you were traveling from, say, New Hampshire to Texas and had to exchange your money at every State line because a New Hampshire dollar was a dollar 'n' a dime in Texas, and anywhere from par to 60 cents in the States between.

I gotta say, there is a lot of thought, a lot of logic, a lot of very good and gnarly questions put forth in this forum, but no pessimism; if there's a way to get something done, Americans will figure it out, however tought the nut, we can crack it - - - we are THE 'can do' nation upon the planet, and absent D(emented)H(omegrown)S(ociopaths) wailin' endlessly about the sky being about to plummet and crush us all, we fear no one; that's why DHS has labeled our veterans (along with a list as long as your arm) as potential terrorsts, enemies of the State, rude, crude, offensive and badly dressed. Americans are a distillation of every great fighting race that ever trod the planet, and given sufficient provocation will fight anybody, anywhere, anytime; the last thing in the world I want to see is for our situation to come down to that, but DC is very, very well aware that there are 545 people in the country who pass the bills, sign 'em into law, and interpret those measures' lawful application. There are 300 million of us. You do the numbers, and you'll see why DC is terrified. Let's all work dilegently within the Constitution for the United States, as written, and the lawfully ratified amendments thereto, to be as certain as we reasonbly can that the Republic be restored without any ugliness, or that such of the States as wish to are permitted to go in peace, without let nor hindrance.

For some reason the link doesn't seem to work ... so if I may this is what he wrote"

"I was asked to address the issue of Texas secession. This topic is permeating every aspect of living in North America right now, and some of you felt that I could speak to this topic reasonably without being political. I will attempt to do so.

There are so many directions that I could tackle this topic to cover all of the bases. The issue of secession and independence is hot right now and there is a tremendous amount of discussion about. Some of which I am proud to be involved. I am under no illusions that this issue can be addressed in a single missive. I am also not under any illusion that everyone will agree with what I have to say. What I can do is present facts, both historical and present, and make logical, well-reasoned conclusions based on those facts through the context of my personal values.

Although I could talk about governmental theory and the social contract, I want to start by giving you an analogy. Imagine for a moment that you are married. Not a stretch for some of you since you are married or have been in the past. Now imagine that your spouse had done the following:

- Taken your paycheck and spent it on drugs to the point of running you into serious debt
- Rendered you and your children financially strapped to the point of financial ruin
- Taken your money and given it to your neighbor so that “we can be friends”
- Actively worked to turn your kids into “abusive” clones and against you
- Ran up gambling debts that you and your children had to pay
- Repeatedly cheated on you but promised that the next time would be different
- Made decisions for you that were detrimental without your agreement
- Put a second, third or fourth mortgage on your home without your consent
- Promised that they were placing money into your retirement but they were really spending it on frivolous items which would render you destitute at retirement
- Refused to put locks on the door even when your house has been broken into, your property stolen and you have been raped repeatedly
- Failed to come to your aid when you were injured or sick
- Became domineering and controlling to the point of obsession
- Refused to let you speak your mind about these problems and when you did labeled you as “unstable” and “fringe”
- Threatened to beat or kill you if you ever leave

What would you want to do in this situation? If you said anything short of “divorce” please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).

But did you catch that? D-I-V-O-R-C-E! Divorce and secession are the exact same thing. Let me prove it. Here is an excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. “

Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other Founders, were well aware of the role of government in relation to the people. This principle was embodied in the Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 2 which states:

“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. “

The Founders acknowledged our ability to enter into a social contract and they acknowledged our inherent right and duty to exit the contract at the point that it became destructive.

Back to our analogy...

No one would ever go to someone suffering under the conditions that I listed above and ask or state any of the following:

“Aren't you afraid that you'll get beaten or killed if you leave?”
“Marriage is permanent. No matter what.”
“You need your spouse's permission to leave.”
“Well, the grass always seems greener on the other side but really it's not.”
“If you leave you will have to start from scratch so maybe you should stay.”
“So what if you're having these issues. You're stronger as a couple.”
“If you leave you'll just wind up with someone equally abusive.”
“Your spouse beat you before. They'll do it again if you try to leave.”

Why would you ask or say this to someone living under those conditions? Because it's morally reprehensible to do so and only someone who is evil would suggest something so morally repugnant.

Perhaps you fail to see how this analogy fits. Let me make the connections for you.

The 13 Colonies were individually part of Great Britain from which they declared independence (seceded). Here is the relevant excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

“That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. “

These 13 Colonies became 13 distinct and independent States equal to the “State of Great Britain” each with it's own national character. These 13 distinct and independent States entered into a compact of collective defense, foreign policy and commerce called the United States of America. This agreement is similar to and on which the United Nations was originally supposed to be based. Independent, sovereign nation-states who would work together for a common goal. To this end, they drafted a Constitution which was meant to govern the relationship between them. It was the embodiment of John Locke's concept of the “social contract”. It established a governing body whose sole function was to carry out the 17 legitimate functions granted to it by the states and the people with all other rights and functions reserved for the states and people.

The Founders had no need to address political divorce (secession) in the document because the right to do so existed before the Constitution and was the sole mechanism that gave them the ability to even draft the Constitution. I'm fairly certain the secession wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution of Great Britain at that time either.

This was the understanding when all States entered into the United States of America. That includes Texas. It was part of the contract.

Without going into the longest history lesson you would ever have to sit through, suffice it to say that it is not unknown that the Federal Government has overstepped it's boundaries at the drop of a hat and continues to do so today. Don't believe me? Here's a VERY general overview, though I am willing to provide details on specific points if asked:

- Unfunded Mandates
- Excessive taxation without adequate representation
- Frivolous spending of our tax money while our problems can't be adequately addressed due to a lack of funds
- Faltering economic system
- Placed our monetary system into the hands of a private bank who devalued our currency and manipulated our economy at will
- Pilfering and failure of the worst Ponzi scheme in history (Social Security)
- Erosion of the separation of powers
- Repeated and willful violations of the 1st Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 2nd Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 4th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 5th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 9th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 10th Amendment
- Forcing our system of education to become a tool of social engineering
- Leaving our border less secure than at any time since our independence from Mexico
- Sending our sons and daughters to war without a declaration of war from Congress as is required
- Taking our tax money and failing to provide the services promised
- Unlawfully restricted trade in areas where trade needs to be expanded and shoved free trade down our throats at the cost of jobs and to the detriment of our economy
- Failed to respond to all petitions for a redress or these grievances
- Sought to redefine the Constitution to suit it's own ends
- Failed to render sufficient aid in disregard to the Preamble's call to promote the general welfare
- Instituted an impossibly massive bureaucratic system with more laws and officers than allowed by the Constitution and good sense to do nothing more than control us and “eat out our substance”
- Overtly attempted to subvert legitimate protest and dissent
- Taken our money and given it to foreign countries with the effect of inciting hatred against us
- Expanded their imagined jurisdiction over us through creative interpretations of the “interstate commerce” clause in the Constitution

Trust me. I could go on but it would be overkill. But imagine for a moment that the United Nations had done these things to the United States. The politicians would be screaming from the rooftops to withdraw from the UN. We would suddenly have 300 million fans of secession.

But fear not. This is not a scary thing. It's not an easy decision to make. Divorce never is. But this is not scary. This is where the impetus is placed upon the United States. They have had plenty of opportunities to make the marriage work. We have been subject to an endless parade of politicians who have promised to “turn things around”. Things haven't turned around. They've only gotten worse.

Now Texas and 30 other states are sending notice to the Federal Government. They are standing up and saying:

We know what your responsibilities are.
We know what are rights are.
We are telling you to line it out or else.

I don't believe they will listen. Why? Because self-determination is a global trend. John Naisbitt wrote in his 1994 book Global Paradox: “The world's trends point overwhelmingly to economic interdependence and political independence.” The advent of the technological revolution has given the people of the world a new drive to find themselves and to assert their right of self-determination. There has been a spike in the number of recognized countries around the globe in the past 30 years. Don't believe me? Go look at an encyclopedia from 1980 and then look at the list today.

As homogeneous as some like to think of the United States, it is far from it. We are tied by blood and some common history but economically, culturally and politically we are different. The novelist John Steinbeck said, “Texas is a nation in every sense of the word.” Nations are a distinct people. States are where they call home. And Texas is the home for Texans – a nation-state for a nation.

Not only should we be independent, but we can. Easily. Here's some stats for you:

Texas Gross Domestic Product - $1.245 Trillion (ahead of 209 other countries)
Texas Population – 23.9 million (ahead of 143 other countries)
Texas Labor Force – 11.3 million (ahead of 178 other countries)
Total Taxes Paid By Texans To Both Federal & State Agencies (Representing a Total Potential Budget For An Independent Texas) - $303.4 billion/year
Projected Military Expenditure of an independent Texas (Global 4% average of GDP) – approximately $50 billion/year (ahead of 216 other countries)
Texas Exports - $150.8 billion (ahead of 193 other countries)

And this is the tip of the iceberg. We have deep water ports, the energy and natural resources, the agriculture, the science and technology, the infrastructure and the manufacturing capacity. Imagine how much more efficiently we could use these without the Federal barnacle attached to our hull. Most of all, we have the desire for freedom, the will to succeed and the pride to tie them together. We absolutely have the ability to fulfill the words of Sam Houston when he stated that “Texas will again lift it's head and stand among the nations.”

A clash with the United States Federal Government is not inevitable. It is solely determined by the willingness of the rest of the States to use force to keep us in this marriage or to follow a route that we and other States who wish to follow this course of action have avowed which is the path of peaceful separation.

It is important to reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson. Speaking on the carving out of new States from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson states that should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that:

"...Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?...The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

And again in 1804:

"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power."

When the New England Federalists considered secession, he stated:

“"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Even Abraham Lincoln, while in Congress in 1848 stated:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.”

In the final analysis, secession and freedom are more American than apple pie. It is, as Texans, our heritage twice over.

I have overstepped my bounds in posting this with many of you. But I don't do this lightly. This is an issue, not for the 19th century, but for the 21st century and beyond. I have six children whose future rests in my hands. I do not want them to look at me in my old age, when the opportunity of freedom and independence may have passed, when their freedom has all but evaporated and been replaced by a complete and total despotism, when their economy is wrecked and they worry about feeding their children because of debts that mounted before I was born and continued unabated in my lifetime, and ask me “Why, Daddy?” I cannot fathom the shame and regret that I would feel in that instance.

I think also of the past as well as the future.

When Colonel Juan Seguin was sent to San Antonio de Bexar by General Sam Houston to give the Alamo defenders a proper burial he gave the following speech:

Compañeros de armas: Estos restos que hemos tenido el honor de conducir en nuestros hombros son los de los valientes héroes que murieron en el Alamo. Sí mis amigos, ellos prefirieron morir mil veces a servir el yugo del tirano. Que ejemplo tan briIlante, digno de anotarse en las páginas de la historia. El genio de la libertad parece estar viendo en su elevado trono de donde con semblante halagueño nos señala diciendo: "Ahí tenéis a vuestros hermanos, Travis, Bowie, Crockett y otros varios a quienes su valor coloca en el número de mis héroes.---Yo os pido a que poniendo por testigo a los venerables restos de nuestros dignos compañeros digamos al mundo entero. Texas será libre, independiente o pereceremos con gloria en los combates.

Translation: Comrades in arms: These remains which we have had the honor of carrying on our shoulders are the ones of the brave heroes who died in the Alamo. Yes, my friends, they preferred a thousand deaths rather than surrender or serve the yoke of the tyrant. What a brilliant example. Worthy indeed of being recorded in the pages of history. The genius of liberty seems to be witnessing from its high throne, from whence with praising look points out the deed saying: "Here you have your brothers, Travis, Bowie, Crockett and a few others whose valor, places them in the number of my heroes.---The worthy remains of our venerable companions bearing witness, I ask you to tell the world, Texas shall be free and independent or we shall perish with glory in battle.”

There is no battle now. I pray to the Almighty that there never is and I work now to make sure that there is not.

So I leave you with the opening words of the Texas Declaration of Independence. It's been posted before but it bears reading now as the meaning and intent behind the words are more poignant and relevant than perhaps they were when they were penned.

“When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for their inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their suppression. When the federal republican constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the ever ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to enforce a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abduction on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements, in such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their welfare and happiness.” "

For some reason the link doesn't seem to work ... so if I may this is what he wrote"

"I was asked to address the issue of Texas secession. This topic is permeating every aspect of living in North America right now, and some of you felt that I could speak to this topic reasonably without being political. I will attempt to do so.

There are so many directions that I could tackle this topic to cover all of the bases. The issue of secession and independence is hot right now and there is a tremendous amount of discussion about. Some of which I am proud to be involved. I am under no illusions that this issue can be addressed in a single missive. I am also not under any illusion that everyone will agree with what I have to say. What I can do is present facts, both historical and present, and make logical, well-reasoned conclusions based on those facts through the context of my personal values.

Although I could talk about governmental theory and the social contract, I want to start by giving you an analogy. Imagine for a moment that you are married. Not a stretch for some of you since you are married or have been in the past. Now imagine that your spouse had done the following:

- Taken your paycheck and spent it on drugs to the point of running you into serious debt
- Rendered you and your children financially strapped to the point of financial ruin
- Taken your money and given it to your neighbor so that “we can be friends”
- Actively worked to turn your kids into “abusive” clones and against you
- Ran up gambling debts that you and your children had to pay
- Repeatedly cheated on you but promised that the next time would be different
- Made decisions for you that were detrimental without your agreement
- Put a second, third or fourth mortgage on your home without your consent
- Promised that they were placing money into your retirement but they were really spending it on frivolous items which would render you destitute at retirement
- Refused to put locks on the door even when your house has been broken into, your property stolen and you have been raped repeatedly
- Failed to come to your aid when you were injured or sick
- Became domineering and controlling to the point of obsession
- Refused to let you speak your mind about these problems and when you did labeled you as “unstable” and “fringe”
- Threatened to beat or kill you if you ever leave

What would you want to do in this situation? If you said anything short of “divorce” please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).

But did you catch that? D-I-V-O-R-C-E! Divorce and secession are the exact same thing. Let me prove it. Here is an excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. “

Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other Founders, were well aware of the role of government in relation to the people. This principle was embodied in the Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 2 which states:

“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. “

The Founders acknowledged our ability to enter into a social contract and they acknowledged our inherent right and duty to exit the contract at the point that it became destructive.

Back to our analogy...

No one would ever go to someone suffering under the conditions that I listed above and ask or state any of the following:

“Aren't you afraid that you'll get beaten or killed if you leave?”
“Marriage is permanent. No matter what.”
“You need your spouse's permission to leave.”
“Well, the grass always seems greener on the other side but really it's not.”
“If you leave you will have to start from scratch so maybe you should stay.”
“So what if you're having these issues. You're stronger as a couple.”
“If you leave you'll just wind up with someone equally abusive.”
“Your spouse beat you before. They'll do it again if you try to leave.”

Why would you ask or say this to someone living under those conditions? Because it's morally reprehensible to do so and only someone who is evil would suggest something so morally repugnant.

Perhaps you fail to see how this analogy fits. Let me make the connections for you.

The 13 Colonies were individually part of Great Britain from which they declared independence (seceded). Here is the relevant excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

“That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. “

These 13 Colonies became 13 distinct and independent States equal to the “State of Great Britain” each with it's own national character. These 13 distinct and independent States entered into a compact of collective defense, foreign policy and commerce called the United States of America. This agreement is similar to and on which the United Nations was originally supposed to be based. Independent, sovereign nation-states who would work together for a common goal. To this end, they drafted a Constitution which was meant to govern the relationship between them. It was the embodiment of John Locke's concept of the “social contract”. It established a governing body whose sole function was to carry out the 17 legitimate functions granted to it by the states and the people with all other rights and functions reserved for the states and people.

The Founders had no need to address political divorce (secession) in the document because the right to do so existed before the Constitution and was the sole mechanism that gave them the ability to even draft the Constitution. I'm fairly certain the secession wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution of Great Britain at that time either.

This was the understanding when all States entered into the United States of America. That includes Texas. It was part of the contract.

Without going into the longest history lesson you would ever have to sit through, suffice it to say that it is not unknown that the Federal Government has overstepped it's boundaries at the drop of a hat and continues to do so today. Don't believe me? Here's a VERY general overview, though I am willing to provide details on specific points if asked:

- Unfunded Mandates
- Excessive taxation without adequate representation
- Frivolous spending of our tax money while our problems can't be adequately addressed due to a lack of funds
- Faltering economic system
- Placed our monetary system into the hands of a private bank who devalued our currency and manipulated our economy at will
- Pilfering and failure of the worst Ponzi scheme in history (Social Security)
- Erosion of the separation of powers
- Repeated and willful violations of the 1st Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 2nd Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 4th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 5th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 9th Amendment
- Repeated and willful violations of the 10th Amendment
- Forcing our system of education to become a tool of social engineering
- Leaving our border less secure than at any time since our independence from Mexico
- Sending our sons and daughters to war without a declaration of war from Congress as is required
- Taking our tax money and failing to provide the services promised
- Unlawfully restricted trade in areas where trade needs to be expanded and shoved free trade down our throats at the cost of jobs and to the detriment of our economy
- Failed to respond to all petitions for a redress or these grievances
- Sought to redefine the Constitution to suit it's own ends
- Failed to render sufficient aid in disregard to the Preamble's call to promote the general welfare
- Instituted an impossibly massive bureaucratic system with more laws and officers than allowed by the Constitution and good sense to do nothing more than control us and “eat out our substance”
- Overtly attempted to subvert legitimate protest and dissent
- Taken our money and given it to foreign countries with the effect of inciting hatred against us
- Expanded their imagined jurisdiction over us through creative interpretations of the “interstate commerce” clause in the Constitution

Trust me. I could go on but it would be overkill. But imagine for a moment that the United Nations had done these things to the United States. The politicians would be screaming from the rooftops to withdraw from the UN. We would suddenly have 300 million fans of secession.

But fear not. This is not a scary thing. It's not an easy decision to make. Divorce never is. But this is not scary. This is where the impetus is placed upon the United States. They have had plenty of opportunities to make the marriage work. We have been subject to an endless parade of politicians who have promised to “turn things around”. Things haven't turned around. They've only gotten worse.

Now Texas and 30 other states are sending notice to the Federal Government. They are standing up and saying:

We know what your responsibilities are.
We know what are rights are.
We are telling you to line it out or else.

I don't believe they will listen. Why? Because self-determination is a global trend. John Naisbitt wrote in his 1994 book Global Paradox: “The world's trends point overwhelmingly to economic interdependence and political independence.” The advent of the technological revolution has given the people of the world a new drive to find themselves and to assert their right of self-determination. There has been a spike in the number of recognized countries around the globe in the past 30 years. Don't believe me? Go look at an encyclopedia from 1980 and then look at the list today.

As homogeneous as some like to think of the United States, it is far from it. We are tied by blood and some common history but economically, culturally and politically we are different. The novelist John Steinbeck said, “Texas is a nation in every sense of the word.” Nations are a distinct people. States are where they call home. And Texas is the home for Texans – a nation-state for a nation.

Not only should we be independent, but we can. Easily. Here's some stats for you:

Texas Gross Domestic Product - $1.245 Trillion (ahead of 209 other countries)
Texas Population – 23.9 million (ahead of 143 other countries)
Texas Labor Force – 11.3 million (ahead of 178 other countries)
Total Taxes Paid By Texans To Both Federal & State Agencies (Representing a Total Potential Budget For An Independent Texas) - $303.4 billion/year
Projected Military Expenditure of an independent Texas (Global 4% average of GDP) – approximately $50 billion/year (ahead of 216 other countries)
Texas Exports - $150.8 billion (ahead of 193 other countries)

And this is the tip of the iceberg. We have deep water ports, the energy and natural resources, the agriculture, the science and technology, the infrastructure and the manufacturing capacity. Imagine how much more efficiently we could use these without the Federal barnacle attached to our hull. Most of all, we have the desire for freedom, the will to succeed and the pride to tie them together. We absolutely have the ability to fulfill the words of Sam Houston when he stated that “Texas will again lift it's head and stand among the nations.”

A clash with the United States Federal Government is not inevitable. It is solely determined by the willingness of the rest of the States to use force to keep us in this marriage or to follow a route that we and other States who wish to follow this course of action have avowed which is the path of peaceful separation.

It is important to reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson. Speaking on the carving out of new States from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson states that should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that:

"...Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?...The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

And again in 1804:

"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power."

When the New England Federalists considered secession, he stated:

“"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Even Abraham Lincoln, while in Congress in 1848 stated:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.”

In the final analysis, secession and freedom are more American than apple pie. It is, as Texans, our heritage twice over.

I have overstepped my bounds in posting this with many of you. But I don't do this lightly. This is an issue, not for the 19th century, but for the 21st century and beyond. I have six children whose future rests in my hands. I do not want them to look at me in my old age, when the opportunity of freedom and independence may have passed, when their freedom has all but evaporated and been replaced by a complete and total despotism, when their economy is wrecked and they worry about feeding their children because of debts that mounted before I was born and continued unabated in my lifetime, and ask me “Why, Daddy?” I cannot fathom the shame and regret that I would feel in that instance.

I think also of the past as well as the future.

When Colonel Juan Seguin was sent to San Antonio de Bexar by General Sam Houston to give the Alamo defenders a proper burial he gave the following speech:

Compañeros de armas: Estos restos que hemos tenido el honor de conducir en nuestros hombros son los de los valientes héroes que murieron en el Alamo. Sí mis amigos, ellos prefirieron morir mil veces a servir el yugo del tirano. Que ejemplo tan briIlante, digno de anotarse en las páginas de la historia. El genio de la libertad parece estar viendo en su elevado trono de donde con semblante halagueño nos señala diciendo: "Ahí tenéis a vuestros hermanos, Travis, Bowie, Crockett y otros varios a quienes su valor coloca en el número de mis héroes.---Yo os pido a que poniendo por testigo a los venerables restos de nuestros dignos compañeros digamos al mundo entero. Texas será libre, independiente o pereceremos con gloria en los combates.

Translation: Comrades in arms: These remains which we have had the honor of carrying on our shoulders are the ones of the brave heroes who died in the Alamo. Yes, my friends, they preferred a thousand deaths rather than surrender or serve the yoke of the tyrant. What a brilliant example. Worthy indeed of being recorded in the pages of history. The genius of liberty seems to be witnessing from its high throne, from whence with praising look points out the deed saying: "Here you have your brothers, Travis, Bowie, Crockett and a few others whose valor, places them in the number of my heroes.---The worthy remains of our venerable companions bearing witness, I ask you to tell the world, Texas shall be free and independent or we shall perish with glory in battle.”

There is no battle now. I pray to the Almighty that there never is and I work now to make sure that there is not.

So I leave you with the opening words of the Texas Declaration of Independence. It's been posted before but it bears reading now as the meaning and intent behind the words are more poignant and relevant than perhaps they were when they were penned.

“When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for their inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their suppression. When the federal republican constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the ever ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to enforce a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abduction on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements, in such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their welfare and happiness.” "

I think that this is absolutely a MUST read .. it was written by Daniel Miller - a very, very strong advocate of States' rights and the right of states to secede - he lays out the most simple of analogies making this piece an invaluable aid in trying to explain the notion to those who don't understand - simply put - Divorce and secession are the exact same thing.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=52477990879...

Dale

Nancy; Jekyll Island? Has anything good every come off that place? Interesting. Not Concord or some spot intimately connected with the beginnings of our own great experiment? Hmmmm. Ya know, I think I'll give it a miss - - - not because a 'People's (Continental) Congress' is, on the face of it, a bad idea, but the location gives the whole thing a distinct aroma; that's my feeling. Sorry.