“Point of relevance is that the greater power to effect change inheres not within States but rather the people. Consider mass exodus out of the federal citizen/14th Amendment status. Its all govt. by consent and we can undo what we all did by again self contracting out by withdrawing signature authorization. Granted, it calls for sacrifice, but its a matter of weighing what is the greater good. Future generations have a vested stake in enjoying freedoms and liberties many take for granted.”

This is something I have been thinking about for a little bit since Allan Campbell had mentioned this in “How Much More Will We Take”.

IF HE IS CORRECT, States don’t need have to have a mass exodus of citizens from the 14th Amendment status.

They only need to encourage through legislation or resolutions to protect the top 5% of income earners in their respective states to dissolve their status as 14th Amendment citizens to become Citizens of the State, or what I understand is called a de jure Citizen.

As that tax bracket effectively exits the scene, 60% of Federal tax revenue has just evaporated. If the upper 10% leaves, then this means approximately 70% of tax revenue goes up in smoke.

The machine that is the Federal Government would have been dealt a crippling blow.

Atlas will have just shrugged.

I have been reading you’re posts for a good while now, Mr.Hannibal Barca, and you have been continually spot on track, GOOD WORK FROM A GOOD MAN.

Whatever the reasons were for the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the fact is that violence was not among those reasons. Organization, grass roots, determination, economic shifts...none of these require violent revolt to have an effect.

Bryce, your mention of the USSR is apropos. What would really be helpful is to fully understand the major steps of how the USSR devolved. I would like to hear this from an expert who knows this part of the USSR's history in great detail. Back in 1987 or 88, I took "The Political Geography of the USSR" at the University of Houston with Dr. Victor Mote. He was fairly knowledgeable, although we did not go into huge detail on politics. It was more of a general introduction. He would be the only person I know of who comes closest to potentially knowing. There must be many, many others.

We all know the USSR fell apart, and we sort-of know why, but we really don't know much about how it did so as orderly as it did.

That's not to say we want to go the same route. More importantly, some major events occurred there that might be good for us to know so that we might make progress toward a somewhat different end, but still, away from heavy centralization.

I agree with Jeff. The USSR did not fall because of violent civil war, it fell due to the will of it's people to stand together and resist central planning.

I think repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments should do.

Our State Governments should be inclined to do so if we push them, they could even coheres other more "liberal" states into going along with it using the same tactics that our enemy's have used on the same liberals so successfully to get concession out of them.

There might be a time for violence, but it is not now.

We need to get a number of states standing together on such issues as to make federal counter strikes in terms of cutting funding damaging to the fed.

States need to work together so when they take out certainty federal laws and do what ever they do it in mass thus denying congress the piratical option of financial retaliation less congress as a whole pays the price.

The 2nd thing we need to look at is a way for the States to forcefully rout all Federal tax dollars thou the State, so that in the event of future usurpation thou the old form of extrotion on which the Federal goverment has effectily userped the rights of the people and their states.
The States may respond to such unconditional usurpation in effective nullification, by means of taxation deduction.

As the creator and empowers of the United States Federal government the power to define its meaning with regard to what rights and powers we ceded to the United States federal government Must by nature of the order of authority be definable by each individual state, for if it were not then the Union we joined would be equivalent to a black check of power subjecting us to perpetual and unmitigated tyranny.

As our founding fathers insisted in the Declaration of independents no such condition of perpetual and unconditional servitude can be entered into. To that end the only acceptable and reasonable explanation of the nature of federal power is that it's definition of the extent of federal rights with respect to ourselves must therefore be derided by each individual member there to if there does not exist the unilateral right to withdraw from the same union at any time of each individual members choosing for themselves.

To say otherwise is to suggest that we have sold ourselves and all posterity into unconditional and perpetual slavery, subjecting ourselves to what amounts to an unmitigated tyranny.

If the federal goverment is to insist that such a condition of unconditional, unlimited, and perpetual servitude exist under their rule for all the States in union under it. Then such an insist being slave master over theses States will in itself indicate the arrogate and blind grab for absolute power of the same government indicative of a tyranny, thus demanding of we the state the overthrow and replacement of that tyranny by whatever means necessary.

However if that government is to acknowledge the limitations of its powers in such a way that the States are individual able to protect their peoples rights from unmitigated usurpation by the same government when they occur, then we may assume that there is an honest misunderstanding as to what rights and powers we voluntarily ceded to that federation in exchange for its benefits.

Under no circumstances can any government operating in the spirit of republicanism be premised to trap any members therein into a sittuation of unmitigated and unending servitude without redress.

We the freedom loving people and their state States as members of the United States are therefore obligated by the Constitutional law of the United States, as well as that of our most basic job as a Government of the United States to uphold that Constitutional law and protect the rights and liberty's of our people. To that end we must uses any and all means at our disposal to nullify and resist any and all unconstitutional usurpation of the same rights and liberty of the people and their states by the central government of the United States.

Larry. Interesting statement. There is a recent case where the SCt held that a federal law requiring state employees to administer gun background checks was Unconstitutional insofar as the federal government was not permitted to commandeer the states in furtherance of its business.

So, one might question whether the federal gov't could be challenged by the states, who could claim they should not be required to be the agents of the federal government for collection of federal taxes.

The fact that the Federal government coerces states to do anything has never set well with me ..to threaten a state by withholding money to get them to go along with something?.. States should be starving DC by refusing to withhold federal income tax money as a counter measure..this would level the playing field.

I believe by States targeting, encouraging and protecting the most productive of our society to migrate from their 14th amendment status to become a Citizen of the State (de jure Citizen), and thus among other things, remove any Federal tax liability (IF the premise is correct), it would be absolutely devastating to the Federal government when the government obviously relies so heavily on these people.

If even a few states would encourage and successfully protect such actions, many affluent people would be inclined to move to become a Citizen of that state.

The Federal government would rapidly take notice of this trend. They would take rapid notice of the INTENT to legislatively encourage such a trend. This wouldn't be a resolution that lacks teeth. This would be a clear indication that the State intends to help people punch out the Federal government's teeth.

You want to get anyone's undivided attention you cut off their money supply.

People working through their state legislators to resist an unconstitutional federal government, is - from my understanding - one of the primary ways the founders recommended to ensure constitutional government. Whether it's the highway fun, nationalization of the guard, real id, gun rights or any number of important issues - it's going to require steps like these to resist.

I see no problem with State legislators enacting laws to protect their best and brightest citizens from abhorrent financial abuse.

If the federal government can find that there is ample maneuvering room, to enact any new law, they may wish, then I see no reason why our State legislators can not find that there is also ample maneuvering room left, to reject them.

The devil is in the details of every new federal law, and often there are, upon close examinations, opportunities, to reject that federal law.

Can anyone out there who has a good understanding of the law verify that what this site below says is essentially true? This is one of the sites I came across when I was thinking about what Allan had said concerning becoming a Citizen of the State.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/On_State_Citizenship.html

“Point of relevance is that the greater power to effect change inheres not within States but rather the people. Consider mass exodus out of the federal citizen/14th Amendment status. Its all govt. by consent and we can undo what we all did by again self contracting out by withdrawing signature authorization. Granted, it calls for sacrifice, but its a matter of weighing what is the greater good. Future generations have a vested stake in enjoying freedoms and liberties many take for granted.”

This is something I have been thinking about for a little bit since Allan Campbell had mentioned this in “How Much More Will We Take”.

IF HE IS CORRECT, States don’t need have to have a mass exodus of citizens from the 14th Amendment status.

They only need to encourage through legislation or resolutions to protect the top 5% of income earners in their respective states to dissolve their status as 14th Amendment citizens to become Citizens of the State, or what I understand is called a de jure Citizen.

As that tax bracket effectively exits the scene, 60% of Federal tax revenue has just evaporated. If the upper 10% leaves, then this means approximately 70% of tax revenue goes up in smoke.

The machine that is the Federal Government would have been dealt a crippling blow.

Atlas will have just shrugged.

Maybe the states should have all tax monies sent to state and then give the federal government what it feels it needs to carry out the constitutional duties it was assigned in the constitution.

I have been reading you’re posts for a good while now, Mr.Hannibal Barca, and you have been continually spot on track, GOOD WORK FROM A GOOD MAN.

You're absolutely right in saying that state legislators need to show backbone. I get the impression that as more and more support for efforts like this come from the people, the legislators will have no choice but to have more courage. It's easier to take a stand in the face of difficult odds when you have a lot of people behind you...

No States need any Federal money. We might think we do, but we do not. States might have to go through some growing pains, but no State needs to be on the dole. States can be self sufficient unto themselves if they would try. They've just been hitting the easy button for far too long and have forgotten how to take command of their own destinies. Collectively we have all been asleep for a long time, and we have all forgotten how to take charge of their own lives.

State legislators need to show some backbone. Once they do they might actually see that the people are with them on it. Any chance a State can take with legislature to stick their thumb in the Federal government's eye today will be met with louder cheers that would more likely drown out condemnation. Any legislation that causes the Federal government a loss in revenue should be drafted, ratified and put into motion immediately. Immediately. Take away their money.

We need to be contrary at every turn. This is a party independent fact-The Federal government is our enemy. It is not our friend. It lives for itself.