State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

by Dave Nalle

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.


State Sovereignty Movement Growing

by Kurt Nimmo,

Back in December, the Wall Street Journal had a good chuckle over Russian academic Igor Panarin’s prediction that the United States would break apart by 2010. Using threadbare Cold War logic, Andrew Osborn wrote that Panarin’s forecast “is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis.”

For the WSL scribe, Panarin’s analysis is about the Red Bear “returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.”


Montana Firearms Freedom Act

by Greg Heller, The Holy Cause

There is a new bill circulating in Montana’s legislature which has significant implications on several fronts in the battle for liberty, most notably that of States Rights, and the right to bear arms.  The bill can be read here, and is not a long read (freedom is much easier to describe than tyranny), but to whet your interest here are a few snippets.


Were the States Sovereign Nations?

by Brian McCandliss,

A defining – but so far unasked – question regarding the Civil War is the political status of the states: specifically, was the “United States of America” indeed, as our popular Pledge of Allegiance claims, “one nation, indivisible?” Or was it, rather, a union of sovereign nations, bound only to each other by mere treaty, as with any other treaty – such as the current United Nations? (As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time).

This question seems to be the proverbial “elephant in the room” of American law and history, for its answer is key in defining a state’s right of secession: this question marks the difference between, for example, Boston seceding from Massachusetts, and Spain seceding from the United Nations. While in the first instance, few would question the legal right of state officials to use force in preventing local urban inhabitants from seceding with a state’s city, such an exercise against a sovereign nation in the latter example would be (hopefully) viewed as nothing short of ruthless imperialism equivalent to that of Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan.


A Rebellion Brewing in Oklahoma

by Walter E. Williams

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees.

A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.


Liberty and Federalism vs States Rights

by Steve Kubby

“States’ Rights” is an Anti-Libertarian Concept

The concept of federalism is properly used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the federal government and the states.

In contrast, the term “states’ rights” is a fraudulent and profoundly ANTI-Libertarian concept that has no other purpose but to deceive and rob us of our natural, inalienable, inseparable, non-transferable rights as human beings.