Montana threatening secession!!!

[rmodel65]

This is an interesting one. Apparently Montana is or has filed an amicus brief in support of Heller in DC v. Heller. And then the Secretary of State of Montana wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Times. I'll paste the text, but I'll also give a link to the Montana .gov website which itself gives a link to the letter.

http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District.

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.

[Defining Obscene]

Sweet, I hope other states have this agreement. A free nation that isn't free, isn't a negotiable contract.

[Dequeant]

Link isn't working for me, got another?

[rmodel65]

http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

[rmodel65]

it is editing out february for some reason change ry into the month it will be 2008/february then the rest

[rmodel65]

another link maybe this one will work? http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage

[Dequeant]

Vermont is another state with a seriously strong secession movement. (13% of the state favors secession).

[Tugboat1988]

Check this hot link:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/enabling.htm

It's called Enabling Act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States, and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the origional States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

Pay particular attention to Sec. 4 where you will find contractual agreements the proposed States provided for entered into as conditions for membership. It is an agreement between the States in Union and the four new States as provided for by the federal government. They agree to:

1) adopt the Constitution of the United States.
That means to make it your own, which includes the Bill of Rights.
2) The constitutions (created by the delegates forming the new States) shall be republican in form.
3) and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Now, go to Sec. 25 the last section in the document. It reads:

"That all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act, whether passed by the legislatures of said Territories or by Congress, are hereby repealed."

Each new State was also announced by Proclamation of the presiding president of the United States when they entered into the Union. So, you see, Union is a contractual agreement between sovereign States. You'll find few places in this world today that teach these things or even make them known.

I've written about this for years including in Washington, Montana and Idaho. Every State after the original States has an Enabling Act. Most of them have become very difficult to find. The worst is Illinois where it is almost impossible to find, even their State constitution.

Another thing about Union and the Enabling Act concerns all the 'stuff' about claim on public lands. An agreement was reached before the US Constitution between the States to help settle the Territories and make them into new States.

It happened because of the way King George granted public lands to the original States in the document "The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783." All the lands he claimed were granted to the twelve named new States. That meant that every acre of, say, the Northwest Territory could have joint claim by all those same States.

Consider that you were a settler in, say, what became southern Illinois and wanted to claim eighty acres as a homestead. Without an agreement between those twelve States, you'd have to visit the capitals of each to have them sign off on the title transfer. To prevent that necessity, the original States agreed to give up their claim on all public lands in the King George grant areas and allow the Continental Congress (the Confederation) hold title until a new States was organized. So, a settler cound then have only the Continental Congress sign off to allow clear title transfer instead of making that long trip. The same agreement went into the other territories as they became claims of the US.

But, in the middle of all this, something new happened, and they don't want you to know about it. A new federal government was formed with a new Constitution. And that new government under the new Constitution began to keep the title to public and unclaimed lands instead of turning it over to the new States when they became members of the Union even though the lands allowed the federal government are noted in Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Ten miles Square for the seat of govenment plus places for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings were allowed. Other than that, public land title was handed over to the new States when formed and placed in the State's counties to be held in trust for the people. The federal government was granted authority in the new Constitution only to reserve certain parts of those lands for special use, like forest lands, parks, etc.

Here's the part they don't want you to know about and it's in the US Constitution Article VI first paragraph. It reads: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation." The 'engagement' is the contract we discuss here because it carries over from the Confederation.

So, if you were serious enough about this topic to read this far you learned more than at first you thought. Sleep well my friends knowing you can identify the king of a land by indentifying the one holding claim on public lands. Is that OK by you?

Tugboat

[Tugboat1988]

This is a great topic but maybe it should be under General Politics or National Sovereignty.

[Benaiah]

//

[wv@SC]

bump

[Tugboat1988]

So tugboat, are you saying that none of the states can succeed?

If the States joined by accepting the provisions of an agreement, it follows contract law. When a contract is breached it can be 'avoided'. That means it can be voided. If voided, then the relationship is no longer in operation, and the State is no longer a part of the Union the contract (Enabling Act provisions) established.

Quoting John DeWitt, Essay number III, November 5, 1787 to the people of Massachusetts as they contemplated the proposed new Constitution:

"All contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them.... There is no difference in the constitution of government."

All the documents representing the creation of this country are agreements between the States as authorized by the people. These agreements are no different than contracts and have no difference in the relationships set in operation between the parties. Continued breach of the provisions of any contract, including a constitution, can lead to default and termination. The question is, would any of the parties today, call the default. Would Montana? Maybe. Would Alaska? Could happen. Could Texas? They fly a Lone Star Flag.

But, after a long trail of abuse........

I hope that answers your question.

[Doktor_Jeep]

I am so there.

[Tugboat1988]

There’s more I would like to say about this topic. I intended to add this sooner but other things sidetracked me. With my apologies for delay, I now add these few comments.

Recall that I pointed out that Montana entered the Union of States upon agreeing to certain conditions that it would accept, and those conditions were similar to a contract. And if Montana found that the contract was breached to its damage it could call it defaulted. If defaulted, the contract would be avoided and Montana would no longer be a member of the Union. Most people understand that process as succession.

Here’s the rest of the story waiting our consideration. It could begin by comparing it with the Southern States failed attempt to succeed, so let’s hit that with a gentle glance. The glance we take will make an unexpected turn, in a sense, and become a contrast. Montana was a US Territory when it gained Statehood and joined the Union. The South originally were individual sovereign States joined in perpetual union under the Confederation. Before that, they were Colonies of England.

When the South attempted to leave the Union, the federal government could not consider it a US Territory because it was never a Territory before Statehood. So, it took war in the end to prevent the South from becoming independent. Well, at least and right or wrong, that seems to be the way the administration viewed it. Montana was a Territory, or part of one, before Statehood and would return to that status if default was claimed. At least, that’s the way this administration would view it, I think. But let’s assume that would be the way it boiled out.

If Montana became independent of the Union, and the federal government view Montana as a US Territory, then there would be negative consequences. Congress would view it as a Article I, Section 8 Territory and claim ‘exclusive legislative’ powers over it. The State Constitution was authorized under the Enabling Act so it would no longer be valid. The federal government, probably being rather ticked over Montana’s move, could create a new Territorial Constitution for it. I’ll leave it at that.

So, it might be better for Montana to consider more, shall I say, profitable means of gaining satisfaction. Besides, isn’t Montana’s beef with the federal government rather than the other States? If so, why leave Union when it should find a way to limit federal government influence over a perfectly healthy State? Most everybody thinks government is too big and intrusive, so that seems like a more appropriate approach.

But what are the alternatives available?

One alternative available for Montana could be to follow up on the failed Nye County, Dick Carver, Sagebrush Rebellion and take the title of public lands away from federal government. To do so they’d have to do two hard things. One would be to clarify the part of speech of just one word in Article IV of the Constitution. The other thing it would have to do is understand what the first sentence in Article VI means and how it relates to land title. I think I discussed Article VI. The word they’d have to deal with in Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 “dispose.”
My dictionary defines the word “dispose” to mean “to settle, to sell or give away, get rid of” and it identifies it as a “transitive verb” which is a verb “taking a direct object.” That applies to a person or thing to which action, feeling, etc. is directed; purpose; goal.”
They would have to show that the wording required action to dispose of the title, and all they would have remaining is to show that it is relevant through Article VI to their quest for title. Well, my research going back to the Confederation indicates a potential winner for Montana. They could begin with BLM lands, then go to National Forests, etc. As I showed before, forest lands would retain federal government designation as forest lands. So why not place title in the hands of the Counties and hold them to those protections.

There is yet another, if not more complicated and remote possibility left for Montana. It would require Montana to recall one of the main reasons and purposes of the Senate, which is to represent the State in the federal congress. They are there to guard the agreement of Union and the Constitutional relationships in the Constitution. When abuses are experienced the Senate is supposed to file complains and see that the abuse is relieved. Failing relief, gathering sufficient numbers of the Senate seeing Constitutional abuses are adding up, they could file for redress and toss the offenders out. Or, something to that effect. If, in the end, the abuses originated in a certain branch or department, then appropriate methods are available in the Constitution, or simply in management principles already set. The Senate, if properly functioning, could even get rid of whole departments, or bad laws, if necessary.

Well, this is longer than I wanted so I’m going to leave the subject as it is. But, it seems, finding ways to correct the wrongs perpetrated is far better than secession. Come to think about it, all this should have at least vague ring of familiarity to it. Some people may even think that it kind of sounds like what Dr. Ron Paul is trying to do. If that’s what you think, I say BINGO!

Tugboat

[fedup100]

So where are the other 80 posts that were posted about this? Was there another thread?

[Tugboat1988]

So where are the other 80 posts that were posted about this? Was there another thread?

It's in General Politics.

[INforRP]

Montana thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122581

Vermont thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=95574

[Tugboat1988]

Montana thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122581

Vermont thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=95574

Thanks INfor but I'll just lurk there when I have time. If you want to take any of my comments over to the Montana thread go for it. Some of my comments might be interesting. I forget how many are here but you'll find them easily.

I'm working on a little project to see EPA back down from unconstitutional requirements concerning required testing in your kitchen sink to qualify public water systems for treatment, while the ignor the system itself. I'll win but I have to concentrate on that project instead of Montana.

Tugboat

[JSutter]

All the documents representing the creation of this country are agreements between the States as authorized by the people. These agreements are no different than contracts and have no difference in the relationships set in operation between the parties. Continued breach of the provisions of any contract, including a constitution, can lead to default and termination.

That is pretty much the same argument that the Lakota Indians are using to declare their independence from the United States and establish themselves as an indepent country within the United States borders and issue their own drivers licenses and passports. They're withdrawing from treaties made with the US because the Constitution establishes treaties as the law of the land and the US has habitually broken provisions of the treaties.

The tribe has already been recognized by some other countries aa an independent country and is filing the required paperwork with other countries and the UN.

The tribe is offering to let any American come live on their property tax-free if they renounce US citizenship and become citizens of the Lakota country. It's definitely a valid and legal argument in my mind because the provisions that the tribe agreed to have not been followed so they are voiding the contract and redeclaring their independence.

Read more here

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/

http://bullsheet.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/lakota-declare-independence-from-the-us/


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lakota12212007.html

[INforRP]

Hey Tugboat. Actually I posted those links to make it easier for that other poster to read the rest.
Originally Posted by fedup100 View Post
So where are the other 80 posts that were posted about this? Was there another thread?

As far as your post:

I'm working on a little project to see EPA back down from unconstitutional requirements concerning required testing in your kitchen sink to qualify public water systems for treatment, while the ignor the system itself. I'll win but I have to concentrate on that project instead of Montana.

Tugboat
I am curious what you have in mind. I work in the water business myself, am rather familiar with public water systems and am not sure what exactly you mean by this.

[Tugboat1988]

Hey Tugboat. Actually I posted those links to make it easier for that other poster to read the rest.

As far as your post:

I am curious what you have in mind. I work in the water business myself, am rather familiar with public water systems and am not sure what exactly you mean by this.

Has to do, in part, with http://www.epa.gov/dclead/sdwa.htm

I'll try to send a private message to you so we can discuss it. At the top where you see Welcome, INforRP, you'll see Private Messages. You'll see Unread 1, Total 1 if I'm successful. I believe you can click on Private Messages and get my message. I'll do this because it will drift this off topic if we do it here. (T)

[Doktor_Jeep]

This is a great topic but maybe it should be under General Politics or National Sovereignty.

It might belong here considering how the Union handles secession.

[Tugboat1988]

It might belong here considering how the Union handles secession.

I have no objections. As I said, it's a good topic, and there is a similar one in General Politics. It's good here as well.

[PismoPam]

I have been following all the stuff about the Supremes finally deciding to check out the 2nd amendment - will it be televised so that we can see the arguement?
I live 1/2 time in California (thank you God for the ocean) and 1/2 time in Montana, SO excited to see Montana's reaction to this! WOW!
Also, http://www.2asisters.org has a wonderful brief they filed, full of great stories about people defending themselves.

[Pauls' Revere]

I wish the State of Jefferson would secede. This is different from the free state project. See link for more details.
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
:)

[Doktor_Jeep]

Whatever the SCOTUS says about 2A is moot. They are a branch of a dying regime.

[xd9fan]

the states that agreed to the creation of the Federal Govt...reserve the RIGHT...to leave.

Its beautiful.


I'm extremely surprised the SC took this case. I cant believe they would not let the dc ruling stand.....but then again the lower courts are split.....

[foofighter20x]

the states that agreed to the creation of the Federal Govt...reserve the RIGHT...to leave.

Its beautiful.

I'm extremely surprised the SC took this case. I cant believe they would not let the dc ruling stand.....but then again the lower courts are split.....

I don't know why people are so worried...

1. It only takes a vote of 4 justices to hear a case.
2. It just might be that the justices wanting to hear the case are trying to affirm the ruling of the lower court while at the same time expanding it throughout the entire nation.
3. Before SDO retired, it was likely that either Kennedy or O'Connor would have been the swing vote. Now it all hinges on Kennedy, so really, I'd be looking at how he's ruled on past gun cases for insight into how the Court will hold...

[OddballAZ]

I don't know why people are so worried...

1. It only takes a vote of 4 justices to hear a case.
2. It just might be that the justices wanting to hear the case are trying to affirm the ruling of the lower court while at the same time expanding it throughout the entire nation.
3. Before SDO retired, it was likely that either Kennedy or O'Connor would have been the swing vote. Now it all hinges on Kennedy, so really, I'd be looking at how he's ruled on past gun cases for insight into how the Court will hold...

I think the ruling will be in favor of the Second Amendment meaning what it says, that it's a right of the people to keep in bear arms. I have no doubts that Thomas, Scalia and Alito would LOVE to rule on this and rule in favor of it being an individual right. Roberts is also supposed to be pro gun. Kennedy will be the swing vote. Looking at his past rulings he will probably vote in favor of it being an individual right.

It will be VERY hard for the other 4 liberal wackos on the court to even justify saying the Second Amendment is anything other than an individual right but they will try. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from the US Constitution, state Constitutions, and the documents the founding fathers wrote that all clearly state the right belongs to individual citizens.

They may still say something like gun control in the case of people who have lost their rights such as felons or mental cases (deemed to be nuts by a court of law) is ok. But things like the DC ban have gone way to far. Hopefully there will be plenty of ammo in the ruling to go after many of the laws in CA, IL and other anti gun states.

A ruling in favor of the collectivist theory will pretty much be the final nail in the coffin for the illusion of freedom in this country. That will be a deceleration of war on the American people and we will have a duty to fulfill at that point. They would still have to make it a law banning firearm ownership. Such a ruling would conflict with 40 something state Constitutions. But lets hope the tools who would want to make a total ban would all be ran out of office by armed citizens before they get the chance.

[OddballAZ]

Here is something I found out about my own state, AZ in "Boston's Gun Bible" (38/6).

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p.htm

I'm not sure if it passed or not. The book doesn't say if it did but I assume it did. Does anyone know?

[Paul Revered]

I posted the OP on MySpace.