State Sovereignty and Secession Part II

November 13, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

by Sarah Goodwich

Here’s how to secede.
 The US is not a sovereign nation; if it were, then unilateral secession would be impossible, since there is no such thing as an “escape clause” from a sovereign nation.

Rather, each state is sovereign unto itself, via its People; that’s why the Constitution was ratified by popular vote in each state, not an act of the legislature. In essence, each state is a sovereign nation, and its People the ruling sovereigns.

The problem in 1861, was that the states defended themselves as an act of revolution rather than plain national defense; and by failing to assert the legal fact of their sovereignty as strongly as they could, they tacitly allowed the northern state’s claims of collective sovereignty to stand unopposed; this gave them the necessary domestic and foreign support needed to mount a successful military invasion and victory, while likewise prompting the Confederacy’ Napoleonic attempt at counter-invasion which met its Waterloo at Gettysburg.

This in turn resulted in a sustained occupation and censorship, which existed to date, with the truth only recently surfacing due to freed communication via the internet.

In order to secede, a state simply needs to assert the fact of its status as a sovereign nation by international law, via the recognition of two or more existing sovereign states– as with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Texas, or the later recognition by the other American states formed out of its territories.

This likewise involves the historical declaration of each state being popularly sovereign, with its government deriving its powers by consent of its citizens, with the ensuing right to alter or abolish their government at will, along with its treaties and other foreign policy; for this was the manner in which they ratified the current Constitution to create a new federal republic among them.

Nor was this a national constitution in which any state relinquished its sovereignty as a separate nation in order to become a single collective sovereign state; but rather the sovereign People of each state expressly re-delegated powers differently from the prior federal republic formed by the Articles of Confederation– while the new, current federal republic likewise remained a strictly VOLUNTARY international association of sovereign nations.

Therefore, asserting these facts, the People of a state merely need convene as a sovereign People, and manifestly declare their intention to formally and officially withdraw from this international federal compact.

The federal government then has two possible responses:
 the first is that it can accept the declaration, and that is the end of it.

The second, is that it will refuse the declaration, fabricating a false history in order to justify it; and this can then be refuted and exposed, proving the federal government to be in hostile invasion and occupation of the state, while subjecting it to military duress. This will then require separate dealing, as with any hostile enemy occupying a sovereign nation in violation of international law and recognition.

That’s really all there is to it. Only one state needs to thus declare its sovereignty in order for to establish this precedent, which follows that likewise established in 1787 when each state unilaterally seceded from the 1781 Confederation.
 Some falsely claim that this was an existing union which simply changed its tenets, however plain history refutes this myth.

Therefore to recap, the People of a state must convene and assert their state’s national sovereignty, refuting the current regime’s claim of sovereign national authority over them; and the rest will be up to the regime in order to accept or refuse it, and the manner thereof; and the resulting course of action by the state in response.

In no case could there ever be a “civil war,” nor was there ever; for a civil war by definition is a domestic incident within a sovereign nation, never between separate ones as in 1861, as established by original intent of the states themselves. Post-invasive suppression and propagandizing of the facts are not history; they are merely censorship, and clearly cannot change prior original intent, or its retention of sovereignty.

As such, those who claim that a “civil war settled the law” are merely mistaken, since neither invasion nor hostile occupation and censorship can change a nation’s sovereignty by merely suppressing the fact thereof.

Convention, and declaration, thus remain the path to secession, accompanied by assertion of supporting fact and dissolution of contrary propaganda.

Sarah Goodwich can be reached at: sarahwitch@comcast.net.

Advertisements

State Sovereignty and Secession Part I

November 12, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unhappy with your present cell phone provider? Monthly bills out of control? Discover Unlimited Voice, Unlimited Text and Unlimited Data on a Nationwide 4G Network. No Contract! Only $49 a month! Go to: Solavei.com to sign up TODAY!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

by Sarah Goodwich

(Editor’s note: This is just brilliant. Just read the text and watch the video.)

It’s not simply secession, but sovereignty. A state doesn’t need to secede, but merely the ability to do so, in order to keep the feds in line; it’s like any defense, i.e. you have it so you don’t need to use it.

Otherwise, the federal government becomes an uncontestable ruling oligarchy which wields absolute power over every state, and there’s nothing they can do about it; as Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Kentucky Resolutions:
“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes…. the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

This was made clear by James Madison as he wrote in January of 1800 for the Virginia Assembly, in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions:
“It is indeed true that the term ‘states’ is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term ‘states,’ in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the “states;” in that sense the states ratified it; and in that sense of the term ‘states,’ they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.”

In other words, Madison holds, each state ratified the Constitution as a sovereign nation unto itself, and thus they are parties to the Constitution as sovereign nations.
Hence, he here held that the Constitution formed an international VOLUNTARY federal republic among sovereign nations.

Madison then goes on to illustrate the fallacy– and disaster– of construing the Constitution as a national compact among subordinate states:
“On any other hypothesis, the delegation of.. power would annul the authority delegating it; and… subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”

And that’s PRECISELY what transpired under that construction, when presidents Jackson and Lincoln claimed a national compact among the states, with ensuing national authority to maintain sovereign integrity among the states via military coercion– as well as the dictatorial will to do so, and ensuing obsessive demagoguery and dogma to the resulting pseudo-state.

And thus we currently find ourselves in thralldom to a falsely established empire, which pretends itself a token democracy to exercise absolute power in the name of service to the people over whom it reigns– truly, as Madison stated, “the delegation of power annulling the power delegating it.”

Sarah Goodwich sent this to us as a comment last Friday. She can be reached at: sarahwitch@comcast.net.