A new Civil War?

Yet another transfer... from, Tuesday, February 17, 2009...

Last night I was listening to late night radio as I am wont to do while at work, and I got a rather interesting look at where our government seems to be headed.

The "show" I listened to was called "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory". usually I find I have to take all they have to say with a grain of salt (they are very much into U.F.O.'s, Ghosts, and the supernatural.) but last night's show had state senators on from four different states; these senators spoke out about their states policies vis a vis the issue at hand

One of the primary guests was, Jerome Corsi his article on the subject can be found click here.
Or you can go to...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
The other main guest was Alex Jones whose website is here.

The subject of the show was about state sovereignty. It seems that several states have become extremely upset with the trend of the Federal government and they are declaring themselves to be Sovereign.
In other words there are states (last I heard about 20-30 of them) which are saying to the federal government that they are not going to be Tyrannized by anyone even if that anyone is the federal government.

I find this to be a very interesting (or scary) issue!

I am a little bit of a civil war buff and one point that I keep running up against is, no matter what we think of it today, at the start the south did not go to war 150 years ago primarily about slavery, that was a secondary issue to the matter.

The Civil war (or as some southerners still call it, the war of northern aggression) started when several states felt that the federal government was limiting and/or removing the rights of the states to be self governing.

This viewpoint is somewhat supported in part by the fact that it took over a year (Sept 1862) after the start of the civil war (Apr 1861) for Abraham Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now the History books would tell us that the civil war occurred PURELY because of the issue of slavery. but there were many who fought for the confederacy who "didn't care one way or the other about [slavery]"

Here I am reminded of the adage "the victor writes the history books."

The thing here is, I see this issue (state Sovereignty) as being the same issue all over again.

When you look at the wording of some of the bills being passed by states today you get a good idea of how serious this is.

For an example I give you HCR-6. this is a declaration by the state legislation in New Hampshire about State Sovereignty. HCR 0006

If you can't get there that way try...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082

I will include the last few (and most pertinent) paragraphs of HCR-6 at the end of this writing.

It turns out that this is a problem that appears to have been brewing for quite a while and now it is coming to a head.
Already there are nine states which have declared state sovereignty; Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington

And now there are apparently 13 or more states considering doing the same. (for more on this please look here.)

they include...
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania and Texas.

One of the reasons for these actions is reportedly a presidential directive marked as PDD 51 which would theoretically cause the country to revert to Martial law.*

One of the State legislators who was a guest on the show said "the states created the federal government and the constitution gives states the right to dissolve the federal government."

And they are right! In plain speak, basically under the 9th and 10th amendments provision is made that should the federal government start to become unwieldy and self serving then the states (or the people) have the right and even the obligation to change the government.

What is frightening is that any one who has advocated such actions in the past have been labeled as seditious, terrorists or worse. But now we are talking about STATE GOVERNMENTS who are saying these things; how can a duly elected constitutionally supported government be seditious?

And we seem to have the federal government responding in kind. Declaring that they will enact said martial law and bring the state governments who oppose the federal government to "justice".

I suppose we would have to look at the constitution. But the states declaring their sovereignty HAVE done that. And apparently they are finding that it is the Federal government who is, or is about to be, at fault for disobedience to the constitution.

And it all hinges on the 9th and tenth amendments. In other words, as I understand it, recognizing that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. so even though they are not specifically mentioned federal government still may not take away those rights.

AMENDMENT IX
(1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In other words, as I understand it, the drafters of this amendment recognized that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. So this was a catch all saying any rights enjoyed by the people, even though not specifically referred to, could not be taken away by the government.


AMENDMENT X
(1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one is saying that Federal Government cannot remove or overrule State rights, or powers which are held by the States.
ie: The States are free to govern themselves without interference from the federal level; as long as they do not become unconstitutional by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.



I am worried for many reasons, because we ought to not have to fight for our freedoms AGAIN!, because we ought not to have another civil war, and because I swore an oath as a member of the National guard... the oath goes

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Some of the issues

BUT having signed with the national guard (and both states in which I served as a guardsman are on the lists as declaring their sovereignty) I have a further dilemma. What side do I serve if reactivated?

You see under the statutes for serving in the national guard...

"The National Guard is uniquely organized under the constitution and federal statutes. The Guard and Reserves are equally accessible under federal mobilization and can be called-up for operations, national emergencies, or war...but only the National Guard can be called-up by the individual states. Unless called to active federal service, the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General. When called to federal service the President of the United States is commander in chief."

If the state does not recognize the federal government as the proper authority and my first obligation is to my state unless called to federal service by the president. This assumes that the president is recognized as the proper authority.

If the president or congress is an illegal government under the constitution then my obligation lies with the states AND defending the constitution against the president (or congress) who is then declared a domestic enemy of the constitution.
BUT
If the president is the legal authority it is the state/s who are the enemies of the constitution.

I am not a lawyer but I think even a lawyer would be able to argue either side in this as I am trying to do.

I do believe however that I know where I will be if it comes to it.

I feel much the same as an illustrious member of civil war fame that I could not fight against my home.


The end of HCR-6 states,

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."





*Martial Law. n:

1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.