Quoted: You can only REgain that which you had at one point. Montana entered statehood via territory status. When the US acquired what became the Montana Territory ALL the land belonged to the Federal Government. ]

Can't be.  The Federal government is not AUTHORIZED to hold land, except for forts, naval bases, embassies, and the National Capital.  This is part of why the Oklahoma Land Run had to happen....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also, as far as I know, a state can never revert to territory status. Says who? Texas can, Texas has it in the State constitution " The right to succeed" Please cite which clause. I've read the Texas Constitution and cannot seem to find it. In fact, Article I, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution seems to state just the opposite: Sec. 1.  FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.  Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self government, unimpaired to all the States. Perpetuity means forever, in case you were not sure.

Reading is fundamental.  "The maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend..."  Depend?  Depend on what?  "...upon the preservation of the right of local self-governemnt, unimpaired to all the States."   This means that if you DON'T "preserve the right of local self government, unimpaired to all the States", that the things DEPENDING on that, "the maintenance of our free instutions" AND "the perpetuity of the Union", will cease to be.  

As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White...

Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White...

Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional.

Quoted: Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White... Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional.

Reminds me of something I once read...

And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...

Quoted: James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional.

What this means in basic terms is that so long as there is a tyrant with control of the Federal military, there will be a Union.

as for the constitution in matters of secession, I think the constitution is irrelevant since that seems to be how the federal government treats it. This isn't about who's legitimate and who isn't, it's about who's willing to fight. Legal and illegal is nothing more than a point of view that has been manipulated and twisted left and right since after the civil war. It's nothing more than rhetoric. For all intents and purposes it could easily be ruled that laws passed today are automatically void since the current federal government does not strictly adhere to the constitution so it's henceforth illegitimate.

Legal and illegal doesn't matter.

Quoted: Quoted: James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. What this means in basic terms is that so long as there is a tyrant with control of the Federal military, there will be a Union.

No, what it means is that when I was working on my Masters and PH.D. in Constitutional law and history, I actually had to READ the Constitution and the writings of the people who drafted it and worked for its ratification.

Perhaps you would point out to us the specific clauses in the Constitution that spells out the process whereby a state may remove itself. You will note that there is a section (Article IV) on how states may join, but oddly nothing about how they may leave. There is also that pesky little Supremacy Clause (Article VI) thing as well.

Oh well. Lost Cause apologists were never ones to let a pesky thing like facts get in the way of their delusional fantasies.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White... Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. Reminds me of something I once read... And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...

if you really want to know what our constitution is about, start with Thomas Hobbs and John Locke. Then look at the laws according to blackstone. You can treat the social contract model under hobbs and locke as a guide to interpreting the constitution. If either side of the party deviates from the contract then it's void. As the old saying goes, the deal is off.

William Blackstone wrote the books. Madison and Jefferson both read them and the constitution was modeled strongly after it as well as the social contract theory. Locke stated that any person has a right to life liberty and property and this was also used explicitly in the constitution stating that no person should be deprived of these things without due process.

Check it out.

Quoted: Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White... Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional.

some quick snips on TJ

Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic. Jefferson's efforts to protect individual rights including freedom of the press were persistent, pivotal, and not always successful. Jefferson was a staunch advocate of freedom of the press, asserting in a January 28, 1786, letter to James Currie (1745-1807), a Virginia physician and frequent correspondent during Jefferson's residence in France: "our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." Jefferson objects to absence of Bill of Rights Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America. On July 4, 1776, in addition to approving the Declaration of Independence, Congress chose Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin to design a great seal for the new country. Franklin proposed the phrase "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," a sentiment Jefferson heartily embraced and included in the design for the Virginia seal and sometimes stamped it on the wax seals of his own letters. Although Congress rejected the elaborate seal, it retained the words "E Pluribus Unum," which became the country's motto. Thomas Jefferson's February 15, 1791, opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank is considered one of the stellar statements on the limited powers and strict construction of the Federal Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, a proponent of the broadest interpretation of the constitution based on the implied powers of the Federal Constitution, was the leading advocate for the national bank. Jefferson and Hamilton quickly became outspoken leaders of two opposing interpretations of national government. The Kentucky Resolutions were drafted in secret by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the fall of 1798 to counter the perceived threat to constitutional liberties from the Alien and Sedition Acts. These federal laws limited naturalization rights and free speech by declaring public criticism of government officials to be seditious libel, punishable by imprisonment and fines. Jefferson's draft resolutions claimed states had the right to nullify federal laws and acts that violated the Constitution. The Kentucky Resolutions  were passed, and the role Jefferson and Madison played in drafting them was kept secret throughout their years of public service.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. What this means in basic terms is that so long as there is a tyrant with control of the Federal military, there will be a Union. No, what it means is that when I was working on my Masters and PH.D. in Constitutional law and history, I actually had to READ the Constitution and the writings of the people who drafted it and worked for its ratification. Perhaps you would point out to us the specific clauses in the Constitution that spells out the process whereby a state may remove itself. You will note that there is a section (Article IV) on how states may join, but oddly nothing about how they may leave. There is also that pesky little Supremacy Clause (Article VI) thing as well. Oh well. Lost Cause apologists were never ones to let a pesky thing like facts get in the way of their delusional fantasies.

Excellent.

I see more proof, in your own words, that so long as a tyrant retains control of the Federal military, then no State may remove itself from the Union.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. What this means in basic terms is that so long as there is a tyrant with control of the Federal military, there will be a Union. No, what it means is that when I was working on my Masters and PH.D. in Constitutional law and history, I actually had to READ the Constitution and the writings of the people who drafted it and worked for its ratification. Perhaps you would point out to us the specific clauses in the Constitution that spells out the process whereby a state may remove itself. You will note that there is a section (Article IV) on how states may join, but oddly nothing about how they may leave. There is also that pesky little Supremacy Clause (Article VI) thing as well. Oh well. Lost Cause apologists were never ones to let a pesky thing like facts get in the way of their delusional fantasies. Excellent. I see more proof, in your own words, that so long as a tyrant retains control of the Federal military, then no State may remove itself from the Union.

I assume that you mean the US has been an unrelenting tyranny for 220 years. Because you seem to be implying that a President making sure the Constitution is defended and the federal laws faithfully executed (where have I read that phrase?) is nothing more than a tyrant. How very sad.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White... Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. some quick snips on TJ <snip>

Interesting. I see you missed the part about what made Jefferson an expert on the Constitution, being that he had NOTHING to do with writing it or ratifying it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As to secession, no less a Constitutional scholar than Thomas Jefferson considered it a right retained by the states, & I'll put him up against any Yankee-stacked pack of Reconstructionist lapdogs that ruled in Texas vs White... Please enlighten us as to Jefferson's role in the writing and ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. Reminds me of something I once read... And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual... if you really want to know what our constitution is about, start with Thomas Hobbs and John Locke. Then look at the laws according to blackstone. You can treat the social contract model under hobbs and locke as a guide to interpreting the constitution. If either side of the party deviates from the contract then it's void. As the old saying goes, the deal is off. William Blackstone wrote the books. Madison and Jefferson both read them and the constitution was modeled strongly after it as well as the social contract theory. Locke stated that any person has a right to life liberty and property and this was also used explicitly in the constitution stating that no person should be deprived of these things without due process. Check it out.

Don't worry, I've read them.  I was making a point about the irrelevance of the social contract in the context of a rebellion or a popular replacement of a previous contract.  

PAEBR332, I think the problem here is that people are trying to use the Constitution to justify secession.  That is clearly not possible.  By definition, a rebellion is illegal.  The Revolution was illegal.  The French Resistance was illegal.  One cannot rely on the Constitution or any statements explaining the Constitution to justify secession.

Federal Government makes note" may have to kick Montana's ass for fuckin' with our interpretation of a 'living document"" to itself...

So if Montana would have to sue the federal government to get individual rights, would that head straight to the Robert's court or would it goto another (lower) federal court?

Of course secession is an interesting idea, tax the rail roads that cross through the state to provide $ for the state.

Quoted: Oh well. Lost Cause apologists were never ones to let a pesky thing like facts get in the way of their delusional fantasies.

Listen to what I am about to say because it is important.  You may want to take notes.

Not too long ago several million American patriots were will to fight and die for what you arrogantly called “delusional fantasies”.

I think you are the one that doesn't like for pesty little facts to destroy your fantasies.

If a great number of people are willing to fight and die for their freedom they could care less if a few dumbass "Constitutional scholars" disagreed with them or not.

I would like some other states to follow suite with this.I agree with their stance on the breech of contract and others need to step in to bear more weight on this issue.I would feel better represented.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: James Madison, now there is a guy who actually played a critical role in the drafting and ratification. And he made plain in the Federalist Papers and in various letters throughout his career that he considered the union to be permanent, and secession unconstitutional. What this means in basic terms is that so long as there is a tyrant with control of the Federal military, there will be a Union. No, what it means is that when I was working on my Masters and PH.D. in Constitutional law and history, I actually had to READ the Constitution and the writings of the people who drafted it and worked for its ratification. Perhaps you would point out to us the specific clauses in the Constitution that spells out the process whereby a state may remove itself. You will note that there is a section (Article IV) on how states may join, but oddly nothing about how they may leave. There is also that pesky little Supremacy Clause (Article VI) thing as well. Oh well. Lost Cause apologists were never ones to let a pesky thing like facts get in the way of their delusional fantasies.

You omit the fact that while in the Articles of Confederation there was a statement about the Union being perpetual, it was removed in the Constitution.  You should also notice that hand in hand with the removal of said phrase, while there is not a provision for states to leave the Union, them leaving is also not openly or implicitly forbidden anywhere in the US Constitution.  I can argue circles with you all day, but in the end, there is nothing but opinions (not the constitution, even if the opinion of the writers) and the military (not the constitution, but rather Glaucon's view that "Justice is the advantage of the strong..." which was shot down quite nicely in Plato's Republic) preventing Montana, or any other state, from carrying out secession.  

Don't assume that because you have a degree in Constitutional Law that you automatically know more about, or better understand than everyone else here, the inner workings and meanings of the US Constitution and the history behind it.

-Ben

An Angry Political Philosophy Major (with a minor in history)

Quoted: Quoted: Montana, the Dakota's, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Kansas, then of course Kentucky with West Virginia, maybe Tennessee, eventually Georgia, Florida. Fuck the Liberals would be shitting themselves. Haha good luck with that....this state is quickly being filled with pussy liberals.

So is that one.  

Gotta love Montana!

Quoted: And the founders founded us a nation which was a confederation of individual states, with a common constitutional rights framework, which allowed individual states' self-determination to a large extent, in order to help alleviate this problem and still remain bonded. The later actions of strong centralization and control is what will eventually ruin the nation. Strong states, individual liberties, and a light hand of the Federal Gov't is what was prescribed, and what should still be.

Absolutely right. Reading the Anti-Federalist papers, it's obvious that many of the people of the late 1700's were very very against having a strong central government. Without the influence of the anti-federalists, we would not have the bill of rights, and things would have gotten this bad or worse much quicker than they have.

Didn't Ted the fucktard Turner already buy Montana?

Quoted: ... IIRC we tried this once before.... too bad it didn't work....

We tried this _twice_ before. The first time it DID work. It was called the American Revolution.

People seem to forget that until then were were part of the British empire. They were our legal government, but they stopped listening to what we had to say, so we told them to pound sand.

Section 11 of the Nevada constitution: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms!

Quoted: I pity all you nay sayers who would rather live as slaves than die defending your rights.  So what of MT would be obliterated if they seceded?  We would die fighting for our rights.  As long as we didn't kill innocent civillians left and right we would be on the level of the early American revolutinaries.

Samuel Adams said something like what you just said back in the 1770's when the nay sayers (then known as loyalists) were crying "You can't do this - it'll never work! Britain is the greatest military power on earth! You're crazy!!!"

His comment:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen".

Quoted: Section 11 of the Nevada constitution: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms!

Article 1. Declaration of Rights.


Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

     2.  The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.



     [Amended in 1982. Proposed and passed by the 1979 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1981 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1982 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1979, p. 1986; Statutes of Nevada 1981, p. 2083.]

Quoted: “I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me.”

Great movie!

Quoted: Quoted: I've ALWAYS wished Texas would secede Every true Texan does.

No kidding.

Quoted: Hmm, note to self: buy property in Montana.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision. Second Amendment an individual right 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 ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). 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. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller Thank you, John C. Calhoun, for elaborating on the compact theory of the union by giving us nullification. To elaborate for those who aren't into history: Calhoun was a lawyer in South Carolina before entering Congress from 1810-1817, becoming Secretary of War from 1817-1825, Vice President from 1825-1832, Senator from 1832-1844, Secretary of State from 1844-1845, and Senator again from 1845 until his death in 1850. The nullification theory is thus: "Was the Union intended to be a consolidated republic or confederation of sovereign and independent states bound by a formal compact, the Constitution of 1787?" The states rights doctrines: " 1) States don't relinquish any sovereignty when entering the Union (most extreme states rights position), 2) when ratifying the Constitution of 1787, they accepted the limitations on federal government as limitations on the state government; sovereignty resides in the people, not the state government, and what they give they can take away. There is nothing preventing secession. 3) Divided sovereignty. Hamilton, when writing the Federalist Papers (documents circulated to the American people explaining the content of the Constitution of 1787 and the reasoning behind it; also used to establish the Bill of Rights, which most of our founding fathers saw as being so obvious that putting it in writing was pointless, but some insisted they be documented so as to make it harder for future politicians to fuck us over. Wise move.) wrote: "The plan of the convention aims at partial union or consolidation", states retaining "all rights of sovereignty they had before and which weren't delegated exclusively to the United States government". Note that this could, if you take the extreme position, mean that only the original thirteen states, Texas, and (technically) California were sovereign since they were independent states before joining the Union, whereas the rest were territories governed by the feds prior to incorporation as states. Obviously that wasn't the intent here. In Chisholm vs Georgia, 1793: "United States are sovereign as to all powers of government actually surrendered; each state is sovereign as to all powers reserved for the states." i.e., the federal government ONLY has sovereignty SPECIFICALLY in the powers given to it by the Constitution (whereas the fed gov today is waaaaaaaay beyond that) and the states were their own lords and masters in regards to everything else. Notice that since 1865, the federal government has basically made every state its bitch, which is part of what started the Civil War in the first place. Calhoun's nullification theory, based on this, was thus: How to protect a minority from having its rights oppressed by the majority? The minority had three options: 1) Nullification. A state that felt its rights were being violated by a law passed by the other states could choose to ignore that law and not enforce it. i.e., if every state but Hawaii and Arizona passed a law saying you HAD to wear a white shirt on Sunday, those 48 states would pass and enforce the law while Hawaii and Arizona would tell the feds to fuck off. 2) Secession: If a state decided that remaining in the Union any longer was bad for it and its people, it could simply leave. It had joined the Union willingly, and it could leave whenever it wanted to. Essentially, this is the political equivelent of taking your ball and going home because all the other kids are assholes. 3) Resistance by force: If nullification and secession don't work, just shoot the bastards. The states that formed the Confederacy tried all three of these, in order. The majority could react in one of three ways: 1) Amend the Constitution: Change the rules to get around the problem. The north tried this to prevent the south from seceding, but they never got anything off the ground. 2) Enforcement: If Hawaii and Arizona don't want to enforce the white shirt law, then WE'LL MAKE THEM ENFORCE IT. The north eventually resorted to this and went a killin'. 3) Compromise: Find a way to make both sides happy, or at least less pissed at each other. The north tried this too, but they were too busy arguing amongst themselves to do anything productive and the south basically told them to piss off as a result. I happen to subscribe to the state's rights doctrine, as our founding fathers intended (the compact theory of union), and the nullification theory. Today, the federal government is WAY out of line, and it's time to fix that. Nullification of unjust and unConstitutional laws by states is the first step. The feds need to know that we're not taking any more of their bullshit. Convince them of this and they will back down. Once that's happened, we can work on reversing all the gradual encroachments on our rights and liberties that have taken place over the last century and remove the powers and agencies the federal government has illegally and unConstitutionally claimed for itself. We can do this without violence, without a civil war. Otherwise... *shrug* I guess some of us will be whistling Dixie. Again.

Bravo!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision. Second Amendment an individual right 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 ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). 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. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller Thank you, John C. Calhoun, for elaborating on the compact theory of the union by giving us nullification. To elaborate for those who aren't into history: Calhoun was a lawyer in South Carolina before entering Congress from 1810-1817, becoming Secretary of War from 1817-1825, Vice President from 1825-1832, Senator from 1832-1844, Secretary of State from 1844-1845, and Senator again from 1845 until his death in 1850. The nullification theory is thus: "Was the Union intended to be a consolidated republic or confederation of sovereign and independent states bound by a formal compact, the Constitution of 1787?" The states rights doctrines: " 1) States don't relinquish any sovereignty when entering the Union (most extreme states rights position), 2) when ratifying the Constitution of 1787, they accepted the limitations on federal government as limitations on the state government; sovereignty resides in the people, not the state government, and what they give they can take away. There is nothing preventing secession. 3) Divided sovereignty. Hamilton, when writing the Federalist Papers (documents circulated to the American people explaining the content of the Constitution of 1787 and the reasoning behind it; also used to establish the Bill of Rights, which most of our founding fathers saw as being so obvious that putting it in writing was pointless, but some insisted they be documented so as to make it harder for future politicians to fuck us over. Wise move.) wrote: "The plan of the convention aims at partial union or consolidation", states retaining "all rights of sovereignty they had before and which weren't delegated exclusively to the United States government". Note that this could, if you take the extreme position, mean that only the original thirteen states, Texas, and (technically) California were sovereign since they were independent states before joining the Union, whereas the rest were territories governed by the feds prior to incorporation as states. Obviously that wasn't the intent here. In Chisholm vs Georgia, 1793: "United States are sovereign as to all powers of government actually surrendered; each state is sovereign as to all powers reserved for the states." i.e., the federal government ONLY has sovereignty SPECIFICALLY in the powers given to it by the Constitution (whereas the fed gov today is waaaaaaaay beyond that) and the states were their own lords and masters in regards to everything else. Notice that since 1865, the federal government has basically made every state its bitch, which is part of what started the Civil War in the first place. Calhoun's nullification theory, based on this, was thus: How to protect a minority from having its rights oppressed by the majority? The minority had three options: 1) Nullification. A state that felt its rights were being violated by a law passed by the other states could choose to ignore that law and not enforce it. i.e., if every state but Hawaii and Arizona passed a law saying you HAD to wear a white shirt on Sunday, those 48 states would pass and enforce the law while Hawaii and Arizona would tell the feds to fuck off. 2) Secession: If a state decided that remaining in the Union any longer was bad for it and its people, it could simply leave. It had joined the Union willingly, and it could leave whenever it wanted to. Essentially, this is the political equivelent of taking your ball and going home because all the other kids are assholes. 3) Resistance by force: If nullification and secession don't work, just shoot the bastards. The states that formed the Confederacy tried all three of these, in order. The majority could react in one of three ways: 1) Amend the Constitution: Change the rules to get around the problem. The north tried this to prevent the south from seceding, but they never got anything off the ground. 2) Enforcement: If Hawaii and Arizona don't want to enforce the white shirt law, then WE'LL MAKE THEM ENFORCE IT. The north eventually resorted to this and went a killin'. 3) Compromise: Find a way to make both sides happy, or at least less pissed at each other. The north tried this too, but they were too busy arguing amongst themselves to do anything productive and the south basically told them to piss off as a result. I happen to subscribe to the state's rights doctrine, as our founding fathers intended (the compact theory of union), and the nullification theory. Today, the federal government is WAY out of line, and it's time to fix that. Nullification of unjust and unConstitutional laws by states is the first step. The feds need to know that we're not taking any more of their bullshit. Convince them of this and they will back down. Once that's happened, we can work on reversing all the gradual encroachments on our rights and liberties that have taken place over the last century and remove the powers and agencies the federal government has illegally and unConstitutionally claimed for itself. We can do this without violence, without a civil war. Otherwise... *shrug* I guess some of us will be whistling Dixie. Again. Bravo!

Yep. Well said as usual Swindle1984.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've ALWAYS wished Texas would secede Every true Texan does. No kidding.

You have to take us or OU wins by default

Quoted: Quoted: ... IIRC we tried this once before.... too bad it didn't work.... We tried this _twice_ before. The first time it DID work. It was called the American Revolution. People seem to forget that until then were were part of the British empire. They were our legal government, but they stopped listening to what we had to say, so we told them to pound sand.

Actually, we tried this THREE times before. Ask Aaron Burr how that worked out.

Don't Screw With Montana

Quoted: Don't Screw With Montana

the clip ended before the song was over.

Need to send that to SCOTUS.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

"We hold the true Republican position. In leaving the people's business in their hands, we can not be wrong." Abraham Lincoln, 6-27-1848

"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective
conscience does violence to the individual and is the first
step toward totalitarianism." --Herman Hesse

"When injustice becomes law...rebellion becomes duty"...Thorin

"The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded."
- Charles-Louis De Secondat

"...is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? ...the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." -- H. L. Mencken

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

If we are ready to violate the Constitution we have sworn to defend, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit. They would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist. — Edward Livingston, 2 July 1798

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the rights of the people at large ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. — Albert Gallatin, 7 October 1789

[W]hoever would be obliged to obey a constitutional law, is justified in refusing to obey an unconstitutional act of the legislature... — James Wilson, 1791

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense... "

-John Adams, 1788, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

-Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No.28

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

-Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 5, 1788

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry, March 23 1775 speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

-Thomas Jefferson, motto found among his papers

"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"

-Thomas Jefferson

"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution"

-Abraham Lincoln

"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would if such a right were a vital one."

-Abraham Lincoln

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves."

-John Locke, A Treatise Concerning Civil Government

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

-Daniel Webster

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

Declaration of Independance

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." – Thomas Jefferson

"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." – James Madison

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." – Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." – Samuel Adams

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." – James Madison

Saying it's illegal for a state to secede from the Union is like saying it's illegal for a resident of Virginia to move to Maine because he thinks Virginia sucks.

Quoted: Saying it's illegal for a state to secede from the Union is like saying it's illegal for a resident of Virginia to move to Maine because he thinks Virginia sucks.

 Bad example.  It's more like saying a resident of Texas moving to Montana cause he is tired of illegals....or a resident of Arkansas moving to California cause he wants to marry his boyfriend instead of his sister.

-Ben

What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms.

Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms.

Pragmatism is a bitch.

Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms.

Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal?

-Ben

Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben

You really think if you put it before the Supreme Court, the government's own judges wouldn't pull something out of their asses declaring secession illegal?

Secession is always illegal.  Period.  In any state, in any government.  The sovereign has the inherent power to quash rebellions.

No one will ever secede from the union peacefully.

ETA: Illegal != wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben

+1

If a contract is voided, then it was never a contract.  Basically making Montana never a state.  if they were never a state, there would be no need to secede.

Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms.

That may be true if the government was full of patriotic individuals who cared.

No longer the case.  

It is filled with people who hate virtually everything that the average person at arfcom holds as dear.  The average California commie would welcome Montana or any other red state leaving.

To think for one second that any of them would take to arms to get in a real fight over 2nd Amendment rights is a joke.

To think that the US military would end up on the side of Hollywood is even funnier yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben You really think if you put it before the Supreme Court, the government's own judges wouldn't pull something out of their asses declaring secession illegal? Secession is always illegal.  Period.  In any state, in any government.  The sovereign has the inherent power to quash rebellions. No one will ever secede from the union peacefully. ETA: Illegal != wrong.

Exactly.  Pull something out of their asses.  So there is no law stating it is illegal?  Even after the civil war, no law was passed making it illegal? Furthermore, if there is no law stating it is illegal, and you take it to grounds of morality, what makes it wrong?  

The individual states must put their constituents, the welfare of their own people's freedom, first and foremost.  This is the most basic social contract, that government should exist to encourage freedom, not diminish it.  In some cases, secession would be "illegal" on grounds of morality.   Cases where it would be immoral would be when a state wishes to secede so that it might set up a monarchy, or a dictatorship. This is no such case.  Hobbes and Locke would both agree, I am quite sure, which is saying something since Hobbes is vehemenantly opposed to revolution or rebellion for any reason.

-Ben

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben You really think if you put it before the Supreme Court, the government's own judges wouldn't pull something out of their asses declaring secession illegal? Secession is always illegal.  Period.  In any state, in any government.  The sovereign has the inherent power to quash rebellions. No one will ever secede from the union peacefully. ETA: Illegal != wrong. Exactly.  Pull something out of their asses.  So there is no law stating it is illegal?  Even after the civil war, no law was passed making it illegal? Furthermore, if there is no law stating it is illegal, and you take it to grounds of morality, what makes it wrong?

Illegal != wrong.  Illegal does not mean it is wrong.

The individual states must put their constituents, the welfare of their own people's freedom, first and foremost.  This is the most basic social contract, that government should exist to encourage freedom, not diminish it.  In some cases, secession would be "illegal" on grounds of morality.   Cases where it would be immoral would be when a state wishes to secede so that it might set up a monarchy, or a dictatorship. This is no such case.  Hobbs and Locke would both agree, I am quite sure, which is saying something since Hobbs is vehemenantly opposed to revolution or rebellion for any reason. -Ben

You're preaching to the choir here, buddy.  I'm well aware of the philosophical justifications for rebellion.

I'm speaking of the real-world consequences here.  You think the federal government needs to cite an anti-rebellion law in order to justify quashing a rebellion?  Hardly.  There may well become a time when rebellion is necessary, but don't think for one second a state will be able to say "Well, Locke and Hobbs say its alright, so we'll be taking our ball and going home, Mr. Fed" without seeing troops flood their state.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben You really think if you put it before the Supreme Court, the government's own judges wouldn't pull something out of their asses declaring secession illegal? Secession is always illegal.  Period.  In any state, in any government.  The sovereign has the inherent power to quash rebellions. No one will ever secede from the union peacefully. ETA: Illegal != wrong.

I think quoting the people who founded our country and wrote the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is quite relevent here.

I get what you're saying, but the point isn't to prove that secession is LEGAL, it's to prove that it's JUSTIFIED. If you want to go through with it, you have to be able to show to others, "see? this is why we're doing it, and here are all the reasons we have the right to do so."

ETA: Exactly what our founding fathers did in the Declaration of Independence. Their secession was illegal, but they stated exactly what they were doing, why they were doing it, and why they were justified in doing it.