I make damn good chicken wings. I can open up a chicken wing joint

We will have to concentrate on getting nukes, a professional football team, and a quality first rate beer. You have to have at least two of these to call yourself a country.

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.

You are not free if you are not free to leave.

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.

Let's not forget about Utah.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder what the governor of Montana thinks about this. I would think the Gov really has nothing to do with the state's relationship with the US. His job is to govern and concern himself with internal affairs. My reading of the Statehood contract, if it was anulled, is that it would simply revert Montana to a US Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state. That would be perfectly legal, if the contract is held as valid. As such, Federal revenue or "tax" collecting agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, and Social Security administration would not be welcome any longer. Of course that also means MT would not get Federal monies for Highways, schools, law enforcement etc anymore. It would not become a separate country, but would have much greater leeway in governing itself. It would become the "US Territory of Montana".  JMHO. I'm not a history expert (all I remember from school is "In 1493, Columbus sailed the ocean sea") or an Internet- or Meatworld-accredited attorney, but this post lays out some intriguing what-ifs. Good for Montana.   It's "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue". Also, as far as I know, a state can never revert to territory status.

Well the point being that, it would revert to whatever it was before the statehood contract was signed. I could be way off base of course.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder what the governor of Montana thinks about this. I would think the Gov really has nothing to do with the state's relationship with the US. His job is to govern and concern himself with internal affairs. My reading of the Statehood contract, if it was anulled, is that it would simply revert Montana to a US Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state. That would be perfectly legal, if the contract is held as valid. As such, Federal revenue or "tax" collecting agencies such as the IRS, BATFE, and Social Security administration would not be welcome any longer. Of course that also means MT would not get Federal monies for Highways, schools, law enforcement etc anymore. It would not become a separate country, but would have much greater leeway in governing itself. It would become the "US Territory of Montana".  JMHO. I'm not a history expert (all I remember from school is "In 1493, Columbus sailed the ocean sea") or an Internet- or Meatworld-accredited attorney, but this post lays out some intriguing what-ifs. Good for Montana.   It's "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue". Also, as far as I know, a state can never revert to territory status. Well the point being that, it would revert to whatever it was before the statehood contract was signed. I could be way off base of course.

What arrant nonsense. There is no "statehood contract."

There is only the method spelled out in Article IV Section 3 whereby new states are admitted into the Union. Once they are admitted, Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) is in effect and they cannot withdraw. The Civil War and the case of Texas v. White settled this issue as a matter of law.

The Secretary of State for Montana can make all the claims he wants. The simple fact is his claim in this instance has no basis in law or fact.

Quoted: sounds like this place might get crowded. ive got 320 acres to start up a freedom fighter camp

What part of Montana you in?  I am looking for 20 acres or more in south west Montana in any case.

-Ben

Quoted: What arrant nonsense. There is no "statehood contract."

Yes, there was an agreement, which is a legal contract.
yes, the US can fail to recognize it, but it does exist.

When Montana entered into statehood, that event was accomplished via the legal mechanism of the Compact with the United States, now preserved at Article I of the Montana Constitution[1].  Other documents which will enter into this discussion include the Organic Act[2], the Enabling Act[3], Ordinance 1[4], and the Proclamation of Montana statehood by president Harrison[5]. Montana's Compact with the United States (hereinafter "Compact") is a bilateral, written contract or agreement that binds the parties thereto.  Compact defined:  Bouvier's, 1839[6]; Bouvier's, 1856[7]; Webster's, 1884 {8}; and Black's, 1910[9].  "The terms 'compact' and 'contract' are synonymous.  Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L, ed. 547." [1]  Montana constitution, Article I:  "All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana." [2] Organic Act:  http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/mtcode_const/organic_act.pdf [3] Enabling Act:  http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/mtcode_const/enabling_act.pdf [4] Ordinance 1:  http://www.umt.edu/law/library/Research%20Tools/ORDINANCE%201.doc [5] Proclamation:  http://courts.mt.gov/library/proclam.pdf [6] Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1839; "COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement; In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. B. 3, c. 3; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, 1. 2." [7]  Bouvier's Law dictionary, 1856; "COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. B. 3, c. 3; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, 1. 2. The constitution of the United States declares that " no state shall, without the consent of congress, enter into agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." See 11 Pet: 1; 8 Wheat. 1 Bald. R. 60; 11 Pet. 185." {8}  Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1884; "Com'pact, n.  [Lat. compactum, from compacisci, compactum, from com, for con, and pacisci and pangere.]  An agreement between parties; covenant or contract; - either of individuals, or of nations.     "The law of nations depends on mutual compacts, treaties, leagues &c.  Blackstone. Wedlock is described as the indissoluble compact.  Macaulay.     "Syn.  See COVENANT." [9]  Black's Law Dictionary, 1910; "COMPACT.  An agreement or contract.  Usually applied to conventions between nations or sovereign states.  "A compact is a mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne.  Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1.   "The terms "compact" and "contract" are synonymous.  Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L, ed. 547."

Quoted: Quoted: What arrant nonsense. There is no "statehood contract." Yes, there was an agreement, which is a legal contract. yes, the US can fail to recognize it, but it does exist. When Montana entered into statehood, that event was accomplished via the legal mechanism of the Compact with the United States, now preserved at Article I of the Montana Constitution[1].  Other documents which will enter into this discussion include the Organic Act[2], the Enabling Act[3], Ordinance 1[4], and the Proclamation of Montana statehood by president Harrison[5]. Montana's Compact with the United States (hereinafter "Compact") is a bilateral, written contract or agreement that binds the parties thereto.  Compact defined:  Bouvier's, 1839[6]; Bouvier's, 1856[7]; Webster's, 1884; and Black's, 1910[9].  "The terms 'compact' and 'contract' are synonymous.  Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L, ed. 547."

Montana's Territorial Legislature passed an enabling act, just like every other territorial legislature did. This ended the legal existence of Montana as a Territory, and made it a state. Once it became a state, Article VI is in full effect.

In the words of Frank Zappa "Im moving to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon"

Any city fire departments in Montana hiring?

Montana has always been #1 on my favorate states that I have visited.

Quoted: Also, as far as I know, a state can never revert to territory status.

Says who?

Quoted: You are not free if you are not free to leave.

And if you try we're going to bomb the shit out of you.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What arrant nonsense. There is no "statehood contract." Yes, there was an agreement, which is a legal contract. yes, the US can fail to recognize it, but it does exist. When Montana entered into statehood, that event was accomplished via the legal mechanism of the Compact with the United States, now preserved at Article I of the Montana Constitution[1].  Other documents which will enter into this discussion include the Organic Act[2], the Enabling Act[3], Ordinance 1[4], and the Proclamation of Montana statehood by president Harrison[5]. Montana's Compact with the United States (hereinafter "Compact") is a bilateral, written contract or agreement that binds the parties thereto.  Compact defined:  Bouvier's, 1839[6]; Bouvier's, 1856[7]; Webster's, 1884; and Black's, 1910[9].  "The terms 'compact' and 'contract' are synonymous.  Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L, ed. 547." Montana's Territorial Legislature passed an enabling act, just like every other territorial legislature did. This ended the legal existence of Montana as a Territory, and made it a state. Once it became a state, Article VI is in full effect.

I don't know, I'm no lawyer, but it looked like a contract to me.
Sadly, I think you are right in that no peaceful measure will likely succeed in maintaining 2nd amendment rights if the SCOTUS rules in favor of DC.
But at least they are making a stand, unlike quite a few other states.

Would this be the official camo pattern?

Well OKLAHOMA is SAFE

Section II-26: Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.
 The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
regulating the carrying of weapons.

oklegal.onenet.net/okcon/II-26.html

From

www.lsb.state.ok.us/

I predict we are at the point where no state would be allowed to leave the union. I'd expect the government would turn the military loose on them if they tried to bail. After a confrontation, they would rejoin quickly only because Montana would be unable to sustain the prolonged wrath of the federal government, both militarily and economically.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What arrant nonsense. There is no "statehood contract." Yes, there was an agreement, which is a legal contract. yes, the US can fail to recognize it, but it does exist. When Montana entered into statehood, that event was accomplished via the legal mechanism of the Compact with the United States, now preserved at Article I of the Montana Constitution[1].  Other documents which will enter into this discussion include the Organic Act[2], the Enabling Act[3], Ordinance 1[4], and the Proclamation of Montana statehood by president Harrison[5]. Montana's Compact with the United States (hereinafter "Compact") is a bilateral, written contract or agreement that binds the parties thereto.  Compact defined:  Bouvier's, 1839[6]; Bouvier's, 1856[7]; Webster's, 1884; and Black's, 1910[9].  "The terms 'compact' and 'contract' are synonymous.  Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L, ed. 547." Montana's Territorial Legislature passed an enabling act, just like every other territorial legislature did. This ended the legal existence of Montana as a Territory, and made it a state. Once it became a state, Article VI is in full effect. I don't know, I'm no lawyer, but it looked like a contract to me.

I'm not a layer either. But my Ph.D. work was in Constitutional Law and history.

Texas v. White is a binding Supreme Court precident that clearly holds that states cannot leave the union once they join. An act of ordinary legislation by a state legislature, let alone a territorial legislature, cannot overule the Supreme Court nor amend the Constitution.

For everyone asking about winter in Montana. I'm pretty sure this song was written with that in mind.    NSFW

Also, this may be of interest as it's been quoted in pieces here already:

www.potowmack.org/196stcon.html

Alabama Constitution art. I, § 26:
-That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Alaska Constitution art. I, § 19:
-A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arizona Constitution art. 2, § 26:
-The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Arkansas Constitution art. II, § 5:
-The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

Colorado Constitution, art. II, § 13:
-The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called to question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Connecticut Constitution, art. I, § 15:
-Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Constitution, art. I, § 20:
-A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida Constitution, art. I, § 8:
-The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state Constitution, art. shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia Constitution, art. I, § I, para. VIII:
-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Hawaii Constitution, art. I, § 15:
-A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Idaho Constitution, art. I, § 11:
-The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying the weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, not prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Illinois Constitution, art. I, § 22:
-Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Indiana Constitution, art. I, § 32:
-The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Kansas, Bill of Rights § 4:
-The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Kentucky Bill of Rights, § I, para. 7:
-All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Louisiana Constitution, art. I, § 11:
-The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

Maine Constitution, art. I, § 16:
-Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Massachusetts Constitution, art., Declaration of Rights, pt. I, art XVII:
-The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence [sic]. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Michigan Constitution, art. I, § 6:
-Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Mississippi Constitution, art. 3, § 12:
-The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of this home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Missouri Constitution, art. I, § 23:
-That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Montana Constitution, art. II, § 12:
-The right of any person to keep and bear arms in defense on his own home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Nebraska Constitution, art. I, § 1:
-All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are. . .the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such right shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

Nevada Constitution, art. 1, § II, para. 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.

New Hampshire Constitution, art. part 1, art. 2-a:
-All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state.

New Mexico Constitution, art. II, § 6:
-No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

North Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 30:
-A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and government by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statues against that practice.

North Dakota Constitution, art. I, § 1:
-All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are. . .to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

Ohio Constitution, art. I, § 4:
-The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Oklahoma Constitution, art 2, § 26:
-The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislation from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Oregon Constitution, art. I, § 27:
-The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Pennsylvania Constitution, art. I, § 21:
-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Rhode Island Constitution, art. I, § 22:
-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

South Carolina Constitution, art. I, § 20:
-A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be government by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

South Dakota Constitution, art. VI, § 24:
-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

Tennessee Constitution, art. I, § 26:
-That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense Constitution, art.; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with the view to prevent crime.

Texas Constitution, art. I, § 23:
-Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Utah Constitution, art. I, § 6:
-The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 16:
-That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State-and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Virginia Constitution, art. I, § 13:
-That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Washington Constitution, art. I, § 24:
-The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, by nothing in the section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

West Virginia Constitution, art. III, § 22:
-A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

Wyoming Constitution, art. I, § 24:
-The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

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"

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"

Succeed in what, secession?

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.

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" Succeed in what, secession?

Think he meant secede

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" Succeed in what, secession?

Your right, posted before I put brain in gear.

Quoted: I still think North Idaho, Eastern Washington, and Montana need to form their own state.

And eastern Oregon.

How many states would it take to ratify an amendment?

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. Let's not forget about Utah.....

+1.  we're with you.  

Quoted: How many states would it take to ratify an amendment?

3/4

Quoted: ::whistle:: Civil War 'round the corner. History repeating itself demands it, especially with the 2008 candidates. Gotta get ready for the Battle of New York

Battle of New York?  Bah, I'd rather have a Battle of Chicago!  Can us Southern IL-types please please PLEASE burn it to the ground?  


I'll even remember: First you pillage *THEN* you burn!

Quoted: Quoted: How many states would it take to ratify an amendment? 3/4

How many states are "red"?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How many states would it take to ratify an amendment? 3/4 How many states are "red"?

Not enough

Damn, this is one of the funniest threads I've read in a long time.  

Maybe  Brad Johnson is an ARFCOMMER and just wanted to start a shitstorm in GD.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How many states would it take to ratify an amendment? 3/4 How many states are "red"?

Bush carried 30 in 2000, 31 in 2004. You need 38 to pass an amendment.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How many states would it take to ratify an amendment? 3/4 How many states are "red"? Bush carried 30 in 2000, 31 in 2004. You need 38 to pass an amendment.

Yes, I found the map.Too bad we couldn't do it by county.

Many democrats would love to see us go.  They have even picked out names for the two new countries.

Yet one more reason to move to Montana:

White Moose!
Albino Moose Near Whitefish Lake, Montana
Flickr

Quoted: God bless Montana Sadly a land locked country with few natural resources and scorned by their large powerful neighbor will fair poorly.

not if neighboring states follow suit

Quoted: TEXAS Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

dont like that part

Quoted: Quoted: ::whistle:: Civil War 'round the corner. History repeating itself demands it, especially with the 2008 candidates. Gotta get ready for the Battle of New York Battle of New York?  Bah, I'd rather have a Battle of Chicago!  Can us Southern IL-types please please PLEASE burn it to the ground?   I'll even remember: First you pillage *THEN* you burn!

What's to pillage in Chicago?

All I can say is print off a county "red vs. blue" map and you'll be able to chart a safe course to the promised land.

Quoted: Quoted: God bless Montana Sadly a land locked country with few natural resources and scorned by their large powerful neighbor will fair poorly. not if neighboring states follow suit

Land locked, yes.  Few natural resources?!  Lemme see.....oil, lots.  Water, lots.  Coal, lots.  Agriculture, lots.  Game, lots.  Timber, lots.  40% of the power we generate is sold to Kalifornistan.  Minerals, lots.  Just to name a few.  Could the state stand alone as a country?   That may be a bit iffy.  Low population alone would make that a problem.  But, it sounds like it may grow.  

And for the record......16 degrees (above) just isn't that cold.

If only it wasn't so damn cold in Montana.......

Quoted: Now, now. "The South lost. Get over it." Everyone knows that Mr. Lincoln won't allow any secession.

'Cept this time around one side won't have an abomination such as slavery to argue for---in fact, it would be a form of slavery we would argue AGAINST!

Quoted: Quoted: God bless Montana Sadly a land locked country with few natural resources and scorned by their large powerful neighbor will fair poorly. not if neighboring states follow suit

Also, the urban centers were the oppressors are clustered have very little in the way of self sufficiency.The constitutional republic could change it's tax system to a sales tax to bring everyone into the system where the oppressors would continue to confiscate and give to the leaches driving out the best and brightest to join the free states.
-I can still dream.Why does it have to be a full scale secesion and not be be like a defiant california with it's marijuana.

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.

Contracts formed at gun point don't count.

Quoted: 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. Contracts formed at gun point don't count.

The current Texas Constitution was written in 1876. Reconstruction ended in Texas six years BEFORE this document was ratified. Since they were already fully restored to all their rights as a state, and all troops (except the frontier indian fighters) had been removed from Texas, please inform us who was pointing the gun to force the use of this phrase?

Interestingly enough, the phrase "perpetuity of union" did not appear in the 1869 Texas Constitution, which one could at least reasonably argue had been passed at gun point.

Quoted: 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. Let's not forget about Utah..... +1.  we're with you.

Louisiana - due to our unique legal system, our personal property rights are some of the strongest in the country, if not the strongest... and we have plenty - o - guns.

Sadly, California makes no mention of the RKBA in its state constitution.  The closet we come is in Article 1, Section 3 where it sates that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.  That same section also states that California is an inseparable part of the American Union.

Please, Montana needs to secede and name itself The American Union, annex California, and evict all currently sitting State and Federal lawmakers.  

shit i'd move to montana if they did that even if they have a really cold winter

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Let's not forget about Utah..... +1.  we're with you.   Louisiana - due to our unique legal system, our personal property rights are some of the strongest in the country, if not the strongest... and we have plenty - o - guns.

It certainly is a common topic and would appear to have considerable support.