Hey UcJoe Wanna move to NH?

[DirtySanchez]

I think I do after seeing this:


http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hamps ... -of-peace/


Fuck Yeah!

[lonewolf]

This is great! Instead of moving to NH, we need to get Harrisburg on the bandwagon!

Everybody, call your state rep & senator and tell them to follow suite with NH HR6

[f.sciarrillo]

If things keep going the way they are in Washington; I look for more states to do the same.

[DirtySanchez]

This is great! Instead of moving to NH, we need to get Harrisburg on the bandwagon!

Everybody, call your state rep & senator and tell them to follow suite with NH HR6

Hell yes!

[slackin@dabass]

anyway to get some of you knowledgeable law dogs in here to explain this in layman's terms? i don't understand all this proper law jargon...

basically what i need to know is if this holds any water.

[Banned]

anyway to get some of you knowledgeable law dogs in here to explain this in layman's terms? i don't understand all this proper law jargon...

basically what i need to know is if this holds any water.

I am far form a legal beagle, but most of what the politicians in Washington, D.C. do is totally un-Constitutional. This bill is NH says they can't do that anymore. YES!!!!


BTW, NH is looking very promising right now.

[lonewolf]

anyway to get some of you knowledgeable law dogs in here to explain this in layman's terms? i don't understand all this proper law jargon...

basically what i need to know is if this holds any water.

Its more of a shot across the bow of the feds and a statement that any federal order that the state of New Hampshire deems as an infringement on their state's rights shall be null and void.

In and of itself, it doesn't specifically state any infringements by the feds on their state's rights, so there probably can't or won't be any action taken from this bill; however..

It may be a forerunner to more legislation to specify federal orders/laws that they deem to be null and void.

[DirtySanchez]

I thought you'd like that. I love it personally!

Ryan- This is a proposal it's not ratified yet. If ratified it will hold water indeed.

NH state motto: LIVE FREE OR DIE!

[DirtySanchez]

anyway to get some of you knowledgeable law dogs in here to explain this in layman's terms? i don't understand all this proper law jargon...

basically what i need to know is if this holds any water.

Its more of a shot across the bow of the feds and a statement that any federal order that the state of New Hampshire deems as an infringement on their state's rights shall be null and void.

In and of itself, it doesn't specifically state any infringements by the feds on their state's rights, so there probably can't or won't be any action taken from this bill; however..

It may be a forerunner to more legislation to specify federal orders/laws that they deem to be null and void.

Yeah, what he said!

[songsmith]

Yep, basically they're saying that if it's not directly covered in the Constitution, the laws of each state take precedence. Makes sense to me! I personally believe that's exactly how the country's founders meant it to be, and really was the reason for the entire experiment that is the US. I think Lonewolf was the guy who steered me that direction a few years back, I did some reading, and it struck me that states' rights is a brilliant idea: if each state governs itself and has different views from state to state, you have the chance to simply go somewhere that fits you best. That's true democracy. It ain't perfect, but it ain't bad.--->JMS

[Banned]

Yep, basically they're saying that if it's not directly covered in the Constitution, the laws of each state take precedence. Makes sense to me! I personally believe that's exactly how the country's founders meant it to be, and really was the reason for the entire experiment that is the US. I think Lonewolf was the guy who steered me that direction a few years back, I did some reading, and it struck me that states' rights is a brilliant idea: if each state governs itself and has different views from state to state, you have the chance to simply go somewhere that fits you best. That's true democracy. It ain't perfect, but it ain't bad.--->JMS

Its a whole lot better than what we have now.

[Redsfury]

hell yeah... its damn time the people of this nation decide to take it back from these morons in the government who have totally misconstrued the original constitution. LIVE FREE OR DIE

[Rich]

Wasn't it in NH that the Feds wanted the state to have a seat belt law or they wouldn't give them federal funding to fix the roads. The state said, "No we won't pass that law." "Who are we to tell people that it's a law to have to do something in there own private vehicles." So the Fed Gov denied all funding for roads. The state told the people of NH what was happening and asked to raises the taxes to fix the roads. The people agree to a higher "tax" to fix there roads. To keep the choice, to wear a seat belt or not.

Or am I totally wrong with that statement???

[slackin@dabass]

i'm just glad that people are finally standing up to the federal government. because really, what's the point of having individual states if everything in the fed is basically law anyway? makes more sense that the states exist if they're the one dictating their own laws. fuck the feds! i'm moving to NH!!!

[Banned]

9+ States have now declared sovereignty, now add Washington to the list.

In case you didn’t hear about it on the mainstream media (which you haven’t because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring or have already declared sovereignty, including:

Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2009&bill=4009

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm

Montana
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Michigan
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HCR-0004

Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM

Oklahoma
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009...-federal-power

California
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/...0829_chaptered

Georgia
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1...text/sr308.htm

Possibly: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Illinois.

It is interesting to note that Arizona explicitly speaks about continuity of government and the role of servicemen.

“…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state … individual members of the military return to their respective states and report to the Governor until a new President is elected…”

Full text: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” — United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).