posted 01-12-2004 09:27 PM            

Subject: [CCCC-USA] PLEASE CIRCULATE
NATIONALLY: MAYBE THIS IS AN
ANSWER (NOW, IF WE ONLY KNEW THEN....)

Patriots, Veterans, all .... maybe this is an
answer ... we need to consider passing this onto
all individual states,
and demand the state rep's consider the reality of
this situation...

It's time to wake up these legislators to the reality
of BUSH's goals to turn Amerika into a Nazi police
state.

Please read ..............................
OMG! This has to be the best news I've heard since O'Neill! I'll try to verify it and post more! Can you believe it? --- bc

ARIZONA SECESSION MARTIAL
LAW
Sat Jan 10 00:31:52 2004
64.140.158.81

Arizona makes secession preparations - State
resolution creates 'insurance policy' against
martial law
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3904bd214df5.htm
By Julie Foster

© WorldNetDaily.com

An Arizona state legislative committee has approved
a resolution calling for the dissolution of the federal
government in the event that it abolishes the U.S.
Constitution, declares martial law or confiscates firearms --
scenarios some say are not unrealistic. Critics of the
resolution, however, call the measure a "total waste
of time."

Rep. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican and chair
of the House Committee on Federal Mandates and
States' Rights, authored the resolution which
the committee approved 3-2. Only the committee's
vice-chair, Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, abstained
from voting.

Specifically, House Concurrent Resolution 2034
outlines the origin of the United States,
emphasizing the sovereignty of the states and their
constitutional right to "establish a new federal
government for themselves by following the precedent
established by Article VII, Constitution of the United
States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states
dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of
Confederation and automatically superceded the
Articles."

It also articulates constitutional violations committed
by the federal government as justification for the
measure, saying "... the fifty current principals, or
signatories, to the [Constitution] have done well in
honoring and obeying it, yet the federal agent has,
for decades, violated it in both word and spirit. The
many violations of the Constitution of the United
States by the federal government include disposing
of federal property without the approval of Congress,
usurping jurisdiction from the states in such matters
as abortion and firearms rights and seeking control
of public lands within state borders," says
the resolution.

By adopting HRC 2034, Arizona states its intention
to dissolve the current federal government with the
approval of 34 other states and, in essence, start over.
Participating states would re-ratify and re-establish
the present Constitution "as the charter for the formation
of a new federal government, to be followed by the
election of a new Congress and President and the
reorganization of a new judiciary," in keeping with the
original intent of the "founding fathers." Individual
members of the military will return to their respective
states and report to the governor until a new
president is elected.

In addition, each state will assume a prorated portion
of the national debt and will own all land within its
borders. After the new government is formed, the
remaining 15 states will be permitted to join the
revised union upon application, as was the case with
the original union.

A three-year veteran to the Arizona Legislature, Johnson
told the Sierra Times the resolution is an "insurance
policy." "If the federal government declares martial law
or attempts to confiscate guns, the states shouldn't have
to put up with that," she said.

Joseph Stumph, well-known author and historian,
testified in favor of the resolution at the hearing.

"We're proposing that if things get as bad as they could
get, that these states won't allow the federal government
to put us into a one-world government," said Stumph,
who is publishing a similar proposal in his home state
of Utah. "I don't expect we'll get 35 states to sign on.
The American people are not educated enough on this
yet," he added.

The resolution was introduced Jan. 26, and now needs
to be approved by the Arizona House. Should HRC 2034
successfully complete the legislative process, it will
appear on the November ballot for voter approval. But
one legislator does not think the measure will be taken
seriously.

Rep. Bill Brotherton, a Democrat member of Johnson's
committee, called efforts to promote the bill a "total
waste of time."

"Obviously ... one of the more important issues we have
is mental health in this state," Brotherton said mockingly.
"I wonder if we are going to have a bill on the grassy
knoll next to decide who shot Kennedy."

Johnson said she was asked by several Maricopa
County residents to look into preventing the federal
government from asserting power not authorized by
the federal and state Constitutions. To Johnson, the
resolution is a watered down, limited version of the
"Ultimatum Resolution," written and promoted by
Stump.

Johnson said HRC 2034 was introduced in response
to recent actions by the Clinton administration
regarding the Grand Canyon. On a recent trip to
the landmark, President Clinton declared three new
national monuments, threatening the property and
livelihood of ranchers in the region.

Fears of martial law and firearm confiscation are mere
"conspiracy theories" to some, but in light of the elaborate
preparations government made for potential Y2K
problems -- including a ready-to-sign executive order
giving Clinton the equivalent of dictatorial powers -- "these
fears have become real possibilities," according to
Johnson.

Johnson also made it clear that the action of possible
secession should only take place if the federal government
suspends or violates the Constitution without approval
from the state.

"There may be times when the nation may be at war, and
such steps may need to be taken. But the states should
have a backup plan if necessary," she said.

Arizona is not alone in its fears. Johnson noted other
legislators in other states are considering taking similar
steps.

Despite her current success with HRC 2034, Johnson
is not relying solely on non-binding resolutions to ensure
state sovereignty. She has been joined by a coalition of
six other Arizona state representatives, private ranchers
and other states' legislators in a lawsuit filed against the
federal government.

The lawsuit is an attempt to reverse creation of the Grand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument, which covers
more than 1 million acres of land, roughly the same amount
as Grand Canyon National Park. The group says national
monument status will affect use and access to its private
property, which will be surrounded by the federal property.

It also asks the court to find the 1906 Antiquities Act, used
to create the Parashant monument, unconstitutional. The
coalition's lawyer claims the president "has taken the act
to the point of actually abusing the rights of people in the
West."

The act gives presidents emergency authority to protect
threatened federal lands or "objects of historic and
scientific interest," but lawyer Lana Marcussen said that
in using the act for a non-emergency case, the president
has gone too far.

See Henry Lamb's
column:

Repeal Antiquities Act!

Julie Foster is a staff reporter
for WorldNetDaily.

POSTED HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3904bd214df5.htm
================================================

Searched the web
for ARIZONA SECESSION MARTIAL LAW. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&edition=us&q=ARIZONA+SECESSION+MARTIAL+LAW&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

posted 01-12-2004 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
OMG! This has to be the best news I've heard since O'Neill! I'll try to verify it and post more! Can you believe it? --- bc

---

Like I said in another thread, it seems people here are more excited when things go wrong than when things go right. Celebrating such news rather than being worried provides very clear insight as to how people think here.

posted 01-12-2004 09:49 PM            

If you do some research with me on this, I'd appreciate it!

Your broadbrushstoke thinking about people on this board is not appreciated! Try being helpful!

I think preparing for martial law, or an event that would precipitate it, is quite wise!

posted 01-12-2004 09:58 PM            

Atom Heart Mother sent me this article just yesterday. It was the World Net Daily version - dated February 2000.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17396

posted 01-12-2004 10:06 PM            

I couldn't find anything, so far, other than the article which is dated in 2000. It's a great idea though, for states, at this point, and I would imagine the article was resurrected as a stimulus for the idea itself to get around.

I'll be contacting our own state legislators about this idea, too! Why not?

Thanks!

Still searching!

posted 01-12-2004 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Like I said in another thread, it seems people here are more excited when things go wrong than when things go right. Celebrating such news rather than being worried provides very clear insight as to how people think here.

I also assume people such as Mech--who seem to be very much in favor of defending the Constitution--would oppose this kind of measure.

---

What??? What is up with you and your mud slinging? It's getting annoying again.

posted 01-12-2004 10:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Letxa, Mech has always been a Constitutionalist! This measure was about defending the Constitution, not degrading it! Are you reading and comprehending? If you do some research with me on this, I'd appreciate it!

---

From the article you posted: "By adopting HRC 2034, Arizona states its intention
to dissolve the current federal government with the approval of 34 other states and, in essence, start over."

They are essentially endorsing a "reboot" of the government (often called a coup d'etat) to throw out the democratically elected Congress and President and replace them, apparently, with people more of their liking. Our Constitution provides a mechanism for replacing both and it does not include dissolving and restarting the government even if they supposedly will re-ratify the Constitution (assuming we trust them to actually do that).

Just having the Constitution isn't enough. We must follow it. Dissolving the federal government and restarting it is NOT contemplated in the Constitution the last time I read it.

posted 01-12-2004 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Specifically, House Concurrent Resolution 2034
outlines the origin of the United States,
emphasizing the sovereignty of the states and their
constitutional right to "establish a new federal
government for themselves by following the precedent
established by Article VII, Constitution of the United
States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states
dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of
Confederation and automatically superceded the
Articles."

It also articulates constitutional violations committed
by the federal government as justification for the
measure,....

---

It probably didn't pass anyway! You are too quick to judge, not only people, but efficacy of law!

If this resolution wasn't "legal" how on earth could a state legislation even get to this point? You are not only criticizing us personally on this board, you are criticizing legislators in Arizona as if you know more than they do!

Amazing!

bc

posted 01-12-2004 11:32 PM            

quote:

---

gain, you didn't read closely as this very state option is allowed by the Constitution itself.

---

Say what???

quote:

---

It is part of the founding father's rationale that protects states and allows for sucession and thus protection from a government bloated with too much power or under some kind of internal "coup."

---

Say what?? This is not part of the Constitution. See below.

quote:

---

Specifically, House Concurrent Resolution 2034 outlines the origin of the United States, emphasizing the sovereignty of the states and their constitutional right to "establish a new federal government for themselves by following the precedent
established by Article VII, Constitution of the United States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of
Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles."

---

Buzzz! Wrong answer.

What they want to do isn't part of the Constitution. They want to follow the "precedent" of throwing out the Articles of Confederation and implementing the Constitution based on a "9 out of 13" policy.

Remember, what they did at the Constitutional Convention was technically illegal. They were supposed to fix the Articles of Confederation, not throw them out and start over. Just because they did it 200+ years ago doesn't mean we should do it today or that they would even approve. Our current Constitution exists as a framework so hopefully these kinds of coup d'etats may be avoided.

quote:

---

It also articulates constitutional violations committed by the federal government as justification for the
measure,....

---

Then they should propose amendments to fix the problems. Not propose an unconstitutional solution.

quote:

---

It probably didn't pass anyway! You are too quick to judge, not only people, but efficacy of law!

---

I was judging the intent of the legislation and those that would be excited by it.

quote:

---

If this resolution wasn't "legal" how on earth could a state legislation even get to this point?

---

What does that have to do with it? I'm sure it was more of a political statement than any real intention of doing it. It seems that "dissolving" the federal government would be akin to "overthrowing the U.S. government" even if they supposedly want to re-ratify the same Constitution.

Of course, they'd probably remove the parts that allow slaves... Wonder if they'd remove anything else while they're at it?

quote:

---

You are not only criticizing us personally on this board, you are criticizing legislators in Arizona as if you know more than they do!

---

The Constitution is not that complicated. Can you please tell me where in the Constitution the above approach is approved?

quote:

---

Amazing!

---

posted 01-13-2004 12:02 PM            

I first list the actual Bill of Rights and various Constitutional excerpts that I feel are directly impinged upon in the Patriot Acts' legislation and I then offer links for the acts themselves, and the various legislative responses to it -- none of which involve the action that Arizona once considered in 2002.

It is unnecessary to argue whether Arizona in 2000 offered a credible solution to its fears at the time, because the situation through time has drastically changed and become a more credible threat to the citizens of this nation. What we must concentrate upon now is the real and active fight against the infringement upon our Constitutional rights. I gave great links for information and activism regarding the Patriot Act (et al)and our states' and national response to it. This is the crux of the matter.

Understanding the motivation for circulating the Arizona piece in the light of today's national perdicament is the only important insight at this time.

After reviewing the whole Constitution itself I couldn't find anything that directly refuted nor supported Arizona's proposed resolution. Therefore, Article X under the Bill of Rights would probably relate the most to the Arizona resolution. But the subject is moot.

I offer a precedent-setting legal case filed in Los Angeles in reference to the P.A. for perusal as well.

Lastly, I offer an incredibly definitive link for further information and activism -- vital to all Americans.

quote:

---

Bill of Rights

Article II

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.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violate, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be contronted with the witnesses against him; to hav ecompulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Article VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article X

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

Constitution (main body)

Article IV

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

Article VI

2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

---

Text of the Patriot Act:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f src="http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/smile/tongue.gif">ubl056.107

Text and info. on Patriot Act II
http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

List of Anti-Patriot Act Bills and Legislation:
http://www.bordc.org/legislation.htm

quote:

---

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=FjMAeaTxLu&Content=278

CCR Files Constitutional Challenge to Patriot Act

Opinions and Documents
Humanitarian Law Project, et. al. v. Ashcroft (CCR Case)

Synopsis

CCR filed papers in a Los Angeles court challenging a provision of the USA Patriot Act that criminalizes the provision of “expert advice and assistance” to proscribed organizations.

On August 5, 2003, attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights filed papers in a Los Angeles court challenging a provision of the USA Patriot Act that criminalizes the provision of “expert advice and assistance” to proscribed organizations. The Patriot Act was enacted just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks and has been widely criticized for infringing on civil liberties.

CCR challenges a Patriot Act amendment to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a law that makes it a crime to provide material support to any group designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization. The law, rarely enforced before September 11, has become the linchpin of the Justice Department’s domestic criminal war on terrorism -- virtually every anti-terrorism prosecution filed since September 11 has included a charge under this statute. The Patriot Act amends the definition of material support to include "expert advice and assistance," and makes it a crime to provide such advice or assistance no matter what its intent and purpose, and even where it has nothing whatsoever to do with furthering terrorism.

“In its rush to pass the Patriot Act just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congress overlooked one of our most fundamental rights – the right to express our political beliefs, especially those that are controversial,” says CCR Senior Attorney Nancy Chang. “Now it is up to the judiciary to correct Congress’s excesses.”

CCR’s motion was filed in a pending lawsuit, Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, that has already declared unconstitutional part of the material support statute. In March 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court barred enforcement of criminal bans on providing “personnel” and “training” to proscribed groups, finding that these prohibitions are unconstitutionally vague and could criminalize a wide range of First Amendment-protected speech, from writing an op-ed to lobbying or teaching human rights advocacy. In October 2001, the district court made that injunction permanent. The suit, originally filed in 1998, represents the Humanitarian Law Project and its president, several Tamil-American organizations, and a Tamil-American physician. The plaintiffs sought to provide support in the form of “personnel” and “training” to the solely lawful and humanitarian activities to two proscribed organizations -- the Kurdistan Workers Party of Turkey(PKK), and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE).

In its filing today, CCR argues that the ban on "expert advice and assistance" added by the Patriot Act covers essentially the same activities as, and is as unconstitutionally vague as, the ban on "training" and "personnel," and should also be struck down. The Humanitarian Law Project and its president, Ralph Fertig, wish to advocate for the PKK before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United States Congress, write and distribute publications supportive of the PKK’s political goals, and advocate for the freedom of four Turkish political prisoners convicted of being PKK members or supporters. In addition, they would like to advise the PKK on recent developments in international human rights, the procedures for seeking review by the newly established International Criminal Court, and peacemaking and negotiation skills. They seek a court order barring the government from prosecuting them for engaging in these activities.

Plaintiff Dr. Jeyalangim is a Tamil-American physician who is deeply concerned for the welfare of the Tamils in Sri Lanka as members of his family were forced to flee that country as refugees. He would like to alleviate the shortage of trained physicians in the Tamil Eelam region of northeast Sri Lanka by providing his medical services. However, because some of the hospitals in the region are run by the LTTE, Dr. Jeyalangim is afraid to do so because he fears prosecution for providing material support.

The plaintiffs in Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft are represented by David Cole and Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and by Carol Sobel, Paul Hoffman, and V. Rudrakumaran.

---

Information and activism site with history and links concerning the Patriot Act including states, cities, and counties that have passed resolutions in reference to the Patriot Acts I & II:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/issues/patriotact.php

_________________________

posted 01-15-2004 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Hey! Where's Letxa?

---

Working! I'll get back to this soon, I hope...