Arizona's proposal to abolish the federal government

Submitted by:
orchid0270
orchid0270



Subscribe to this Author

Paste this code into your site to promote this story!


Type of Content: 
Article

¦ REFERENCE TITLE: abolish federal government; state sovereignty ¦
----------------------------------------------------------------
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¦ State of Arizona ¦
¦ House of Representatives ¦
¦ Forty-fourth Legislature ¦
¦ Second Regular Session ¦
¦ 2000 ¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
----------------------------------------------------------------
¦ HCR 2034 ¦
----------------------------------------------------------------
¦ Introduced by ¦
¦ Representatives Johnson, Cooley ¦
----------------------------------------------------------------

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

PROPOSING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OCCUR.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Whereas, on July 4, 1776, our founding fathers proclaimed that the people had the right to alter or abolish their government and declared thirteen British colonies to be free and independent, or sovereign, states; and

Whereas, on March 1, 1781, the thirteen states formed a central government they called the United States of America under a charter known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which stated that "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence"; and

Whereas, on September 17, 1787, the leaders of the Continental Congress signed the present Constitution of the United States, which was then transmitted to the thirteen states for ratification and the formation of a new central government; and

Whereas, several of the states delayed ratification of the Constitution and three states made clear their position regarding sovereignty by stating that "the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"; and

Whereas, eventually all thirteen of the independent states ratified the Constitution of the United States and joined the new Union, while retaining their sovereignty as states. The states made the new central government sovereign only to the extent that the states delegated to it limited and specific powers; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States is merely a treaty among sovereigns, and under treaty law when one party violates the treaty the other parties are automatically released from further adherence to it unless they wish to continue; and

Whereas, the fifty current principals, or signatories, to the treaty 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; and

Whereas, under Article V, Constitution of the United States, three-fourths of the states may abolish the federal government. In the alternative, if the states choose to exercise their inherent right as sovereigns, fewer than thirty-eight states may lawfully choose to ignore Article V, Constitution of the United States, and 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.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, 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 or if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States 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, similarly following the precedent and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the military return to their respective states and report to the Governor until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated, prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central government by the state's Legislature and Governor; and that once thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on application.

2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.


Created 34 weeks 13 hours ago
Made popular 34 weeks 5 hours ago

Comments

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AZ Proposal

I think the proposal from Arizona is outstanding! I live here and I didn't think they had the juevos to make such a stand. It makes me proud to be from here.
As for the purpose, I think it was simply to let the FEDS know that we understand where our Federal Government is headed, we don't agree with it, and we will do what ever it takes including severing all ties with the current government in order to protect our rights.
If the fed storm troopers were to swoop down on us, so be it. They'd have a real fight on there hands!

tjsmith Posted by tjsmith on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 11:17pm
A little known fact...

Our Country used to be called "These United States of America." Emphasis on "THESE" meaning that the states had most of the power.

"And to the Republic......"

- Travis

I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. - Ron Paul

T_R_A_V_I_S Posted by T_R_A_V_I_S on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:34pm
I find it unfortunate they

I find it unfortunate they would choose to recreate the same central government that failed them in the first place.

I would have stripped out much of that wording so that the state could choose an improved version of a democratic republic or something new altogether (preferably something without a single president in charge of the executive branch and with more common man oversight).

I also would not use the Constitution as it currently stands but base a new one on it and try to patch the many real and perceived holes in the original (like the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the racist wording regarding Negroes and Indians, etc.).

You can read the PDF of this proposed bill directly from the Arizona legislature's website at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p.pdf

zeuslgn Posted by zeuslgn on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:20pm
i think such a resolution

i think such a resolution should be an amendment to every states constitution. i cant imagine that a majority of the population wouldn't support it.

Posted by ljsul8 on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 7:53pm
WoW - Is this for real?

I'm just wondering if this is real or just a wish?

The last time this was attempted, we had the bloodiest and deadliest war in our lands history. I don't think that Bush/Cheney or McWar/whomever or Obama/GodOnlyKnows or Billary would allow this to be up held without the full wrath of the Federal Government's army, navy (not applicable to AZ), air force, marines, national guard, and Forest Rangers shotting everyone in AZ.

Just wondering in the State that started the last one.

DanielC in SC

DanielC Posted by DanielC on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 7:09pm
The majority of the people

The majority of the people of Arizona, myself included, still strongly belive in the second amendment. The bloodshed would be so bad on both sides that a "civil war" would never happen. Also, the national guard is considered to be under juridiction of the state it resides in. As well as the Forest Ranger, Fish and Game, and so on and so forth.

Posted by ragnarok on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 9:45pm
I got that impression out there in AZ

Ragnarok,

While working with county government Treasurer's and IT out in AZ '99 - '05 I got that impression that they still think of themselves as an individual state. Hell the county's outside of Maricopia weren't happy some of the times with mandates that were forced on um from the capital of the state.

I hate to let ya know, but the Forest, National Guard, though filled with locals are mandated to perform task that Washington, DC finds important to promote the Union.

If the West were to start a revolution against the oppressive regime of DC, I would have to load up my guns, family and cats and head back out there to aide in the refitting of our Nation as a Republic.

So this is a real amendment from the state to DC?

Still Wondering in SC,

DanielC

DanielC Posted by DanielC on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:10pm
No longer correct. In his

No longer correct. In his many rewritings of old laws and creation of new pro-fascist laws, Bush side-stepped the control of the Governors over the individual National Guards when they refused to cede power voluntarily. Should an "emergency" arise, Bush now has the power to take control regardless what the state government says.

zeuslgn Posted by zeuslgn on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:07pm
Isn't this somewhat

Isn't this somewhat different though? I don't think it would be illegal if 35 states joined together in a revolt. It's unlikely but I don't think it's illegal. LMW

orchid0270 Posted by orchid0270 on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 5:44pm
Several States and Counties have explored secession.

Usually for tax issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
Several towns in Vermont including Killington recently explored a secession request to allow them to join New Hampshire over claims that they are not getting adequate return of state resources from their state tax contributions.

Advocates in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, with off and on intensity, have called for it to become a separate 51st state (sometimes with northern Wisconsin and Northeast Minnesota) called "Superior". Similarly some in the Little Egypt region of Illinois want to separate due to what they consider Chicagoan control over the legislature and economy.

In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an otherwise proper Initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote.

In March 2008, the comptroller of Suffolk County, New York once again proposed for Long Island to secede from New York State, citing the fact that Long Island gives more in taxes to the state than it receives back in aid.

In 1977, The islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, tried to secede from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (they also tried to secede from the United States and become an independent nation)

taktic Posted by taktic on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 4:42pm
looks to me

like this one here is a special case though. this sounds like a direct response to the extraordinary powers that the current administration has granted themselves. it's no bickering about who gets what tax revenues, it's essentially saying: this state will follow the constitution should you declare its suspension. i think they're really trying to state something obvious, in that, if the documents this country is founded on are no longer observed then there is no more country. i think this is an obvious conclusion. that's what makes it very different from the examples you stated.

awesomo5000 Posted by awesomo5000 on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 5:56pm
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.