With the Courts and the fed out of control with power does this suprise any of you. The republic is in deep you know what. Keep refining your y2k preps a big change may be coming like it or not.

TESTING THE FAITH Arizona makes secession preparations State resolution creates 'insurance policy' against martial law

By Julie Foster ) 2000 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nine of the existing thirteen states dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles."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 "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.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), February 07, 2000

Answers

uh, mike,

the article doesn't say that 35 states are doing this.....it says that it requires 35 state to do it. big difference. headline is very misleading. seems only a couple of states are actively doing anything.

"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.

-- (4@5.6), February 07, 2000.

4@5.6, please go easy on the poor boy, apparently he believes what he reads in World Net Daily.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), February 07, 2000.

I thought there was more to it than protecting the "Rights" of the Individual,and vanishing "Freedoms".As I can see it the only Reason for the Activety is to expand the Rights of the Corporate Criminals,the Mob and Gangsters.The Attacks against our National Parks,Yellostone and now Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument is the work of these Hoods,promoting "Deregulation" and "Privatisation".Privatisation means take it away from the Public(You and I)and give to the Racketeers,the same Scum,that caused Hitler regimes to spawn,and caused all that Misery worldwide.

-- peacepipe (uome@this.time), February 07, 2000.

What we REALLY need is for the persons of 50 states to declare war on DEECEE. If people would get off their butts and do a little reading and then vote, we wouldn't be in all this deep doodoo~

-- Taz (Tassi123@aol.com), February 07, 2000.

Just maybe, some of the folks on that Arizona state legislative committee are aware of something we aren't

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 07, 2000.

Arizona, along with several other western states have large percentages of the public lands in their borders "owned" by the federal government suposedly to protect them from those nasty ol' money grubin industrialists who most of us work for. The feds arn't opposed to letting them use it in return for payment.

Now on the other hand, if the state owned it and used it the same way, that state might not be beholden to the feds for so much money for things and those nasty ol' freedom lovin westerners might just behave different from what the feds want them to.

If a group of people ,say a neighborhood association or a planned community, had a few dozen acres set aside for green space or a park, and the state came in and declared it state land under there protection and rules, would that be right?

Not much difference if its the a group as large as a state and the feds step in, now is it.

People forget that the state isn't just some far off concept that they arn't a part of, Its them/theirs. When the feds come in and take state land or tell the state what rules to make, They're telling you how to live, and they are taking that land from you. Democracy ( yes I know we are a republic) is about you telling your government how you want to live, not the other way around.

The feds were never ment to own land outside of the national capital.

How can some suit in a big city know whats best for a rancher or farmer who lives 2000 miles away.

Just some ideas to chew on..

-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), February 07, 2000.

as glorious as this seems, keep in mind, that it's only a COMMITTEE vote...the legislature has not yet acted....

-- John Galt (still@doom.er), February 07, 2000.

Yeh, Arizona, and yeh Mike. No, we are not in either a democracy or a republic. We are in a socialist nation in which the people are regulated from birth to death - where social security numbers relegate them to slave-like status (or have you tried to get by without one lately); where we ask for permission to drive, fish, hunt, get married, start a business, work, you name it. But the states are starting to wake up: secession then, secession now, and secession forever!

-- Okie Dan (brendan@theshop.net), February 07, 2000.

Too clueless y2k pro I see you like to record what we say. Record this F*ck yourself. This republic is in the shitter and you dont even have a clue. Y2k may not have taken down the infrastructure but to say we past the y2k uneventful is a big mistake. The powers that be are steamrolling over are rights big time Fool. If I got it wrong about the utilities I was in good company. The Feds put out a lot of misinformation on an official level and still are doing so,to blow holes in our rights. Big change is a comming that you can quote me on.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @conservation .com), February 07, 2000.

Remember state politicians aren't above taking whatever they want for their own agendas and cronies too.

Seems a lot of "lines in the sand" got drawn last few weeks. I saw an interview with Clinton where his favorite movie is High Noon. Now that's scary.

-- packiniron (bottom@feed.ers), February 07, 2000.

I keep noting, and do here again, that the only times y2kPro posts are in response to anything to do with the federal government being less than perfect...which tells me something about who pays him to post here.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), February 07, 2000.

Let's see now... A grand total of 3 --count'em THREE -- members of one committee of one house of one state legislature votes for a resolution, and the y2k aware genius concludes that two-thirds of the country is ready to secede! With crystal clear deductive reasoning like that, it is no wonder he concluded that Y2K would be TEOTWAWKI.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 07, 2000.

My Full Name -

I understand what you mean. No, it is not small matter given the deep level of denial we are all in about these issues. My understanding was that the "initiative" presented rested upon a "trigger" event: that if the government was to (lightly?) declare martial law or enter into an international treaty which would violate the principles of the Constitution of the United States. What is so difficult to understand about that? Perhaps I am missing something here; I only read the information above once. To grasp the nuances, legal reasons, and depth of such an initiative - takes sometime to sink in...at least for me.

I think we should be very glad that there are individuals still left within government who care about People's Rights; who are looking to protect them in the best way they understand, given where they are.

Please don't confuse their intentions with their chosen 'methods.'

There is much which is out of balance within this country' we all know this to some degree. If there are no checks and balances, it can lead to very grave consequences...literally. That is the single lesson of History. And you know what they say, "when you forget the lessons..."

Maybe try to also see the principle and what is right about what they are doing. Don't have to tear someone else down, directly or subtly, in order to prop oneself up 'over' others. I hope this makes sense; no affront meant to you personally.

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?com), February 10, 2000.