Montana and Oklahoma threaten to Secede

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a joint resolution asserting that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur.

"'Any person' has right to gun, state says, Montana claims 2nd Amendment questions already resolved" (February 20, 2008). WorldNetDaily.com.

"Letters to the Editor, Second Amendment an individual right" ([dead link] – Scholar search) (February 19, 2008). Washington Times.
Montana has threaten the Federal Government that it will secede from the Union if the Supreme Court violates the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution with it ruling of the District of Columbia vs Heller Case.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature [2008]
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1089
By: Key
AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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."; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.


http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt



Oklahoma has threaten the Federal Government that it has over stepped their bounds and that the States have a right to rule themselves. This is in response to Oklahoma wanting to pass their own Immigration Laws (they want to kick illegals out of the State and out of America) and also about Seatbelt laws, Speed limits, .08 BAC, and no child left behind.

Basically, Oklahoma is tell the Federal Government to kiss their asses. States Rights is what Oklahoma wants back.
 
Probably won't go that far.

Haha you think?

Could you imagine the third world state Oklahoma would become with bugger all industry, few resources of its own and completely land locked by a foreign country, Montana of course can just seek Canadian protection so they will be ok.
 
Both states' action were intended to be symbolic. They know that they can't secede but it's a strong message to the federal government.
 
Old poker saying:
Only bluff when you are sure that the person you are bluffing doesn't know your hand.
 
Yeah, I think it was something for them to say show how strongly they feel about it, probably similar to the Afghan President telling Pakistan that if you keep allowing the Taliban to come attack them on their streets and then seek refuge in their lands, we can play that game too. Obviously, the Afghan Army is pretty much just NATO.
 
I think Texas is next.....if the gov't treating the 2nd Amendent or Texas' gun rights like craps.
 
Old poker saying:
Only bluff when you are sure that the person you are bluffing doesn't know your hand.


The only old poker saying worth a carrot is 'Know when to hold 'em, know when to throw 'em, Know when to walk away, Know when to run.'

And of course, never, ever, wear your mirror shades.

In this particular situation, the two states are declaring their strength of feeling on the issue, and why shouldn't they if they deem it necessary to make the point.
 
Because making threats you cant back up is little more than pandering to ill informed masses.

I am sure it resonates with poorly educated gun toting types but thats about it, they cannot back up their threats nor can the implement it so in the end it is little more than politicians playing politics at the expense of the stupid.

There are other far more effective ways of getting a point across.
 
Because making threats you cant back up is little more than pandering to ill informed masses.

I am sure it resonates with poorly educated gun toting types but thats about it, they cannot back up their threats nor can the implement it so in the end it is little more than politicians playing politics at the expense of the stupid.

There are other far more effective ways of getting a point across.

Yeah.... Um... No.

Replace Oklahoma and Montana with Northland Region and Auckland Region.

This is States of the United States of America tell the federal government that there is a problem. It's the same as if two Regions of New Zealand told the Federal Government that there is a problem.

Many states have tried getting their points across and it hasn't worked.
 
Wrong target:

1. Most New Zealanders would happily wave goodbye to Auckland in fact I am sure I could raise enough money and labour from donations to dig a bloody great ditch to separate Auckland from New Zealand.

2. New Zealand is not a federation of states therefore there is no capacity for a province to separate from New Zealand.
 
Last edited:
Suppose they secede, then what? Its not like NY, CA, IL, or FL. Both of those states rely heavily on Federal aid. Neither state is what I'd call critical to the standing of the USA. They would suffer a lot more by leaving the Union then visa versa.

And BTW, since when did states have the right to blackmail the Federal Government? Due to the extremely conservative nature of the USSC (there is only 1 liberal on the bench) I don't think they will uphold the DC gun ban, but if they do, people will just have to accept it.
 
Or secede. But neither of these two states have the capability of doing so.
It'd be interesting to see what happens if they do.
 
Suppose they secede, then what? Its not like NY, CA, IL, or FL. Both of those states rely heavily on Federal aid. Neither state is what I'd call critical to the standing of the USA. They would suffer a lot more by leaving the Union then visa versa.

And BTW, since when did states have the right to blackmail the Federal Government? Due to the extremely conservative nature of the USSC (there is only 1 liberal on the bench) I don't think they will uphold the DC gun ban, but if they do, people will just have to accept it.

Oklahoma is stating it's reasons under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

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.

The main issue is that the Federal Government has over stepped their authority in some matters. Such is the simple fact of drinking age, speed limits, school system, etc.... Others are immigration law. Oklahoma feels that the Feds need to back off. Which in my opinion, they are correct. The Feds do need to back off. This nation was founded under the idea that the Federal Government does our international and national issues. Everyday events are handled by the States. Hasn't happened since the War of Northern Aggression.

As for Montana. They feel that if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment. Then the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law".

Basically that the Federal Government violated it's end of the deal when Montana joined the Union as a State. That's Montana's issue.
 
AikiRooster

Thats why we are a democracy not dictatorship, even scumbags have rights. Your wrong, only Ginsburg is liberal Democrat, Breyer is moderate Democrat, Souter is a moderate Republican. Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia are all very conservative Republicans.

5.56

We have had this arguement before, back in 1789 it was called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles allowed for strong state governments and a weak federal governement. It was a miserable failure which came crashing down 7 years later. Why? because the states constantly fought each other. Va and Mass almost went to war against each other over a land dispute. Thats why its a bad idea. What Oklahoma and Montana wants is a return to that system where the states dictate to the Federal Government, that just isn't going to happen. In the US Constitution, Federal law overrides state law, unless that Federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the USSC. The US government isn't a salad bar, you cannot pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest. Otherwise ALL the states will start to ignore parts of Federal law they don't like. What would happen if NY decided it wasn't constitutionally obligated to fund (via taxes) the Iraq war anymore?

If the USSC rules against those states they have no choice but to accept. If they want to secede, fine. But its an empty threat, both have very small populations, and are mostly either agrarian or wild. Either way the impact to the USA is minimal. The loss of federal funding would be more devastating to those states than the loss of the 2nd amendment.

And their getting their balls all tied up for nothing. The current gun bans only apply to CERTAIN large cities. Nobody has the intention of banning guns in the countryside. Its both unnecessary and political suicide. Its not even been discussed except in a few fringe circles. The idea of 'gun-grabbers' is mostly a figment of the NRA imagination.
 
Last edited:
The Justices may be labeled whatever they are labeled by the media types, but I think it's more clear to look how they vote on issues more to be able tell truthfully what they are. The five that voted for terrorists, they are liberals, at least they were that day.
 
The Justices may be labeled whatever they are labeled by the media types, but I think it's more clear to look how they vote on issues more to be able tell truthfully what they are. The five that voted for terrorists, they are liberals, at least they were that day.

Constitutional Law has always been an interest to me. I invite you to read the records of both Stevens and Kennedy they ruled against the President in this case, but overall they are very conservative.

Secondly, a single ruling (which you obviously disagree with) does not make a Justice liberal or a conservative.
 
Back
Top