Wkmac Question

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Seriously......what does it mean when they say Georgia is a Sovereign State ??? In 1,000,000 words or less please.
  2. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    If I'm allowed : Georgia was part of the old USSR. They don't want to be part of the new C.I.S. (commonwealth of independent states).
    Don't think they never did sign into it.

    As for example : That is exactly what the province of Quebec is looking for (the hardliners), to break away from Canada, and become a sovereign State (which also means own country).

    For example, you do recall the Vancouver Olympics, where the Georgian died practising the luge track.
    It's it own country, ran under it's own flag.

    Basically, left the federation of a former country.
    No longer part of federation.
  3. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Klein, Quebec license plates have the phrase "je me souviens" on them which translates in to "I remember". Do you happen to know the significance behind that phrase?
  4. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    You would have to ask DS, Quebec is his neighbor province, and he actually speaks a bit french. I'm here in the wild west. He has also been there several times... one of his favorite holiday destinations. (I think).
    I have never been there. You know more then me ! LOL

    I didn't even know it meant "I remember" !!!!
  5. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    I think we already had a good idea of that!!!! LOL

    Sorry man, you set your self up on that one.
  6. pickup

    pickup Well-Known Member

    And they almost got their sovereignty referendum passed the last time around in 95(?) And they would have gotten it passed if it weren't for the "ethnic and money" vote. One day, Quebec will break away from its oppressor . I sometimes cry tears over the plight of those brave descendents from the great nation that gave us the (please stand and take your hats off) METRIC SYSTEM.
  7. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I meant the Georgia that's in the United States with Atlanta as the capitol. I ask because on TV today the Governor of Georgia said that Georgia was a sovereign state.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    1,000,000 words or less? Hmmmmm.......

    Politcal Speech!

    How'd I do?
  9. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    The governor was being asked about the law suits going forward about the healthcare bill. That's when he used that phrase. I tried researching it and found nothing. It kept referring me to foreign nations. It's not good to keep old people around with an unanswered question on their brain....it drives'em nuts!
  10. pickup

    pickup Well-Known Member

    I'll give your question a shot. There is something called a sovereignty movement going on now in many states. Basically this movement focuses on the 9th and 10th amendments . I include those two amendments in this link:http://freedomkeys.com/9thand10th.htm . I'll focus on the 10 amendment angle and maybe touch upon the 9th one as well(not sure yet). Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the right to run a healthcare program. Therefore that right is reserved for the individual states , if they wish to exercise such a program. For example, Massachusetts did such a thing and if I remember , without too much fuss about state constitutionality.

    In regards to the Georgia governor using that phrase, he is basically saying that Georgia is sovereign in the powers that it has under the federal constitution, particularly those alluded to in the 9th and 10th amendments. In a very real sense , the civil war was fought over this issue and it was settled with force. The power once resided in the states and through the use of implied powers(as opposed to expressed ones), the Federal Government has grown at the expense of the states that created it. Think of it as Victor Von Frankenstein being at the beck and call of his creation. For Victor to say, "Screw this , I ain't creating a woman for you" would lead to reprisals from his creature, which is what exactly happened in the book.

    I could go on and on , moreluck, here is a good link for you to get on the right footing and have a better idea of what this is about. And by trying to answer your question, I became more acquainted about what this is about. http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=849
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'm not familar with what the good governor of our state meant but I'll take a stab and you can take it or leave and I promise it will only be 999,999 words. :happy-very:

    Foremost, I do think his words were political grandstanding. I posted a vid with Judge Naipolatano (that spelling doesn't look right) somewhere in this forum where he talked about some of the states suing to stop the healthcare thing and he said also it was grandstanding but moreso he felt at this point the States lacked standing because as of yet they've been damaged. It's so early in this whole process yet that not much has come down to where an actual damage has taken place if you will so how do you claim standing in court? "Your honor, I'm here today to seek relief from a theft that has yet to occur." We have established pre-emption as a damage but I'm betting the gov't won't turn that ideal on itself.

    Sovereign would also refer back to a type of States' Rights posture or even more to a pre-Constitution framework where each state under the Articles of Confederation were seen as an actual sovereign state but operated in a Confederation of mutual cooperation and self defense alliance. Even under our current Constitution some of that framework was attempted to be held in place with the 9th and 10th amendments but IMHO those amendments what little power they may have held were put asunder by the 14th amendment, Commerce Clause abuse and International Treaty adoption. Even if for example we wanted to get rid of Social Security on pure Constitutional grounds, we couldn't because of various international labor treaties we've entered into over the years. I earlier noted in another thread about the Art 6 Supremacy Clause in that very reasoning.

    I'm concerned buried in the languages of NAFTA or even some WTO document is our deathnail as it pertains to Constitutional recourse from a States' rights position as much as I love it if there was some way to take that approach to stop it. I have studied some treaty law in relationship to US law from the early half of the 20th century and even some tax law up into the 80's but since then I don't know. Past practice tell me something really bad is laying there and another reason I think a court action would fail but it also might uncover something that would open more eyes so it could prove to the good also.

    There is a action is nature where some animals will try and make themselves bigger than they really are to fool surrounding threats. IMO in the case of our good governor in Georgia, I think this is just such a case. Besides, this fool can't even tell the Federal gov't to go "F" themselves when it comes to the very water that originates here and fellow Georgians here will know what I'm talking about. Why has he not pulled the States' Rights eg Sovereign State card there?

    Hope that answers some of your question in a timely and "conservative" use of words!

    BTW More: If you want to see the Judge vid and didn't, PM me and I'll dig it up for you. Sorry I couldn't remember where it was. Don't expect it today as I'm about to go out and work on the garden. Ah vacation! Now if I could just ditch this work dispatch my wife gave me.
  12. pickup

    pickup Well-Known Member

    Now mind you, to say your state is sovereign is a touchy issue, given the civil war and the fact that this is a southern state that was part of the breakaway confederacy. Taken to an extreme, one can say his state is sovereign as in saying that the state is a nation by itself separate from the country that is was part of . I didn't say "mother country" because the land of Georgia existed before the United States. Of course, if a state went that far and fired a shot to defend that position, that would be the start of what would probably be a very short civil war. (probably).

    The sovereignty movement is not really about this extremism(Yet) but there are many in it that wouldn't mind the scenario of a breakaway state.
  13. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Pickup & wkmac......I appreciate both of your explanations.

    wkmac....got my tomatoes planted and cukes next !
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Working nights you don't keep up with local news as much but I got to see the local news and get more detail. Seems the issue has turned into a bit of a catfight. Gov. Perdue (republican) asked Attorney General Thurbert Baker (democrat) to fill this lawsuit and Baker responded back no that he would not and the reasons. Now it seems there's a move afoot to impeach Baker who is also running as a candidate for governor. Now it's announced that Governor Perdue has found a Macon Georgia attorney to act as a special attorney general to move forward with the case but we'll see I guess. Not sure how much of this you know but thought I'd try and pass on a little local flavor.

    Since my wife works in the field of law, I decided to consult some of her law books to get an exact definition to at least define the term "sovereign state". Bouvier's Law has been an official law dictionary of Congress and so I went there. She has some editions going well back into the 1800's but I used the 1914' edition so here goes.

    Sovereign State: One which governs itself independently of any foreign power.

    Well, now here's where it just might get real interesting as that term foreign power is not new to me but that's another thread. Hmmmm, I might give you a tease at the end of this post.

    Foreign Power: A foreign nation or country. (pay close attention to this next part) The states are considered as foreign to each other with respects to those subjects which are controlled by their municipal law.

    What I find interesting about that last part pertains to the difference in jurisdictional control and if the precept is true between co-equal jurisdictions (state to state) it would seem the same is true going up to national just as it is going down to county or city. However, among a few other problems, where IMO the state faces an uphill battle is pertaining to what is called the "clean hand doctrine" in that the States have ceded jurisdiction (or have they, tease! tease!) in many other areas and now they want to cry wolf?

    Look, I hate the federal gov't and would love nothing more than to see this corp./monopoly healthcare power grab fall on it's face but the States have been the whore house's biggest customer and now they want to proclaim they've found purity? And the other hurdle is the national gov't and court system who has walked all over the constitution making it a worthless, meaningless document and pardon me for pointing it out but many of your good republican friends here were the loudest in voice telling the US gov't to walk all over that constitution when it proved inconvenient during the Bush years and now when the otherside for their convience does the same, you guys scream bloody murder. Freedom and liberty are hard and they are not without risks and I told you guys then your own abuses and legal precedent would come back against you and now it has. Obviously we can't go back, what's done is done but the question begs, how to go forward?

    There is absolutely nothing now to stop the US Gov't from literally doing as it pleases and it was by a thin finger tip over the last several decades that it's not far worse even now. Thanks to the last 8 years and now going into the 2nd year (10 years of Ebony and Ivory stupidity), whatever illusion that document gave of freedom is all but gone and won't come back. But here's where it gets interesting but it's like dancing on the edge of a volcano. Here's my tease.

    A state could IMO make the arguement and maybe win using the 1956' and 1957' Federal gov't report (Pt. 1 and Pt. 2) entitled, "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States" but you will open a can of worms even bigger than sucession and a can even limited gov't conservatives would not want to open. Here's a taste at the very beginning of the actual report and it's basis for it's creation.

    Read that again and just think about what is being said verses what you think you know or have been told. Think about that term foreign power in relation to the above example and where the State(s) have to cede jurisdiction if you will to the federal gov't in order for federal jurisdiction to exist within a state and then that jurisdiction is only valid in what is other places called, the federal enclave. Kinda like a sovereign power would cede jurisdiction to a foreign power for an embassy? Better yet is that the legislative jurisdiction "NOT" exceeding 10 square miles (otherwise known as District of Columbia) and then the "like authority" outside that 10 square mile area only when granted consent by the State involved. Get's kinda interesting don't it?

    And how has the court ruled in such matters of jurisdiction for the State to the federal?

    United States Supreme Court Reports Vol. 135-138 page 496

    And you thought the Constitution granted them the right to make your life miserable. The prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. Who is the sovereign power here according to Justice McLean? Who holds divine right if you will? Hmmmm!

    We're not in Kansas anymore Toto!

    More, you wanted to know what sovereign means so what ya think about it now?
  15. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    she better.. your 1.000.000 words are up ! LOL
  16. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Where do I send my tuition check ??
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Find a good local cause that's helping people out and send the check to them.

    Something else to watch along similar lines as the healthcare thing is on Monday 7 states filed a "friend of the court" brief in Federal court in a challenge to the US gov't in regulating firearms manufactured and only sold within a state or to say another way, doesn't involved interstate commerce or transport. Be interesting to watch from a variety of different directions.