Skip to comments.
Free State Project seeks to capitalize on VT town's "secession to NH"
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=5102;start=0 ^
Posted on 01/09/2004 8:34:35 PM PST by Dada Orwell
Fed up with redistributionist school taxes, leaders of Killington, Vermont have settled on a bold new strategy: Secession.
Their plan is to take their town all the way out of the left-leaning New England state and join with its more conservative neighbor, New Hampshire.
Free Staters were ecstatic to hear the news and are planning a "shadow advertising" campaign to support Killington. If the Killington bid succeeds, New Hampshire would gain a new, tax-hating municipality. If it fails, Free Staters figure they can recruit many of the towns residents and other disgruntled northeasterners to move *themselves* to the Free State.
Details at
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=5102;start=0
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: freestateproject; killington; schooltaxes; vermont
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Dada Orwell
I have been suggesting that the parts of the states outside NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Chicago secede and form new states outside the socialism loving cities.
2
posted on
01/09/2004 8:40:18 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: All
These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!
|
|
Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3
posted on
01/09/2004 8:40:50 PM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Freepers post from sun to sun, but a fundraiser bot's work is never done.)
To: Dada Orwell
4
posted on
01/09/2004 8:47:36 PM PST
by
Straight Vermonter
(We secretly switched ABC news with Al-Jazeera, lets see if these people can tell the difference.)
To: Dada Orwell
5
posted on
01/09/2004 8:47:59 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Dada Orwell
I seriously doubt Vermont would allow this town to secede. Read Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution. In order for this town to seceed, both the Vermont and New Hampshire legilatures would have to approve it as well as the US Congress
Article IV. Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
6
posted on
01/09/2004 8:52:01 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Paleo Conservative
In order for this town to seceed, both the Vermont and New Hampshire legilatures would have to approve it as well as the US Congress But Killington isn't trying to become a state. This section governs only the procedure by which new states could be created by breaking up or merging old states.
7
posted on
01/09/2004 9:01:48 PM PST
by
SedVictaCatoni
(You keep nasty chips.)
To: SedVictaCatoni
This section governs only the procedure by which new states could be created by breaking up or merging old states. Well, New Hampshire would be re-formed with parts of another state. I think that is covered by this clause.
8
posted on
01/09/2004 9:05:14 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Paleo Conservative
The Article you quote says nothing about a part of a state leaving one state and becoming part of another.
It addresses states splitting to form NEW STATES.
BTW, does this Article makes West Virginia unconstitutional?
9
posted on
01/09/2004 9:06:29 PM PST
by
George Smiley
(Is the RKBA still a right if you have to get the government's permission before you can exercise it?)
To: SedVictaCatoni
nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. As I recall from logic a set is a subset of itself. The whole state of New Hampshire is a part of New Hamphire. Taking part of Vermont and adding it to New Hampshire would be forming a new state from the junction parts of states.
10
posted on
01/09/2004 9:11:08 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: George Smiley
BTW, does this Article makes West Virginia unconstitutional? Interesting question. West Virginia was admitted when the 55 westtern counties of Virginia refused to seceed from the Union. If Virginia was no longer a state in the US, US Constitution would not apply; however, it was the assertion of the Lincoln administration that the Confederate states were still part of the Union but in rebellion.
11
posted on
01/09/2004 9:14:54 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: George Smiley
Didn't the counties that comprise West Virginia get statehood after Virginia was no longer officially part of the Union?
Either way, I'd say it's up to interpretation as far as what is required for secession from one state to another. New Hampshire is already a state, and wouldn't necessarily be reformed. Some radical federal judge will probably end up determining the outcome.
I do like their thinking though. Vermont is the land of Nikita Dean and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, not the people of Killington. If I were them I'd rather live in New Hampshire too.
To: Paleo Conservative
Also, how could Virginia have objected? Virginia had after all seceded from the United States. How on principle could Virginia oppose the secession of its western most counties. Also, the Confederacy did not have any military forces in the area to enforce its soveriegnty. Also consider that the Republicans were anxious to have two more sentators supporting the Union during the war. With the Confederate States not sending representatives or senators to Congress, Republicans were in a position to have an overwhelming proportion of active seats.
13
posted on
01/09/2004 9:27:33 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: FutureMarine
Some radical federal judge will probably end up determining the outcome. As this case would involve a dispute between states, the case would be heard directly by the US Supreme Court.
14
posted on
01/09/2004 9:29:23 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Also, how could Virginia have objected? Virginia had after all seceded from the United States. How on principle could Virginia oppose the secession of its western most counties. A new Virginia state government was convened at Wheeling in 1861. This government voted to permit West Virginia to secede from Virginia. After this secession was carried out, the state government removed to Alexandria (being the part of Virginia which was actually in Union hands). See this excellent link.
15
posted on
01/09/2004 10:51:19 PM PST
by
SedVictaCatoni
(You keep nasty chips.)
To: Dada Orwell
from website: "We are not tied to any political party or organization; we do not run candidates for election, we do not financially support or endorse candidates, and we do not oppose or endorse legislation."
Then, what do you do exactly? If people are going to move all the way to NH, I would assume there's some thing in it for them, in the way of shaping a state so that it maximizes individual freedom. If you don't run candidates or endorse them, how are you going to really make a difference?
16
posted on
01/10/2004 1:56:50 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: jagrmeister
Porcupines as individuals do all those things. The FSP as a whole does not. It is about like minded people who share similar political philosophies.
17
posted on
01/10/2004 3:13:18 AM PST
by
blanknoone
(The mainstream is a river in france.)
To: blanknoone
>Porcupines as individuals do all those things.
???
18
posted on
01/10/2004 3:31:06 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Well, doesn't Ruth Bader-Ginsburg count as a radical federal judge? :-p
To: SedVictaCatoni
Isn't there some hinky thing with Texas, when they were admitted that allows them to split into up to 5 states if they choose, no muss, no fuss?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson