The Constitution thereore could not alter this sovereign status, without express statements to that effect, that the people of each state were signing away their sovereignty forever; however it contains no such statements, just some ambiguous language which biased readers interpret to connote such. Therefore without any express abdication of state sovereignty, every state as remained free, sovereign and independent under the Constitution, as before it.
Thus likewise, Texas v. White had no authority to deny any law regarding secession, any more than it could claim such against Britain and France.

History, however, is not written by the victors– since “history,” by definition, is what actually happened; rather, it is suppressed by them, and revised in to make the victor look right, and the vanquished look wrong.
Here, suppression took place with regard to any discussion or analysis of secession-law among authorities, with such discussions being outright censored as “treason” during the war, and grounds for similar treatment afterward– particularly among government-accredited and licensed positions like law or academia, both of which affected all persons of authority. Persons who entertained such public discussions were likewise disenfranchised from positions of elected leadership, being forced to swear oaths of loyalty to the victor in order to hold any elected office. Thus discussion of secession-law was basically suppressed by the victorious regime (ironicalliy in the so-called “land of the free”), until it simply became accepted as popular dogma that secession was illegal.

Even today, however, all “experts” and oficials simply say that the legality of secession was “settled by the war,;” however it wasn’t “settled” but merely dictated, since laws can only be “settled” via proving the original intentions of the actual lawgivers; and as I’ve explained above, these nowhere expressly surrendered the sovereignty of any state— and sovereignty, by its plain nature, cannot be surrendered by anything but express language..

Now to the “brass tacks” of the matter: since state sovereignty was never legally surrendered– merely suppressed by imperialism of the federal government’s claiming national authority over them– then either the states must remain sovereign to this day, or the United States is a dictatorial empire.

Since few Americans will accept the latter, then this leaves only the former– i.e. that every state is sovereign, and legally at liberty to secede at will. This requires only that its people of any state assert that state’s sovereignty under the law; and the federal government will be unable to cite any proper authority to the contrary– and will be unable to censor the truth as it did in 1861-1866, due to the current e-technology: indeed, it seems that “the end of tyranny will come not with a shout, but with a Twitter. ”

The next step now, thus becomes to organize such a movement among the people of ANY state; one will be enough. Current “state sovereignty” movements are anything but, since sovereignty secession is the ultimate right of a sovereign state, and these claim none. On the contrary, true sovereignty is the type enjoyed by nations; rather, these movements refer simply to reserved powers under the 10th Amendment, which is not at all the same– and is likewise futile if a state cannot secede, since the federal majority will have no binding incentive to honor such reservations. Thus “states rights” must include secession– or nothing.

Thus our objective is clear: to find a state willing to assert its sovereignty, and do so.

North American Secessionist Congress, October 2010

What our more intelligent elected officials should be doing is preparing gold and silver coinage for circulation. At today’s prices, it wouldn’t take much to get it going. A silver dollar will soon be worth $20.

Prove This Statement Wrong! I submit:

The 17th Amendment Does Not Apply To Any States That Did Not Ratify It – Because They Did Not “Consent” To It, & the Constitution Declares:

“…; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” – Article V last clause.

The “Consent” clause is Written Inviolate by the framers!

No State Ratification Means No Consent, & No 17th Compliance Required! A state must ratify to “Consent” to “be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”! Which states did not consent? Find each state’s 17th amendment ratification documents. Rattle the states, not the feds!

This Is A “Federal Question” Of “Great Public Importance”!

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

< http://mrossarr.nixsyspaus.org/17thamend.shtml>

YES! the time for Secession is upon us, and the only thing that keeps it from blooming now is that the population has not come to realize just how bad its gotten.

Most libertarians are not criminals.
Most libertarians do not want to live in gangs.
Most libertarians, while seeking a means to slow and arrest the growth of leviathan, believe in self-defense, peace and tolerance.

The characterization of arm-chair generals who effect killing so long as it’s far from their own living rooms is more accurately placed, with a few exceptions, on the elitist policy makers that walk the halls of Congress, and who declare war in the name of freedom.

How so?

experiment for yourself. declare yourself prince, your home a castle, and rudd a foreign ruler. let us know how you go.