Arizona
Makes
Preparations For Secession
By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
2-6-2000
Sightings
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." Karen
Johnson, Arizona state representative
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/members/kjohnson.htm 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the Articles of Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles."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.
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/members/bbrother.htmRep. 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.