Kohlhaas blocked again

You cannot circulate an initiative petition to get a referendum on secession in Alaska. This is what the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Kohlhaas v. State II, decided January 15. This decision follows a similar 2006 ruling. The reasoning of the earlier ruling was criticized (or perhaps satirized would be the better word) in the Alaska Bar Association's Bar Rag soon after it was issued.

In the January 15 ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled:

Kohlhaas’s revised initiative seeks either secession itself or a change in the Alaska Constitution to allow secession. We have held that secession from the Union is clearly unconstitutional. We have also held that the Alaska Constitution may not be amended by initiative. Therefore, the lieutenant governor correctly denied the initiative’s certification and it was not error for the superior court to dismiss Kohlhaas’s suit on summary judgment grounds. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court’s judgment.

The Court relied heavily on Texas v. White, an 1868 U.S. Supreme Court decision that basically says that the United States is an "indivisible Union of indestructible States." In other words, statehood is like joining the Mafia -- you can't leave alive. The Court also noted that the Alaska Constitution (written in 1956) contains many references to its relationship with the federal government -- references that were politically necessary if Alaska were ever to become anything more than a territory.

The Court left no room for argument:

[I]f and to the extent Kohlhaas’s revised initiative seeks secession itself, it is clearly unconstitutional and therefore an improper subject for the initiative process.

Period.

After this second Kohlhaas case, it should be clear that the Alaska Constitution, unlike that of Ohio, cannot be amended by an initiative. Article XIII of the Alaska Constitution provides only three methods for amendment: recommendation by two-thirds vote of each house of the State Legislature, by convention, or following a referendum placed by the Lieutenant Governor in which the voters call for a Constitutional Convention.

There is something to be said for having a Constitution that is harder to amend than Ohio's is; but I'm not sure that the initiative route should be completely closed for Constitutional amendments; and in my opinion, the Court's restriction of subject matter as being a priori unconstitutional, was an abuse of its power.

Clearly, achievement of secession by any means will require all the political savvy the Alaska Independence Party can muster. They will have to run an effective statewide campaign, running candidates for every seat in the Alaska legislature, and electing many of them, before secession can become a reality within their legal system.

Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to concentrate on nullification of unconstitutional federal laws that Alaskans find offensive.

Vermont secessionists form slate for state offices

According to the Associated Press (this link to the Los Angeles Times), Vermont secessionists are fielding candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and seven State Senate seats. They are not organized as a political party, but as an informal coalition. The spin on the article not surprisingly pooh-poohs their chances of winning -- but it marks another step forward for American secessionism. Vermont is only the second state in modern times (after Alaska and its Alaska Independence Party), to offer a secessionist slate of candidates for statewide office.



I can guarantee you that it will not be the last.

Hawai'i observing muted 50th

According to this article by Mark Niesse at the Associated Press, Hawai'i isn't celebrating its 50th anniversary of statehood, it is observing it in a muted fashion.

Organizers of the observation are not even willing to call it a party. It is simply a "commemoration," one that is sensitive to a painful history of the Hawaiian monarchy's overthrow and unresolved claims of Native Hawaiians.

The main event is a low-key daylong conference reflecting on Hawaii's place in the world. Behind the tourist-friendly tropical images of beaches and sunshine, many remain uncomfortable with the U.S. takeover of the islands and the idea that businesses have exploited Hawaiians' culture.

This is in contrast to Alaska, which celebrated its 50th earlier this year with fireworks, concerts, and displays of native culture. Both states entered the Union as the result of flawed referenda, which offered the residents only two choices: statehood or continuing as a territory; in defiance of the United Nations Trusteeship agreement (to which the United States was a signatory), stating that such elections should have four choices: statehood, territory, commonwealth (like Puerto Rico), or independence. The referenda were further flawed by the fact that all military -- resident and non-resident -- stationed in the two states were permitted to vote, and were pressured to vote in favor of statehood. The Alasks Independence Party and several Hawai'ian groups note this in their arguments for independence.

"This newfangled idea of celebrating statehood shows that people don't understand Hawaii's history, or if they do understand, then they're celebrating a lie, a theft, that essentially stole a people's right of self-determination," said Poka Laenui, a Hawaiian and attorney who has worked for independence for more than 30 years.

Don't be too surprised if Hawai'i ends up being the first state out. Like Vermont and Texas, Hawai'i was established as an independent nation prior to statehood. It has a distinct culture, and is perfectly capable of making it on its own. In fact, an independent Hawai'i could become something of a regional power in the Pacific, by becoming the largest of several Polynesian nations in the region.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 7/13

Alaska's soon-to-be ex-Governor Sarah Palin signed their HJR 27, officially making Alaska the 7th State to formally enact a State sovereignty resolution.

A resolution has been introduced in Florida, HM 19, on July 1.

Now this is scary!

Update 6/25: So now we learn that the SC Guv was romping in the sheets in Argentina instead of going for a hike. A Republican in a sex scandal. Sanford & Hon.

Update 6/23: The Associated Press (same link as below) now reports that Gov. Sanford was hiking on the Appalachian Trail to enjoy some solitude. Aides say he will be back to work Wednesday.

So I did overreact; however, I do think the Governor should have let his staff (and his wife!) know where he was, even if it is something as vague as "I'm going hiking -- I'll be back next Wednesday."

Original story:

Jim Davenport at the Associated Press reports that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's location is unknown even to his wife and closest aides. Gov. Sanford has expressed reservations about accepting Federal funds for his State. His State also is considering a sovereignty resolution (H 3509) that contains a secession trigger.

I hope that I am overreacting, but this reminds me a little bit too much of a secessionist who ended up giving up his life for the cause, Alaska's Joe Vogler. Mr. Vogler was abducted and killed in 1993, with a strong suspicion that the abduction was carried out secretly by Federal agents.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 3/25

For personal and work-related reasons, I have fallen behind again in reporting the progress of State sovereignty resolutions, so here's the latest:

Alaska HJR27 passed the Senate Apr. 9 by a vote of 19-0. It is awaiting Gov. Sarah Palin's signature, which I imagine won't pose much of a problem...

In Arkansas, HR1011 was reconsidered in committee Apr. 2, only to be defeated in the House the next day by a vote of 34-54.

According to the John Birch Society's Tenth Amendment Movement, Indiana's House resolution HCR50 died in committee Apr. 9, but according to several sources, their Senate resolution SR42 passed Apr. 19 by a vote of 44-3 with 3 abstentions.

After passing their famous nullification act (HB0246) against Federal control of locally-manufactured weapons, the Montana House got cold feet on the regular State sovereignty resolution HR3 and defeated it Apr. 15 in a tie vote 50-50.

The North Dakota Senate passed SR68 Apr. 20. It was returned to the House with an amendment somewhat weakening the language by removing references to the Federal government as being the agent of the States.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update – 4/11/09

I’m a little behind on reporting State sovereignty resolution status, so I am hoping this will make up for lost time:

There is a report, unconfirmed by the Legislative Service Commission, that Ohio’s HCR 11 has been referred to the State Government committee, chaired by Rep. Ronald V. Gerberry (D-Austintown).

In Alaska, HR 9 was replaced with CSHJR 27. It passed the House Apr. 6 by a vote of 37-0 with 3 excused. The measure is under consideration in the State Senate.

The Tenth Amendment Center reports that the Senate version (SR 632) of Georgia’s resolution passed Apr. 1 by a vote of 43-1. Because it is not a joint or concurrent resolution, it will not be considered in the Georgia House.

Indiana’s SCR 37 was replaced with SR0042, which was passed by the Senate Apr. 9 by a vote of 44-3. Like Georgia, the resolution was not joint or concurrent.

HCR 3063 passed the North Dakota House by a vote of 52-40. It has been referred to a Senate committee, which will hold a hearing on it Monday, Apr. 13.

Now the bad news – according to the Tenth Amendment Center, HJR 27 in New Mexico has been tabled in committee. Other bloggers indicate that it may be dead in the water.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has endorsed that State’s resolution (HCR50). The Central Texas Register recorded the event thus:

“As the federal government spends us into generations of inconceivable debt, responsible state governments are trying to insulate themselves, protect their citizens and govern with fiscal common sense. Perry summed up what has become the common concern of people across the nation when he said:

‘I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.’”

The Central Texas Register believes that, with six state legislatures passing resolutions, and several governors, including Gov. Perry and Govs. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Mark Sanford of South Carolina, endorsing them, the movement is “bound to have some impact.” At the very least, Congressional Republicans are beginning to feel pressure not to go soft on fiscal issues.

Even more importantly, notes the Register, it shows that the people are demanding real grassroots change. Cosmetic changes, such as a new President, are no longer enough. The grassroots are calling for fundamental transfer of power away from bureaucrats and politicians and back to the people, who are using the power of State governments under the Constitution to hold the Feds accountable, and to end their abuses of power.

The Tenth Amendment Center writer Karen DeCoster is observing that the major issues driving the grassroots push for change are “guns, gold, and secession”. Yes, she wrote the s word! She notes how each is being applied to the effort to protect and enhance the liberties of the people. (Her reference to secession is more that of the secession triggers in the New Hampshire and South Carolina resolutions).

As I wrote a few days ago, a revolution is coming. Our challenge will be to manage it well.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 3/9

I have learned that Mike Kelly (R) in Alaska introduced HR9 to their House Feb. 25.

What secessionism is all about

Here is the video of a speech by Dexter Clark, Vice Chairman of the Alaska Independence Party, speaking to the Third North American Secessionist Convention, held in Manchester, New Hampshire, last weekend.

He begins with an expanded story of the media circus around Sarah & Todd Palin's involvement, then goes into just why secessionism is the only way we can recover the ideals that made America great. He is a plain spoken man, but his speech is both hilarious and eloquent. Viewing it will be 15 minutes well spent.

Virtual buckeye to Biker Bill at Adventures in the Free State (New Hampshire).

Thank you, Todd Palin!

Secession is now on the table. Examples from today alone:

Capitol Hill Blue uses the Alaska example to thoroughly demolish the arguments against secession. (However, I also agree with the cautionary note of one commenter that an independent Alaska would create a temptation for Vladimir Putin).

Amos Wright at Examiner.com in Cleveland uses the Todd Palin story to look at what he thinks the Alaska Independence Party really means, then explains why secession is not always wrong. In addition to backing up Capitol Hill Blue (above), he cites excellent examples of why secession was a good thing in some other parts of the world.

Joel Henderson at Civil War Talk makes an excellent point about State sovereignty:

“It seems that without this sovereign power of a state to enforce the Constitution against the others, it would be utterly meaningless, except as a list of mere SUGGESTIONS and un-enforcable promises for voters and their chosen officials to consider or ignore as they pleased.”

The New Conservative has an interesting take on State sovereignty in the wake of the Oklahoma resolution:

“And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.”

Finally, we have Michael LeMieux in Restore the Republic acknowledging the real root of the bailout: the addition of the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of Senators) Amendments to the Constitution, and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. While I have a reservations about the “patriot” movement, I will count anyone as a friend who wishes to restore Constitutional government. One of the problems we do have is that the movement for freedom in America is highly fragmented – we have “patriots”, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, two political parties (Libertarian and Constitution), groups like the Ohio Freedom Alliance, secessionists, and many others trying to pursue the same object.

The right of secession is a necessary control on the growth of Federal power. I advocate exercising that right, because I am not confident that the entire nation can reverse its course at this point; but I am willing to be proven wrong. I am working along both tracks because above all, I want all of our people to be free and to regain the opportunity to live up to their potential.

Palin puzzle

Dave Harding at ProgressOhio.com would like to know, if Sarah Palin wasn't a secessionist, then why was she palling around with them? Maybe because the AIP did not have another candidate for governor, thus formed part of her conservative base?

My question is, if Sarah Palin is a secessionist, why is she running for Vice-President?

Gov. Palin's candidacy attracts mainstream media interest in secessionism

Christopher Ketcham wrote an interesting piece on secessionism for the Los Angeles Times. The amazing part is that the Times printed it (also, take a look at the comments, which show us just how shallow the thinking is among knee-jerk unionists). While I doubt that Gov. Palin is really a secessionist, her husband's membership in the Alaska Independence Party and her own address to it have proven to be a publicity coup for the American secessionist movement.

Mr. Ketcham concludes with this interesting observation:

"Secession worries the staid opinion gatekeepers of the major media. Sarah Palin's 'flirtation' with the AIP should make us 'uneasy,' as Rosa Brooks warned in these pages. Palin's secessionist ties raise 'serious questions,' averred the New York Times. A more honest assessment is that the separatism of the Alaskan Independence Party is not so weird or wacky -- or out of keeping with what appears to be a sentiment rooted in that loveliest of American predilections, our crotchety contrarianism."

Virtual buckeye to Carol Moore.

Rushing to a conclusion

For me, Rush Limbaugh is a mixed [wind]bag, but he has his moments; such as in this transcript, where he tells a caller not to be too upset about Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party, because Sens. Obama and Biden supported a bill that could lead to the secession of Hawai'i! *

* As did Sen. McCain!

Gov. Palin and the Alaska Independence Party

Well.

Sen. McCain has named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential nominee, and immediately showed just how carelessly he vetted his running mate. The news that has come out over the weekend has made it clear that his staffers were less than thorough in checking out potential problems in Gov. Palin's candidacy*. Otherwise, the McCain campaign would have been much better prepared to react (or even better, be proactive) to what we now find to be news. Quite aside from her daughter's pregnancy (which I agree is nobody's business), we now have a flap over her remarks to the 2008 convention of the Alaskan Independence Party.



Careful listening tells me that she did not really show strong agreement with the AIP -- instead, she stressed the value of party competition and agreement with their Constitutional values. Her position therefore is not peculiar to the Alaskan Independence Party, but is shared by all who value the Constitution and the freedom it protects.

However, it leaves me scratching my head. If Gov. Palin is sympathetic to the Alaskan Independence Party's platform, why is she running for Vice President of the United States? Shouldn't she be using the bully pulpit to rally Alaskans to a defense of their own interests, and representing those interests outside Alaska? Or is she just one more opportunist on the national political stage?

If she proves to be nothing but an opportunist, she will embarrass both Sen. McCain and the Alaskan Independence Party.

Gov. Palin has some explaining to do.

* Despite claims to the contrary.

Virtual buckeyes to Plunderbund and Rebellion.

The Blood of Patriots

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

– Thomas Jefferson.

Monday is Memorial Day, when we pause to remember and honor those who gave their lives for their country. Traditionally, this observance has been reserved for those who have served in the armed forces. It is fitting that they be remembered, even in the battles that we joined that were not worthy of such a sacrifice.*

However, we need also to remember those who gave up their lives at home in the cause of freedom: John** and Robert Kennedy, Medgar Evers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, and Joe Vogler come to mind.

This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of Joe Vogler's death under highly suspicious circumstances. He was the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, and ran for Governor of Alaska on that ticket in 1972, 1978, and 1986.

Born in Kansas in 1913, Mr. Vogler (right) graduated from the University of Kansas with a law degree. During World War II, he moved to Fairbanks, Alaska, where he worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. He later described Alaska during this period "a place [where] you could do anything you were big enough to try." In 1951, he filed a homestead claim for 320 acres near Fairbanks, and began mining at Homestake Creek. It was this interest in mining that gave him the impetus to begin a political career twenty years later. As has been true with other Western states, the admission of Alaska to the Union in 1959 came with the seizure of large tracts of land by the Federal Government, one of which included his mine. He was never compensated.

Mr. Vogler stressed in his political debates that he believed the biggest problem with the federal government was that they have overstepped the bounds of the Constitution. Vogler challenged the federal government's practice of owning land in Alaska or any other state outside the original limits of the United States Constitution. Vogler believed that federal claims of land for preserves and parks is outside of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and that the federal government has no right to own land in the western states except for "forts, arsenals, dockyards and other needful government uses. " [source]

In 1973, Joe Vogler began to press for Alaskan independence, having learned that the Statehood vote for Alaska was a violation of the rules of the United Nations. The United Nations requires that elections affecting the status of a territory include four options. Using American terminology, those options are Statehood, independence, commonwealth status (e.g., Puerto Rico), and to remain a territory.*** The election held for Statehood in August 1958 included only two options: Statehood or to remain a territory. In addition, United States military personnel who were not legally residents of Alaska were registered to vote in that election and urged to vote for Statehood; and ballots were issued only in English, not also in Inuit tribal languages, as required by the United Nations. Mr. Vogler wrote "Alaska and Statehood: A Factual Primer" in 1990 (cartoon at left is from that source), that explains the legal issues in greater detail. The same year, the AIP won the Gubernatorial election with Walter Hickel as its candidate.

In 1993, as reported by the Juneau Empire this March, Mr. Vogler

"and his miner friends took out full page ads in Anchorage newspapers comparing Alaska with Lithuania and the U.S. with the Soviet Union. He looked for a sponsor in order to speak before the U.N. General Assembly on Alaska independence. Iran was more than happy to oblige.

"Weeks before he was to fly to New York City, friends found his cabin empty on Memorial Day, 1993, his dogs unfed, his car parked in front, his wallet and heart medicine on the kitchen table, and the cage of his pet goose wrapped in a blanket.

"Joe Vogler's remains were found seventeen months later in a gravel pit outside of Fairbanks. A jury ruled Manfred West had killed Joe over the price of dynamite giving the part-time burglar an 80 year sentence for murdering 80 year old Joe. "

In the words of his (distant) cousin, Jeff Trigg:

"Speculation continues to this day, that the killer was set up to take the blame and that is was a government plot to keep Joe from that United Nations presentation for sovereignty. Yeah, it's conspiracy theory stuff, but it's also exactly how Joe predicted he would go."

We probably shall never know the whole truth about his death, but let there be no doubt that Joe Vogler was a martyr in the cause of freedom, whose name deserves to be remembered this weekend.

* I commend to you a book by Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, War Is a Racket, which explains how American corporations profited from World War I (a war I never could understand in terms of the American national interest).

** There is a small bit of evidence to back a conspiracy theory suggesting that the motive for President Kennedy's assassination had to do with a plan to issue United States Notes, which would have represented a commitment to specie-based currency, and would have broken the Federal Reserve Bank.

*** The same violations occurred in Hawaii's election for statehood, and support that state's movements for independence.