From: Juneau Empire [the article is not dated; though, this is our capitol's main newspaper]
Parnell trashes petition for Alaska’s independence
By Gregg Erickson
The union of Alaska with the United States is again safe, thanks to the vigilance of Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell and the Alaska Supreme Court. Earlier this month Parnell refused to certify an initiative petition that would have asked Alaska voters whether the state should “seek changes in existing law and constitutional provisions to authorize … independence from the United States.”
Certification would have meant the group could try to gather the roughly 35,000 signatures needed to get their proposition on the ballot. I think they’d have about zero chance of that; but according to Parnell, seeking changes in the U.S. and Alaska constitutions to allow independence is itself unconstitutional, and therefore something that Alaskans can’t be allowed to vote on, or even sign up for.
The petition Parnell trashed was submitted by Scott Kohlhass and 242 others, including Lynette Clark, the chair of the Alaska Independence Party and a disciple of the late Alaska independence advocate Joe Vogler. …
In 2003 Parnell’s predecessor, Loren Leman, threw out a similar petition. Kohlhass sued, taking his case to the Alaska Supreme Court. The justices wrapped themselves in Old Glory before coming down on Kohlhass like a Mt. Roberts avalanche….
The logic of the court’s opinion goes like this: Kohlhass wants Alaska independence; independence is the same as secession, which is unconstitutional; therefore the Kohlhass initiative is unconstitutional. The full opinion uses the words “secede” and “secession” 26 times; read it yourself on the web at www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6087.pdf.
The hole in the court’s logic is that the initiative does not seek secession; indeed, the proposition Kohlhass wishes to gather signatures for never uses that word. Secession is a unilateral act, like South Carolina’s 1860 withdrawal from the Union. What Kohlhass and his associates seek is a constitutional change, so Alaska – with the consent of the people of Alaska and the U.S. – can become independent.
Related:
Chuck Baldwin: Breakup Of U.S. Is Inevitable — State secession is the last best option
For the shock of your life (and Chuck Missler’s), Google “Chuck Missler – Copyist”! Jon
Comment by Jon — January 29, 2009 @ 9:44 pm |
What a random previous comment for a post about Alaskan independence.
Comment by Tom — February 21, 2009 @ 6:37 am |
The subject of Alaska’s secession from the United States is nothing new. It has been talked about since the pipeline days of the 1970′s, and even earlier during our debates in the Alaska Statehood Commission talks in the late 1950′s. What is different today is that we are not talking about oil revenues, and we are not talking about joining a union of free states. Instead, we are talking about whether Alaska should strongly support an America that abides by its Constitution or abandons it in favor of the communist model. I am in favor of freedom. How about you?
Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2009 @ 5:50 pm |
If anybody’s interested: Pastor Chuck Baldwin said today on “The Alex Jones Show” this somewhat related statement:
“Alex, I really think that ultimately, the maintenance of freedom is going to come down to the states. It began with the states, and I think it’s going to end with the states. We are either going to maintain the freedoms that we find enumerated in the Bill of Rights at the state level, or I think we are not going to maintain freedom at all.”
Jeff
Comment by Jeff Fenske — May 18, 2009 @ 6:14 pm |
As of this post, I have not read the Alaska State Constitution. However, I did read the Federal Constitution. In no place does it say that a State can not secede from the Union. It state that a state can not be formed within another state or part of state or state joining as one state without approval by the legislatures of the states and congress. So if a people of a state wishes their legislature to consider the matter and by their approval, the state is already half way there. It is then up to Congress for final approval. At least that is the way I understand it from reading the constitution. So the governor is wrong but perhaps this lie of it being unconstitutional is meant to deter instability a secession may cause. With Alaska however, there should be fear that should this happen and the people get their wish, who will defend us? Should we count on the US? Canada? Russia? Leaving one nation and asking for protection of another may result in having to join that nation is some form. To think that a place like Alaska with our rich resource, strategic location can be just ho-hum free is ridicules. Leaving the US could be too costly in the future. Seriously, look at it.
Comment by Chris — April 16, 2010 @ 2:42 am |
“Who will defend us” is definitely the big question.
Comment by Jeff Fenske — April 16, 2010 @ 3:24 am |
America was misled Alaska in the beginning, when statehood was offered. Alaska was herded and coaxed into becoming a state by the United States government. I am not saying Alaska should secede, nor am I saying they shouldn’t. However, I do think it should be up to the residents of Alaska to make that decision. Alaska should have the choice that it was entitled in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.
And with thoughts of defending Alaska. We would have to make the Alaska State Defense Force much bigger and make it a permanent component of the Alaskan government.
Comment by Anonymous — July 31, 2011 @ 9:34 am |
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Comment by Anonymous — August 1, 2011 @ 1:56 pm |