portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

corporate dominance | human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Declaration of Cascadian Intent...

Free Cascadia!
Whereas, on July 4, 1776, our founding fathers proclaimed that the people had the right to alter or abolish their government and declared thirteen British colonies to be free and independent, or sovereign, states; and

Whereas, on March 1, 1781, the thirteen states formed a central government they called the United States of America under a charter known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which stated that "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence"; and

Whereas, on September 17, 1787, the leaders of the Continental Congress signed the present Constitution of the United States, which was then transmitted to the thirteen states for ratification and the formation of a new central government; and

Whereas, several of the states delayed ratification of the Constitution and three states made clear their position regarding sovereignty by stating that "the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"; and

Whereas, eventually all thirteen of the independent states ratified the Constitution of the United States and joined the new Union, while retaining their sovereignty as states. The states made the new central government sovereign only to the extent that the states delegated to it limited and specific powers; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States is merely a treaty among sovereigns, and under treaty law when one party violates the treaty the other parties are automatically released from further adherence to it unless they wish to continue; and

Whereas, the fifty current principals, or signatories, to the treaty 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; and

Whereas, under Article V, Constitution of the United States, three-fourths of the states may abolish the federal government. In the alternative, if the states choose to exercise their inherent right as sovereigns, fewer than thirty-eight states may lawfully choose to ignore Article V, Constitution of the United States, and 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.


Be it resolved by the People of Cascadia,

That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the People of Cascadia, declare as follows: that the Cascadian People resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the People re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States 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, similarly following the precedent and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the military return to their respective states within Cascadia and report to the Governor until a new President is elected; that all land within the borders of Cascadia belongs to the People until sold or ceded to the central government by the People's duly elected representitives.
ok 21.Feb.2004 03:10


Sounds reasonable.

The problem with this argument 21.Feb.2004 05:27

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

The basis of the argument is that the Consititution is in effect a "treaty" between the several sovereign states. OK, let's take that seriously. WHERE/WHAT is the party the authors are considering to be violating this treaty? Doesn't exist. There is no such entity EXCEPT as the result of this "treaty" between the states. No Federal entity which could be in violation of the treaty -- the Federal government EXISTS by virtue of this "treaty", it's not a "signatory".

What a sovereign state "signing on" to this argument is REALLY saying is that there is a dispute between itself and other sovereign states collectively constituting the Federal government (and doing somethign collectively that the first state finds objectionable).

Wake Up! 21.Feb.2004 07:40


Your intentions might be good, but let me point something out. The authors of the constitution were themselves wealthy, classist pigs of the same ilk of the people they were declaring their independence from.

This "independence" was not intended for the masses--it was intended for the upper class property owners. The common people were living in poverty and had few rights. You should read your history--try Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." After giving the matter some thought, you probably won't be so anxious to quote the constitution in the future.

why use an old constitution? 21.Feb.2004 09:49

not u.s.

It seems natural that, if the people of Cascadia choose, for whatever reasons, to separate themselves from the United States of America, they should write a new constitution or constitution for themselves. If good ideas are to be found in the US constitution, all the better. Likewise, good ideas for securing the rights of the people and the protection of the living world could be found in other documents and philosophies, and incorporated into the new vision of Cascadia.

There is no reason for us to burden ourselves with an archaic document in whole. On the other hand, it would be the height of stupidity to ignore ideas that have shown their value over time. (Separation of powers, for example, though currently threatened in the US, has been an effective strategy for maintaining and even expanding rights.)

But remember, it is in part the failure of the current US constitution that is represented by the current crisis of democracy. The executive has usurped far too much power, and insufficient safeguards separating financial and theocratic power from the government show the weaknesses of the current constitution.

I'd argue that we should start over.

Join my militant celibacy group 21.Feb.2004 12:47

Major W

Militant only in the sense that we believe very stronlgy in celibacy.

The natural way to disengage ourselves from the East Coast is to follow the natural path practiced by Ghandi and MLK and preached by Thoreau. Natural in the sense that civil disobedience ultimately unravels everything, even the tightest knots. We can't expect to take up arms against nuclear subs and satellite guided missiles, but if we can continuously get clubbed on the head, eventually this colony out west will wear down the elites.

I mention celibacy because in a sense, that is civil disobedience, and both Ghandi and Thoreau were practicioners. Thoreau, in fact, may have died a virgin. Celibacy brings to the mind the intense focus needed for...more intense focus. Organization, planning, details, the mind of the celibate has a grasp on these things like no other. Consider Hitler--mostly celibate for most of his life (I'm guessing). He got things done.

Other forms of civil disobedience are good too, but consider that they all work off of, or all find their way back to, celibacy.

Celibacy. Try it today.

about the Constitution, Richard 21.Feb.2004 15:34

purple punk

Although you're right about those folks who wrote our constitution, that doesn't mean it's not a great bit of writing with some lofty concepts. That we were lucky enough to have these great ideas re-interpreted to do things the founding fathers never intended is wonderful. So why would a person forsake the Constitution just because of disagreements with the people who wrote it?

why forsake the constitution 21.Feb.2004 20:57

unterrified Jeffersonian democrat

I think Thomas Jefferson was a pretty smart dude, and had it about right - the constitution should be tossed every 20 years or so, and re-created to reflect contemporary reality. Of course, this would absolutely require a population truly engaged in political life.

staying with the times... 21.Feb.2004 21:53

purple punk

The Bill of Rights has changed over time. In the sense that the Supreme Court chooses to interprete the Constitution differently as time goes by, the Constitution has been re-created. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. What would you like to see scrapped that's in the Constitution?

Your point about the need for an engaged population is valid. And we don't have one. And frankly, given the hostile tone of this nation to minorities of color, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and political orientation, I would hate to see our Constitution scrapped.