The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: IsailedawayfromFR on June 19, 2016, 04:43:59 pm
-
How closely is Daniel Miller tracking the news ahead of the referendum about whether Britain should leave the European Union? “Hourly!” he grins. The Sun’s recent editorial calling for the UK’s departure got him quite excited.
Miller, though, is not from London or Liverpool. He hails from Longview, Texas, and we are talking in a cafe in the bleakly industrial Gulf coast town of Port Arthur, some 5,000 miles from Westminster.
Culturally, too, we are a long way from Europe. Heck, we are even a long way from Dallas. But the referendum matters deeply to Miller and like-minded Texans. As the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, which wants Texas to secede from the United States, he is hoping for a Leave vote that he believes will ripple all the way from Austria to Austin.
“There are a lot of people asking, if Brexit why not Texit?” he says. “I do talk with some folks over there on a pretty regular basis that are involved in Ukip and the Conservative party.”
The night before we met, Miller addressed a local Tea Party group, drawing parallels between Brexit and Texit, which the TNM is pushing as a hashtag. In Miller’s telling, Britain’s relationship with Europe was a marriage of convenience between ill-suited partners that has become stormy and ripe for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, with too much sovereignty ceded to an ineffective central bureaucracy and too much hard-earned money sent elsewhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/19/texas-secession-movement-brexit-eu-referendum
-
Keep the Flatlanders out of New Mexican ski-resorts.
-
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.
-
Texas is already listed as a minority-majority state, demographic shifts have been forecasted for a long time and I don't put a lot into such forecasts but their are some notoriously blue Democratic areas of Texas such as El Paso, parts along the Rio Grande and so on. I love all people but I am weary of some voting blocs.
-
A previous discussion on this topic... (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,210791.msg917027.html#msg917027)
-
When DC no longer has the ability to pay the interest on the debt without cutting other bennies...that when the breakup will begin in earnest.
-
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.
We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
-
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.
We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
Agree. I speculate that DC will essentially be out of money within about 10 years or less. It simply will no longer have the means to fund governance of a nation of this size.
Just like the Romans, when the empire became too far flung and expensive to maintain, governance gave way to either other empires taking the territory or political independence to the people within it.
-
Fortunately, we don't need a majority to go independent. Just a dedicated minority of activists.
The key will be an outrageous event by D.C. (e.g. a national gun grab) where there are enough Texans to say "enough."
California and New York would both say "good riddance" if Texas wanted to leave peacefully. And it makes sense to go before there is a default on the national debt.
The question that remains is whether key players in the Texas GOP can be convinced that it would be beneficial to their own interests to declare independence.
I'd suggest it would make sense to make it a two-fer offer to Fed Gov. We go independent simultaneously with Hawaii doing the same (or they bring in Puerto Rico as a replacement state for Texas). In other words, make it a short-term irresistible offer.
-
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.
We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
Exactly. If we haven't been able to have a Convention of the States during the last seven years of extra-Constitutional rule from Zero and the Roberts traitorous decision on Obamacare, I doubt we ever will. If a Union can be formed, it can be disbanded. Forcing the South to rejoin the Union was antithetical to State's Rights and God-given freedom.
-
Fortunately, we don't need a majority to go independent. Just a dedicated minority of activists.
The key will be an outrageous event by D.C. (e.g. a national gun grab) where there are enough Texans to say "enough."
California and New York would both say "good riddance" if Texas wanted to leave peacefully. And it makes sense to go before there is a default on the national debt.
The question that remains is whether key players in the Texas GOP can be convinced that it would be beneficial to their own interests to declare independence.
I'd suggest it would make sense to make it a two-fer offer to Fed Gov. We go independent simultaneously with Hawaii doing the same (or they bring in Puerto Rico as a replacement state for Texas). In other words, make it a short-term irresistible offer.
We do want to leave peacefully and the Texas Nationalist Movement has been working towards it for years.
http://www.thetnm.org/
-
Oceander wrote above:
"For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago."
Not "settled".
Suppressed.
-
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.
-
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.
This southerner residing in Texas doesn't consider them "special" rights. Massachusetts, California, and Wisconsin enjoy the same rights, as do the remaining states. If a state *cannot* leave the union at will, there is no government by consent of the governed.
-
This southerner residing in Texas doesn't consider them "special" rights. Massachusetts, California, and Wisconsin enjoy the same rights, as do the remaining states. If a state *cannot* leave the union at will, there is no government by consent of the governed.
The North forced the South back into the Union which goes against our basic freedom and rights. Why is it okay for the EU to break-up and not the United States? Why was the break-up of the Soviet Union hailed by the world? Texas is tired of being a donor state and having unconstitutional federal programs forced on us by an out-of-control federal government.
-
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.
That is decidedly not the way this country was founded. Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?
The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense. These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.
Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union? If not, then you are purely conjecturing.
-
That is decidedly not the way this country was founded. Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?
The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense. These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.
Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union? If not, then you are purely conjecturing.
Excellent post.
-
That is decidedly not the way this country was founded. Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?
The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense. These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.
Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union? If not, then you are purely conjecturing.
Forced slavery? Stop it. First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.
-
States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
They are not sovereign countries, but that begs the question, which is "Can they be?" The original 13 existed before the union, and agreed to associate themselves voluntarily into a union; the states formed the union by choice, the union did not form the states. Each later state was accepted on an equal basis with the original 13, joining the union by choice.
Many of us believe, still, that the twisted meaning lies in insisting that the choice was a one time, non-changeable decision.
-
If the federal government disregards the Constitution, then the states are free to go independent or reform into a new union
-
I live in Texas and I would vote for it.
Democrat leaders outside Texas would support it, because it would doom the rest of the nation to complete Democrat control.
-
Forced slavery? Stop it. First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.
The constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When the Federal Government won't follow it's own founding documents, it is tyranny.
-
Forced slavery? Stop it. First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.
You really need a good read of the Constitution.
It clearly states that this is a Union of States, not a country that happens to have states within it.
It also clearly states what powers these states give to this Union, with any not expressed reserved to each state.
Why is that difficult for you to understand?
-
As a conservative living in Massachusetts, I would prefer they stay. We need their votes. It's that simple. I know you want to wave the rest of the union away, but I really think you should reconsider.
-
I live in Texas and I would vote for it.
Democrat leaders outside Texas would support it, because it would doom the rest of the nation to complete Democrat control.
Yeah but I'd expect 20+ states to follow, and Austin be the new capitol of a smaller USA.
Our Federal govt is at a financial dead end, at some point it won't be wish or desire as much as it is necessity.
-
The constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When the Federal Government won't follow it's own founding documents, it is tyranny.
Refer me to the section of the constitution that SPECIFICALLY provides for secession. The tenth amendment is what it is....it defines the powers of the fed. gov and leaves the rest to the states. By only very twisted logic can a person interpret that to mean the states have the right to secede.
-
You really need a good read of the Constitution.
It clearly states that this is a Union of States, not a country that happens to have states within it.
It also clearly states what powers these states give to this Union, with any not expressed reserved to each state.
Why is that difficult for you to understand?
What does the word union mean to you? Don't you think that if the Founders had believed that states had the right to secede if they felt like it, they would have put it the constitution with specific instructions.
You're like all the states rightists. You're trying reason backwards. You think South had the right to secede so you're going to find some part of the constitution that supposedly gives states the right to secede. Except it doesn't. The tenth amendment merely defines the powers of the fed. gov and the states. These powers are meant for use WITHIN!!! the union. In no way does it provide for secession.
-
As a conservative living in Massachusetts, I would prefer they stay. We need their votes. It's that simple. I know you want to wave the rest of the union away, but I really think you should reconsider.
Sorry, but I lived near you in Connecticut for a number of years, and now that I am back in Texas, I have even more reason for Texas to leave this Union. Sorta like the many NY upstaters wanting to leave NYC to its own.
You are welcome to join us if you can pass the necessary tests for admittance.
I can let you know a few of the questions involve: what is the best wood to use to BBQ, how do you say the word meaning more than one person, and how many stars on our the state flag. Oh, there will be a firearms accuracy test as well.
-
Lets look at this logically:
if we allowed every state, locality and ultimately ... individual to secede from the union at will we'd be a patchwork of fiefdoms. However, the opposite is forcing everyone to be a part of the union against their will, also not a good situation. What should the rule be for how a state can lawfully secede? A state referendum? Should localities be allowed to secede if so?
Again, I would urge Texas to rethink. I am a Massachusetts conservative and we really need Texas votes: electoral, and Congressional.
-
Sorry, but I lived near you in Connecticut for a number of years, and now that I am back in Texas, I have even more reason for Texas to leave this Union. Sorta like the many NY upstaters wanting to leave NYC to its own.
You are welcome to join us if you can pass the necessary tests for admittance.
I can let you know a few of the questions involve: what is the best wood to use to BBQ, how do you say the word meaning more than one person, and how many stars on our the state flag. Oh, there will be a firearms accuracy test as well.
Politically NYC sucks but damn if it isn't an amazing city. I'd prefer it remain part of the union. I'm proud to have it in the US.
-
Yeah but I'd expect 20+ states to follow, and Austin be the new capitol of a smaller USA.
Our Federal govt is at a financial dead end, at some point it won't be wish or desire as much as it is necessity.
Tell me exactly how the people who want to secede are going to go about it. They all get together and say we're seceding or words to that effect? So the rest of the state including the authorities with guns are just going to say alright, you win? How are they going to do it? Be specific.
-
What does the word union mean to you? Don't you think that if the Founders had believed that states had the right to secede if they felt like it, they would have put it the constitution with specific instructions.
You're like all the states rightists. You're trying reason backwards. You think South had the right to secede so you're going to find some part of the constitution that supposedly gives states the right to secede. Except it doesn't. The tenth amendment merely defines the powers of the fed. gov and the states. These powers are meant for use WITHIN!!! the union. In no way does it provide for secession.
It is not a forced union. And there are no specific instructions in the Constitution, so those rights are reserved for the States so, surprise, secession is there in the 10th Amendment.
You really desperately need to reread the document. Obviously, the libs are interpreting it for you.
-
Politically NYC sucks but damn if it isn't an amazing city. I'd prefer it remain part of the union. I'm proud to have it in the US.
And I can say the same about Massachusetts: Proud to have it in the US, but boy does it suck politically. Funny though, after living in the South, West Coast and New England, I considered the people in New England to be the most patriotic of the three. Just can't figure out why their politics are sometimes as crazy as California's.
-
It is not a forced union. And there are no specific instructions in the Constitution, so those rights are reserved for the States so, surprise, secession is there in the 10th Amendment.
You really desperately need to reread the document. Obviously, the libs are interpreting it for you.
It's just your opinion, nothing more.
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
-
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.
We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
That was the question back when, too. These United States were no longer united. It was, after all a federation, a republic composed of the several States, with a Federal Government only to issue money, keep the post roads open, and provide for the common defense--and to settle disputes between those States. With the War of Northern Aggression, to force the States which seceded from the prior arrangement to return, These United States became The United States, and the Federal Government started a process of stripping the several States of their power and usurping that power to itself as a National Government, not a Federal Government.
How could those who penned the words that Government's just powers are derived from the consent of the governed force that association even after the people in those States had revoked their consent?
-
And I can say the same about Massachusetts: Proud to have it in the US, but boy does it suck politically. Funny though, after living in the South, West Coast and New England, I considered the people in New England to be the most patriotic of the three. Just can't figure out why their politics are sometimes as crazy as California's.
I don't think our politics are as crazy as California's actully. Massachusetts is more "old Democrat" than the nuts and fruits variety in California. A Northeastern Illinois basically.
-
Lets look at this logically:
What should the rule be for how a state can lawfully secede? A state referendum? Should localities be allowed to secede if so?
Again, I would urge Texas to rethink. I am a Massachusetts conservative and we really need Texas votes: electoral, and Congressional.
State referendum seems right. If the localities voluntarily associated themselves together to create the state, as the states did to create the union, then the localities should enjoy the right to secession based on the same theory.
-
Lets look at this logically:
if we allowed every state, locality and ultimately ... individual to secede from the union at will we'd be a patchwork of fiefdoms. However, the opposite is forcing everyone to be a part of the union against their will, also not a good situation. What should the rule be for how a state can lawfully secede? A state referendum? Should localities be allowed to secede if so?
Again, I would urge Texas to rethink. I am a Massachusetts conservative and we really need Texas votes: electoral, and Congressional.
I realize where you are coming from but my logic is that those who wish to drag down this country should be allowed to do so but not to the detriment of others.
It is why I believe states rights are paramount for this country. As long as states are free to decide the economic, social and political laws for the citizens of that state, then any citizens that differs can move to another state. Sooner or later, the state will have a rebellion as it sees citizens leaving in droves and its economy tanks.
The intrusion of the federal presence eliminates this. As an example, if all laws or taxes are federal, then one cannot escape unless one leaves the country.
-
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.
We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
It's your typical internet conservative ridiculous reasoning. It's like TBL in 2011. We all left FR during the last primary, formed a new website called TBL. This web site was unique in that it allowed liberals. Well of course this angered the conservatives who left the site in a huff, formed a new second website. Well this allowed "RINO"s to post there. So the "true conservatives" left to form a third website, which is, last I checked identical to FreeRepublic. What's funny is that a few of the posters at this third website left there and now post here, over what I presume is the Trump vs. Cruz schism.
THere was a poster there named BobJ, an old FR exile, who was part of JR's inner circle, who predicted the website would splinter. And it did exactly that.
This constant desire by conservative to cry and take their ball and go home is a prescription for constant anarchy and chaos. It's babyish. Maybe their true desire is to live in complete anarchy? I don't know.
I have no sympathy for these arguments as you can tell.
-
It's your typical internet conservative ridiculous reasoning.
This constant desire by conservative to cry and take their ball and go home is a prescription for constant anarchy and chaos. It's babyish. Maybe their true desire is to live in complete anarchy? I don't know.
So the desire to secede might be unwise. It does not follow that there is no right to secede.
-
It's your typical internet conservative ridiculous reasoning.
Unsure what to make of that, as I never heard of a 'typical internet conservative' before.
wish you would explain a bit more.
-
Unsure what to make of that, as I never heard of a 'typical internet conservative' before.
wish you would explain a bit more.
Just hear this sort of reasoning on the internet all the time "let's take our ball and leave". It gets ridiculous after a while.
-
Refer me to the section of the constitution that SPECIFICALLY provides for secession. The tenth amendment is what it is....it defines the powers of the fed. gov and leaves the rest to the states. By only very twisted logic can a person interpret that to mean the states have the right to secede.
You are missing the point. The federal government has already broken the agreement of the union of states.
-
You are missing the point. The federal government has already broken the agreement of the union of states.
I'm not missing any point. You're missing the point. You do have the right to rebel against a tyrannical gov. But state secession and rebelling against a tyrannical gov. are necessarily the same thing.
If you think the gov. is tyrannical (and sometimes it is, usually in petty forms) you first apply democratic methods to get rid of the tyranny.
If the tyranny persists, and it is real tyranny, (citizens are arbitrarily being jailed, beaten, silenced, etc. in unconstitutional ways) then you must convince other tyrannized citizens of the problem and take measures which might become violent.
This is not the same thing as trying to get your state to leave the union. That issue has been settled. You can't unilaterally do it.
-
I'm not missing any point. You're missing the point. You do have the right to rebel against a tyrannical gov. But state secession and rebelling against a tyrannical gov. are necessarily the same thing.
If you think the gov. is tyrannical (and sometimes it is, usually in petty forms) you first apply democratic methods to get rid of the tyranny.
Multiple law suits about the abuse of power of the federal government have been ongoing for decades. This isn't a new or unaddressed issue.
If the tyranny persists, and it is real tyranny, (citizens are arbitrarily being jailed, beaten, silenced, etc. in unconstitutional ways) then you must convince other tyrannized citizens of the problem and take measures which might become violent.
Stolen property, loss of rights, armed attacks (Waco and others), unfair taxation, you know, similar items that proceeded the revolutionary war.
This is not the same thing as trying to get your state to leave the union. That issue has been settled. You can't unilaterally do it.
That issue is only settled for those that don't want it. Others have far different opinions.
-
The constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When the Federal Government won't follow it's own founding documents, it is tyranny.
I am a BIG 10th amendment person.
-
What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??
-
All the naysayers could go to the Texas Nationalist Movement website and learn about their efforts in the Texas State Legislature. Instead of trashing the idea- do your due diligence about the process.
http://www.thetnm.org/
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://www.thetnm.org/did_the_supreme_court_make_secession_illegal_in_texas_v_white
Texas v. White is a Supreme Court case that occurred after the War Between The States that dealt with bonds sold by the Confederate government of Texas. The post-war government wanted the bonds back from the person to whom they were sold. Although the legal status of Texas was at the heart of the case, the issue of secession was not the central point of the argument. However, the court took the opportunity to sound off on the issue. There have been volumes written about the problems with Texas v. White, but here are some of the key issues.
First, the Supreme Court is often wrong. Whether it’s the Dred Scott case which declared that natural rights did not extend to people of African descent or the ObamaCare case which expanded the “commerce clause” of the Constitution out of the bounds of the what the Framers intended, the Supreme Court is known for making very poor decisions which are later found to be wrong and immoral. Texas v. White is one of those and proponents are cut from the same cloth as the people that over 150 years ago believed that African-Americans were property.
Next, the majority opinion was crafted by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who, by virtue of the fact that he had a direct relationship with the issue of the bonds while acting as the Secretary of the Treasury, should have recused himself. He did not. This is similar to Elena Kagan’s work for the Obama administration on ObamaCare, then, after her appointment to the Supreme Court, ruling on the same issue. In addition, five of the Justices were Lincoln appointees turning a decision by the Supreme Court into a political statement justifying the war.
Additionally, the logic that Chase uses in his opinion defies rational explanation. The decision is full of inconsistencies that, when exposed, make Texans shake their heads. In his dicta, Chase states that the Union is “indestructible” and then lists two methods for leaving the Union. He states that the Union is comprised of “indestructible states”. If that’s the case, then he should have explained that to West Virginia. That statement is not consistent with Article IV Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and would also invalidate the annexation agreement between Texas and the United States that gives Texas the right to divide into 5 states. Chase bases his conclusions on his belief that the Constitution was a mere amendment to the Articles of Confederation thereby putting the United States under two conflicting governing documents and officially putting anyone who supports Texas v. White into the category of “wearers of tin foil hats”.
Finally, Texas v. White is found wanting in, not only the political tradition of the Founders, but also in a modern political context. At the end of World War 2 there were 54 recognized countries in the world. At the end of the 20th century, there were 192. The independence of the vast majority of these “new” countries were supported in their right of independence by the United States Federal Government. Either independence is a fundamental, moral right or it is not. Texas v. White, a Supreme Court decision from the 1860s says that it is not a fundamental right. However, 150 years of history, Federal Government policy and the spirit of the people say otherwise. Much like early Supreme Court cases declared slavery and segregation moral and legal, we live in a day and age where we find attitudes like this reprehensible.
In a land where people cherish the right of self-government, the ability to live free and regularly send the best of us to fight and die for that right for other people in the world, Texas v. White stands as an anachronism. Texas v. White, and support of it, is the worst kind of judicial activism, requires an amazing suspension of belief, is rooted in fundamental ignorance of the history and legal foundation of the Union, completely disregards the natural rights of the people, ignores the sovereign rights of the states and is the moral equivalent of supporting involuntary servitude.
-
At the end of World War 2 there were 54 recognized countries in the world. At the end of the 20th century, there were 192. The independence of the vast majority of these “new” countries were supported in their right of independence by the United States Federal Government. Either independence is a fundamental, moral right or it is not.
Excellent point. We are living in a banana republic and the government schools have done a fine job dumbing down the populace so people are not aware of how we have strayed from the Founder's vision of Independent States with a weak federal government with limited powers.
-
http://www.thetnm.org/did_the_supreme_court_make_secession_illegal_in_texas_v_white
In a land where people cherish the right of self-government, the ability to live free and regularly send the best of us to fight and die for that right for other people in the world, Texas v. White stands as an anachronism. Texas v. White, and support of it, is the worst kind of judicial activism, requires an amazing suspension of belief, is rooted in fundamental ignorance of the history and legal foundation of the Union, completely disregards the natural rights of the people, ignores the sovereign rights of the states and is the moral equivalent of supporting involuntary servitude.
Texas is unique for the two exceptions given the country of Texas when it agreed to enter the Union, that no other states possesses.
1. It had the right to secede split into five states at any time. Some will argue this is no longer a right when Texas joined the Confederacy and then returned to the Union. Whether it is or not, it shows the wariness of the state in giving up freedoms.
2. It preserved state lands when it joined. This was handled differently than other states as these lands became federal. The consequence of this is still in effect today: very little lands in Texas are in federal hands, and the state is blessed with state lands that are rich in resources, and huge amounts of lands in private hands, also which also have rich resources. These resources are in federal hands in places like the Rockies, by and large.
Both of these reflect the individual character of a Texan.
I am with you 100%
-
What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??
It will not be there anyway as both are Ponzi schemes hatched to get votes by crooked politicians., so what's the big deal?
Any morsel for me there is greatly compensated for by the cessation of the onerous federal taxation and the instant eraser of the thousands of federal regulations.
Besides, what are you going to do about the federal debt?
-
What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??
There is no Constitutional Authority for either program. That stinks, especially for people who have been paying taxes since we were 14, and are not far from getting something back, but it is likely we're screwed, anyway. I expect to work until I die.
-
Texas is unique for the two exceptions given the country of Texas when it agreed to enter the Union, that no other states possesses.
1. It had the right to secede at any time. Some will argue this is no longer a right when Texas joined the Confederacy and then returned to the Union. Whether it is or not, it shows the wariness of the state in giving up freedoms.
2. It preserved state lands when it joined. This was handled differently than other states as these lands became federal. The consequence of this is still in effect today: very little lands in Texas are in federal hands, and the state is blessed with state lands that are rich in resources, and huge amounts of lands in private hands, also which also have rich resources. These resources are in federal hands in places like the Rockies, by and large.
Both of these reflect the individual character of a Texan.
I am with you 100%
Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have. The idea that Texas has the right to secede if it feels like it is baloney.
-
There is no Constitutional Authority for either program. That stinks, especially for people who have been paying taxes since we were 14, and are not far from getting something back, but it is likely we're screwed, anyway. I expect to work until I die.
What really stinks is that it is being gradually taken away from you, so it is not some type of automatic 'lockbox' like AlGore was so fond of saying.
ON SS, first it was Bill Clinton's taxation of it(even though it had already been taxed when you paid into it), then it was the graduated reduction in benefits if someone like you decides to work longer.
On Medicare, there is also the additional premium that someone must pay should he decide to be working past 64, in spite of paying all those many years into it.
So where are the so-called 'benefits'? It is a deliberate, first-rate Ponzi scheme that would be a crime if a private enterprise tried to set up something similar.
The next generation will be hit worse, and our grandkids will have nada.
-
It is not a forced union. And there are no specific instructions in the Constitution, so those rights are reserved for the States so, surprise, secession is there in the 10th Amendment.
You really desperately need to reread the document. Obviously, the libs are interpreting it for you.
You're pulling your "facts" out of your hindquarters. If the Founders had given states the right to secede, it would have specifically engraved it in the constitution. The fact that there is no provision for secession means states cannot unilaterally secede.
Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.
Trying to use the tenth amendment as a provision for secession is a trick states rightists use to try and fool other people.
-
Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have.
Better read the Congressional Resolution adopted March 1, 1845 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan01.asp and the complementary one of December 29, 1845 http://legisworks.org/sal/9/stats/STATUTE-9-Pg108a.pdf.
Article 4, section 3 of the US Constitution provides new states be admitted upon approval of Congress.
-
State referendum seems right. If the localities voluntarily associated themselves together to create the state, as the states did to create the union, then the localities should enjoy the right to secession based on the same theory.
Why don't you try and think things through. A state is having success with business thriving and the people reasonably happy. But then a group of people who are not happy for various reasons convince a bunch of other people to go along with them and leave the union. I don't know if you'd want a simple majority or two thirds...whatever.
So here you have a state with mostly content people all of a sudden members of a foreign country.
Are you serious? You say every state has the right to secede. That means states like Iowa or Nebraska could secede and be an independent country. Of course, so could any other states. I suppose you think those states could then rejoin the Union if they felt like.
Do you realize what a catastrophe those events would entail? You'd have unhappy citizens who were previously happy leaving the "foreign" countries to get away from the crazy people.
But there are crazy people in every state, and they could all at times convince otherwise sane people to join them in secession. You'd have people going from state to state (or "independent" country to state) and back again. And we haven't even gotten into the question about how an "independent" country like Iowa would organize itself and create its own currency, foreign trade, etc.
This kind of crazy secession (and supposedly unsecession) could go on endlessly. Utter insanity.
So take some time and think about the consequences of legal secession and the genius of the Founders in not putting legal secession in the constitution.
-
Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.
So much for someone pulling 'facts' out of their hindquarters. Pure conjecture without a leg to stand on.
-
Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have. The idea that Texas has the right to secede if it feels like it is baloney.
Where is the provision in the Constitution that says the States do not have the right? If that limitation was not placed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment should apply.
-
Tell me exactly how the people who want to secede are going to go about it. They all get together and say we're seceding or words to that effect? So the rest of the state including the authorities with guns are just going to say alright, you win? How are they going to do it? Be specific.
OK, I'll be specific. This isn't based on any kind of special knowledge of the laws involved, just my take on a logical way for it to happen.
1. Those Texas citizens in favor of secession from the Union make their case, and get a referendum put on the state ballot so all the citizens of Texas can vote on it;
2. If the referendum to secede passes, then the State Legislature would be instructed to petition the Federal Government to consider our request to leave the Union;
3. The Federal legislature (House and Senate) would then consider the request. Now here's where it gets murky, because they could just refuse to consider it. What I would prefer to see would be that they move the request forward in a way similar to how an Amendment to the Constitution would proceed, i.e., a bill allowing Texas to secede would be voted on in the House and the Senate and if passed would then go to each State's legislature asking them to vote on Texas' petition to secede, yea or nay. If whatever majority is established (simple majority, 2/3 majority, etc.) agrees to it, then Texas leaves peacefully. If not, then Texas stays in the Union.
What would happen if Texas asks to leave and is not allowed to leave is a different question.
What happens to Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs if Texas secedes is simple: they are a product of the U.S. Federal Government and not the Republic of Texas Government, and so Texas as a nation would have no responsibility to continue providing them. If people want to continue receiving such, I imagine they would have to maintain their U.S. citizenship; in my perfect scenario, anyone wishing to become a citizen of the Republic of Texas would be required to renounce their U.S. citizenship. I haven't researched it, but I'm guessing that anyone renouncing their U.S. citizenship loses their Federal entitlement program benefits. Anyone who maintained their U.S. citizenship but continued living in Texas would be considered foreign residents, and would need visas etc. In effect, they would be the same as any other U.S. citizen who chooses to live outside of the borders of the U.S.
Again, that's just what seems logical to me. Your mileage may vary. :shrug:
-
Multiple law suits about the abuse of power of the federal government have been ongoing for decades. This isn't a new or unaddressed issue.
Stolen property, loss of rights, armed attacks (Waco and others), unfair taxation, you know, similar items that proceeded the revolutionary war.
That issue is only settled for those that don't want it. Others have far different opinions.
None of your arguments about oppression by the fed. gov. (which does happen at times...and opinions vary of course) provides for state secession.
Like I said, citizens have the right to rebel against tyranny from the fed. gov. It's one reason we have the second amendment. But it still does not legitimize state secession.
-
Where is the provision in the Constitution that says the States do not have the right? If that limitation was not placed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment should apply.
You're effectively saying anything not mentioned in the constitution can be done by the states. Because it's not mentioned in the constitution does not make it legal.
Don't you think the Founders would have put it in the constitution if they thought it valid? They didn't because they knew it would be the end of the union. In effect, there would be no such thing as a union.
Which is why the U.S. federal constitution supercedes any state laws. I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.
-
You're pulling your "facts" out of your hindquarters. If the Founders had given states the right to secede, it would have specifically engraved it in the constitution. The fact that there is no provision for secession means states cannot unilaterally secede.
Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.
Trying to use the tenth amendment as a provision for secession is a trick states rightists use to try and fool other people.
The Constitution delegated specific duties to the Federal Government, set up its structure, and specifically limited the Federal Government, with the remainder of the Rights reserved to the States and to the People. The purpose was to define and limit the Powers of the Federal Government, not to limit the powers of the People who granted such power and authority to the Federal Government, as constrained, by their consent. The Constitution does not grant rights and power to the people from the government. It is a document intended to assign and limit the power given to the Government by the people.
As for leaving at any time, no. The idea was to have a mutually beneficial confederation of States which traded with a common currency (good for business) and worked together for their mutual defense. That in and of itself is an attractive arrangement, so long as the Federal Government does not usurp the powers of the States and People. When that usurpation occurs, the shine goes off that apple.
How ironic that those States many claim to have preserved the 'Union' to eliminate slavery used force of arms to coerce those States and their citizens who no longer desired that 'union' to remain in it against their will, in the involuntary servitude of being forced to remain.
-
You're effectively saying anything not mentioned in the constitution can be done by the states. Because it's not mentioned in the constitution does not make it legal.
Don't you think the Founders would have put it in the constitution if they thought it valid? They didn't because they knew it would be the end of the union. In effect, there would be no such thing as a union.
Which is why the U.S. federal constitution supercedes any state laws. I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.
I didn't say it.
Read: Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
After the Revolution, my ancestors (landholders, manor lords under English Law) swore allegiance to their Sovereign State (MD). I have seen photostats of the document. Each of those States was, in effect, a country, with its governor, legislature, judicial system, currency issues, coinage, and, at a minimum, an army (Militia).
There was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited the secession of any or all states from the arrangement.
Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?
These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.
Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on, that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession.
It would not have happened, and the Constitution as such would not have been ratified.
-
I didn't say it.
Read: After the Revolution, my ancestors (landholders, manor lords under English Law) swore allegiance to their Sovereign State (MD). I have seen photostats of the document. Each of those States was, in effect, a country, with its governor, legislature, judicial system, currency issues, coinage, and, at a minimum, an army (Militia).
There was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited the secession of any or all states from the arrangement.
Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?
These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.
Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on, that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession.
It would not have happened, and the Constitution as such would not have been ratified.
The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it. For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.
-
I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.
The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.
I bet a majority of the citizens of most states feel the same way.
Your conjecturing of the beliefs of people is getting way over the top.
-
I can't believe I missed this. I've known Dan Miller since Jr. High. I don't trust him at all and would recommend not taking him seriously. That isn't really a statement on the Texit discussion on what horse you put your cart behind.
-
mirraflake wonders:
"What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??"
TexSecurity and TexiCare.
Next question...? ;)
-
The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it.
Actually that is exactly what it means.
For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.
Agreed that doesn't mean a state should do so, but it does mean that the Federal Government can't stop a state from doing so. The voters of that state of course *can* stop the state from doing so. The Constitution doesn't only protect the freedom of states to enact wise policies, it protects the freedom of states to enact the policies they choose, wise or unwise, except in areas specifically delegated to the FedGov.
-
The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it. For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.
Actually, let's look at the 10th Amendment again:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As many have argued in the State's power debate (not State's Rights- pet peeve), State powers can't trump individual rights. The individual is who holds the rights, a power can only infringe upon a right. in your example, one could argue that a State would be constitutionally prohibited from forcing an individual to 'paint themselves purple....' because forcing them to do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment- assuming they would have to be deprived of liberty in order to be forced to pain themselves purple.
A State can't over-ride and individual's Constitutionality protected rights outside Constitutional methods.
-
in your example, one could argue that a State would be constitutionally prohibited from forcing an individual to 'paint themselves purple....' because forcing them to do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment- assuming they would have to be deprived of liberty in order to be forced to pain themselves purple.
That's a reasonable argument, but a state can deprive people of liberty. The 14th Amendment would be satisfied so long as all citizens of the state enjoyed equal protection - enforcement of the purple paint policy would have to be consistent for all citizens of the state.
-
That's a reasonable argument, but a state can deprive people of liberty. The 14th Amendment would be satisfied so long as all citizens of the state enjoyed equal protection - enforcement of the purple paint policy would have to be consistent for all citizens of the state.
It can Constitutionally- through due process of law.
-
Why don't you try and think things through. A state is having success with business thriving and the people reasonably happy. But then a group of people who are not happy for various reasons convince a bunch of other people to go along with them and leave the union. I don't know if you'd want a simple majority or two thirds...whatever.
So here you have a state with mostly content people all of a sudden members of a foreign country.
Are you serious? You say every state has the right to secede. That means states like Iowa or Nebraska could secede and be an independent country. Of course, so could any other states. I suppose you think those states could then rejoin the Union if they felt like.
Do you realize what a catastrophe those events would entail? You'd have unhappy citizens who were previously happy leaving the "foreign" countries to get away from the crazy people.
But there are crazy people in every state, and they could all at times convince otherwise sane people to join them in secession. You'd have people going from state to state (or "independent" country to state) and back again. And we haven't even gotten into the question about how an "independent" country like Iowa would organize itself and create its own currency, foreign trade, etc.
This kind of crazy secession (and supposedly unsecession) could go on endlessly. Utter insanity.
So take some time and think about the consequences of legal secession and the genius of the Founders in not putting legal secession in the constitution.
I'm not saying it would be wise. People, acting as individuals or as citizens of a state, have the right to do unwise things.
-
I'm not saying it would be wise. People, acting as individuals or as citizens of a state, have the right to do unwise things.
It is called liberty, and some on this thread have a hard time recognizing it for what it is. It was the hardest thing for our forefathers to obtain and much blood was shed to achieve it.
The degradation of the classroom in the teaching of basic civics is being prominently displayed.
-
The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.
I bet a majority of the citizens of most states feel the same way.
And they would be right as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
-
The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.....
Up until recently, it seemed no matter what your walk of life, socioeconomic situation, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, or if you drove a Ford or Chevy, a Texan was a Texan first. You didn't identify with or disassociate with anyone because of any of those other classifications. Things have changed the past few years.
Whenever I travel, when someone asks where I'm from, I always say Texas, not the US. I get a better reaction. Surprisingly the Czechs and Germans absolutely love Texans and think of us as very unique- not negatively stereotyped like most Americans.
-
The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.
I bet a majority of the citizens of most states feel the same way.
Your conjecturing of the beliefs of people is getting way over the top.
It's funny, but when I lived in Michigan (where I was born and raised) I didn't feel the same way; sure, I recognized that I lived in the state, and rooted for it over out-of-state rivals (boo Ohio State!) but living in Texas I really feel it. I'm a Texan, in a way that I wasn't a Michigander (or Michiganian if you prefer).
-
It's funny, but when I lived in Michigan (where I was born and raised) I didn't feel the same way; sure, I recognized that I lived in the state, and rooted for it over out-of-state rivals (boo Ohio State!) but living in Texas I really feel it. I'm a Texan, in a way that I wasn't a Michigander (or Michiganian if you prefer).
I have lived in several other states and it seems those observations from your time in Michigan reflect what I experienced in those other states.
Many different reasons for Texas being different, but prominently is the fact that this state had to fight to earn its freedom, similar to the USA, and that it was a proud country in its own right for a number of years prior to choosing to become included in the USA.
If you ever visit the state Capital of Austin, you can still see the bulding that housed the French embassy, not too far away from the state Capitol that looks similar to the Capitol building in DC but that just happens to be 19' taller.
One legend to be dispelled: we do not fly the flag of Texas above the flag of the USA. However, we frequently fly them at the same height, and at times the flag of Texas only.
-
Up until recently, it seemed no matter what your walk of life, socioeconomic situation, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, or if you drove a Ford or Chevy, a Texan was a Texan first. You didn't identify with or disassociate with anyone because of any of those other classifications. Things have changed the past few years.
Whenever I travel, when someone asks where I'm from, I always say Texas, not the US. I get a better reaction. Surprisingly the Czechs and Germans absolutely love Texans and think of us as very unique- not negatively stereotyped like most Americans.
When I lived in Europe years ago, people would ask where in the US I was from. When I said Texas, they immediately thought of the TV show Dallas, thinking everyone was an oilman, lived on a spread and wore cowboy boots. (Well, I did wear my elephant skin boots with my suit at our oil company office in London quite frequently so they had the last parts from observations).
That old TV show is likely to be still aired on the Continent, and the characterization of Texans remains quite strong.
-
.....
If you ever visit the state Capital of Austin....the state Capitol that looks similar to the Capitol building in DC but that just happens to be 19' taller.
....we do not fly the flag of Texas above the flag of the USA. However, we frequently fly them at the same height, and at times the flag of Texas only.
Yes, the symbolism is very telling.
-
The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it. For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.
A requirement to paint yourself any color or wear any specific sort of adornment would be a clear violation of the First Amendment Right to freedom of expression.
The Constitution does not specifically state that no State can leave the United States. Because that is not specifically proscribed, that right (by virtue of the Tenth Amendment) is reserved to the States and to the People.
-
Whenever I travel and tell people I am from Texas, I get similar responses that you all are describing.
Tumbleweeds, oil wells, Longhorns on Cadillacs, boots and hats, and guns, always get asked about guns.
Especially in Europe.
-
The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.
I bet a majority of the citizens of most states feel the same way.
Your conjecturing of the beliefs of people is getting way over the top.
While that may be what we have today, recall that Robert E. Lee, having been offered command of the Federal Army of the Potomac, declined and went back to his native Virginia to take command of troops there. Lee was a Virginian first, as were many folks in those days, ordering their primary loyalty to their State.
Those States had armies, and the Armies of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts invaded the State of my ancestors, that State remaining occupied through the war.
Regardless of which side they fought on, the regiments were not known as "the Federal Army" so much as the 1st Wisconsin, 2nd New York, or on the other side, the 1st Virginia, 1st Maryland Volunteers, etc.
This was before the 17th Amendment when the State Legislatures still elected the Senate, and State Government had far more power since usurped by the Federal Government.
Trying to measure original intent by the pap that passes for "government class" (not even civics) today, and the creeping totalitarianism of the past 100+ years is silly. You won't get there. Study the attitudes of the people when the concepts were still fresh. Then examine the economic reasons for the war to retain the South by force.
-
Why don't you try and think things through. A state is having success with business thriving and the people reasonably happy. But then a group of people who are not happy for various reasons convince a bunch of other people to go along with them and leave the union. I don't know if you'd want a simple majority or two thirds...whatever.
So here you have a state with mostly content people all of a sudden members of a foreign country.
Are you serious? You say every state has the right to secede. That means states like Iowa or Nebraska could secede and be an independent country. Of course, so could any other states. I suppose you think those states could then rejoin the Union if they felt like.
Do you realize what a catastrophe those events would entail? You'd have unhappy citizens who were previously happy leaving the "foreign" countries to get away from the crazy people.
But there are crazy people in every state, and they could all at times convince otherwise sane people to join them in secession. You'd have people going from state to state (or "independent" country to state) and back again. And we haven't even gotten into the question about how an "independent" country like Iowa would organize itself and create its own currency, foreign trade, etc.
This kind of crazy secession (and supposedly unsecession) could go on endlessly. Utter insanity.
So take some time and think about the consequences of legal secession and the genius of the Founders in not putting legal secession in the constitution.
Well, let's back up. Suppose one or more of the former colonies decided not to ratify the Constitution? They would have remained an independent and sovereign state. Some of those colonies, by virtue of ports, resources, or industry, were more prosperous than others.
Only a very small and noninvasive Federal Government made the idea of joining in such a compact desirable, with the States left to manage their own affairs with the constraints of the Bill of Rights and other small concessions to the Federal Government, primarily those of modest taxation to provide for a Navy for mutual defense. Suppose, however, Rhode Island had decided to remain independent, surrounded for the most part by others who would protect their interests by defending against some other foreign power (European) getting a foothold on these shores and using it to further imperial designs. had adopted the currency and coin of the Federal Government next door to make matters of trade easier (simply declared it legal tender), and chose to pay whatever tariffs imposed for the freedom from the imposition of tariffs on their foreign trade with those not under that Federal Governance.
Would they have been forced, by arms or otherwise to join?
-
I have lived in several other states and it seems those observations from your time in Michigan reflect what I experienced in those other states.
Many different reasons for Texas being different, but prominently is the fact that this state had to fight to earn its freedom, similar to the USA, and that it was a proud country in its own right for a number of years prior to choosing to become included in the USA.
If you ever visit the state Capital of Austin, you can still see the bulding that housed the French embassy, not too far away from the state Capitol that looks similar to the Capitol building in DC but that just happens to be 19' taller.
One legend to be dispelled: we do not fly the flag of Texas above the flag of the USA. However, we frequently fly them at the same height, and at times the flag of Texas only.
I've lived all of my time in Texas in or near to Austin. I've been here going on 27 years, longer than I lived in Michigan by two years. I've been down to the Capital many times, although I haven't been inside the building yet. ^-^ My wife (a San Antonio girl born-and-raised) used to be very interested in genealogy, and we spent many Saturday afternoons visiting the Genealogy Library inside of the LBJ Library building, quite near the Capital itself.
It's been a few years though... nowadays I'm just as glad to avoid going in to Austin, if I can. I'm content to watch the craziness there from just a little bit up the road...
-
I've lived all of my time in Texas in or near to Austin. I've been here going on 27 years, longer than I lived in Michigan by two years. I've been down to the Capital many times, although I haven't been inside the building yet. ^-^ My wife (a San Antonio girl born-and-raised) used to be very interested in genealogy, and we spent many Saturday afternoons visiting the Genealogy Library inside of the LBJ Library building, quite near the Capital itself.
It's been a few years though... nowadays I'm just as glad to avoid going in to Austin, if I can. I'm content to watch the craziness there from just a little bit up the road...
I grew up in Austin when it was a quaint state capital and left after graduating from UT.
I think too many kids from other reaches of Texas fell in love with Austin and turned it into the crazy world of tollroads, food trucks and bring-your-own-bag-to-HEB.
When I lived there, we had moonlight every night(and a song about it), buildings downtown were no higher than the capital building, no bats lived the bridge and 6th street was not the place to be. (Also we played real football in town).
My mom remains there, so I am forced to still visit.
As far as geneology, one of my relatives was an early settler in Austin and helped lay out the new state capital, later becoming mayor. Another was my avatar who died fighting for freedom at the Alamo.
-
Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have. The idea that Texas has the right to secede if it feels like it is baloney.
They have every right to secede like every other state; right now though, the majority of kids in the school systems are minority, this may well not be an issue in the future.
-
I have lived in several other states and it seems those observations from your time in Michigan reflect what I experienced in those other states.
Many different reasons for Texas being different, but prominently is the fact that this state had to fight to earn its freedom, similar to the USA, and that it was a proud country in its own right for a number of years prior to choosing to become included in the USA.
If you ever visit the state Capital of Austin, you can still see the bulding that housed the French embassy, not too far away from the state Capitol that looks similar to the Capitol building in DC but that just happens to be 19' taller.
One legend to be dispelled: we do not fly the flag of Texas above the flag of the USA. However, we frequently fly them at the same height, and at times the flag of Texas only.
If we are talking about history, let's also remember, Texas fought for slavery, that wasn't too free for the slaves. Historically, there have been a high number of lynchings as well.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
-
None of your arguments about oppression by the fed. gov. (which does happen at times...and opinions vary of course) provides for state secession.
Like I said, citizens have the right to rebel against tyranny from the fed. gov. It's one reason we have the second amendment. But it still does not legitimize state secession.
So they have the right to rebel, but must continue to submit to an oppressive government?
How do you envision that? Chanting in the streets but no change in authority?
-
So they have the right to rebel, but must continue to submit to an oppressive government?
How do you envision that? Chanting in the streets but no change in authority?
Once we're into a full on war legality has no concept anymore. Might makes right in war, always has, always will.
-
Once we're into a full on war legality has no concept anymore. Might makes right in war, always has, always will.
If Texas chose to secede, it would take the Feds to decide if war was required.
Note that the Feds have recognized many other countries that broke away from their previous parent country. Freedom for them and not for us?
-
If Texas chose to secede, it would take the Feds to decide if war was required.
Note that the Feds have recognized many other countries that broke away from their previous parent country. Freedom for them and not for us?
Kook talk. What percentage of Texans wants to secede? My guess is extremely low. And of course a seceded Texas will not be "pure" enough for the kooks, so Texas will further splinter into a bunch of fiefdoms.
-
If Texas chose to secede, it would take the Feds to decide if war was required.
As it did the first time. Contrary to popular belief, the states of the Deep South did not fight a war to perpetuate slavery; they seceded from the union to do so. The Lincoln Administration decided to turn the issue of secession into a war.
-
If I remember correctly, the South attacked the North first and that was at Fort Sumpter: http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/a/fort-sumter-attack.htm
Also, even if we go with the supposition that "it was a war over the secession of States"; this does not change the fact, that Texas had slavery; that is part of the freedom that was mentioned here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas
-
Kook talk. What percentage of Texans wants to secede?
So said the Tories in the early 1770s.
Update: An effort to force a floor vote on secession at the ongoing Texas Republican Party convention came up two votes shy in a committee on Friday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/19/the-texas-secession-movement-is-getting-kind-of-serious/
May 13, 2016
To be sure, that seems to be a relatively small group. The Texas secession movement says 22 out of the 270 county GOP conventions passed some kind of independence resolution this spring.
My guess is extremely low. And of course a seceded Texas will not be "pure" enough for the kooks, so Texas will further splinter into a bunch of fiefdoms.
Keep guessing and making stuff up.
-
The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American (called that because they spoke English) settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slaveholders among the Anglo-Americans.
After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas
So, perhaps, if we study the history of the Texas War for Independence, as I know we had a class on that in Middle School; one may see that part of the war for independence may have been to establish slavery as law.
-
So said the Tories in the early 1770s.
Update: An effort to force a floor vote on secession at the ongoing Texas Republican Party convention came up two votes shy in a committee on Friday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/19/the-texas-secession-movement-is-getting-kind-of-serious/
May 13, 2016
To be sure, that seems to be a relatively small group. The Texas secession movement says 22 out of the 270 county GOP conventions passed some kind of independence resolution this spring.
Keep guessing and making stuff up.
Texas will be blue in a few years anyway.
-
Kook talk. What percentage of Texans wants to secede? My guess is extremely low. And of course a seceded Texas will not be "pure" enough for the kooks, so Texas will further splinter into a bunch of fiefdoms.
I don't think the number of people wanting to break away from England and form their own country, pre-1776 was over 50%, so I suppose they were "kooks", too?
Texas secession isn't some "Lord of the Flies" scenario.
Why, we have paved roads and running water and everything! LOL.
"Lord of the Mosquitoes", maybe, but not "Lord of the flies".
If the 10th amendment had actually been followed and not taking such a beating by the Federal government, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
-
Texas will be blue in a few years anyway.
That silly claim has no basis in reality. Texas has gone longer than any other state in preventing a democrat from winning ANY statewide election, a couple decades.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/18/analysis-republican-whos-keeping-texas-democrats-t/
The chances for Texas Democrats are dismal this year. You know the highlights: They haven’t won a statewide election since 1994; they are vastly outnumbered in the state’s congressional delegation and in the Texas Legislature and are running in political districts drawn — quite effectively — by their Republican foes.
-
"Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?
These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.
Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on, that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession."
@Smokin Joe
Concise summary of where we are and how much we have lost in this Union of States.
-
I don't think the number of people wanting to break away from England and form their own country, pre-1776 was over 50%, so I suppose they were "kooks", too?
Texas secession isn't some "Lord of the Flies" scenario.
Why, we have paved roads and running water and everything! LOL.
"Lord of the Mosquitoes", maybe, but not "Lord of the flies".
If the 10th amendment had actually been followed and not taking such a beating by the Federal government, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Different scenario in 1776 and now. Apples/oranges.
The reason I refer to people in favor of this as "kooks" is that that is how the rest of the populace sees it. Which is partially why the GOP has only won the popular vote once in 20 years.
-
Different scenario in 1776 and now. Apples/oranges.
The reason I refer to people in favor of this as "kooks" is that that is how the rest of the populace sees it. Which is partially why the GOP has only won the popular vote once in 20 years.
What?
First, if it weren't for "kooks" nothing would ever change. Like those crazy "kooks" who broke away from England.
"The rest of the populace"? Most of them don't care, don't have any idea, etc. Not sure why that should hold someone back from doing the right thing.
And, finally, what does TEXIT have to do with the GOP continuing to lose?
-
What?
First, if it weren't for "kooks" nothing would ever change. Like those crazy "kooks" who broke away from England.
"The rest of the populace"? Most of them don't care, don't have any idea, etc. Not sure why that should hold someone back from doing the right thing.
And, finally, what does TEXIT have to do with the GOP continuing to lose?
Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.
The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.
Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.
-
Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.
The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.
Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.
I guess we'll have to put you in the "not supporting TEXIT" category. :seeya:
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas
So, perhaps, if we study the history of the Texas War for Independence, as I know we had a class on that in Middle School; one may see that part of the war for independence may have been to establish slavery as law.
Ah, I see now that your point is as much about the Texican's revolt from Mexico as about the War Between the States. Not being a native Texan I've never formally studied that war, but it is my understanding that among the Texican's aims was the establishment or perpetuation of slavery in Texas. Native Texans are of course free to correct me on that.
And slavery was certainly a key rationale for the secession of the seven states of the Deep South, including Texas. But it was not a rationale for war. The Emancipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, some 21 months after the war began. Why was the Union fighting during those 21 months? To defeat secession, not to defeat slavery. And why was the Confederacy fighting? For the right to secede.
It is a great tragedy that both the Texicans and the Confederates made a self-contradictory argument about freedom - the freedom to enslave others. But what is clear to us today was not as clear to them. At some point in the future people might well argue that Americans of the 20th and 21st century were clearly hypocrites for arguing that a woman's "rights" included killing a baby in her womb; Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade might be discussed in the same paragraph of a law school textbook. We err in projecting our understanding and our beliefs back into the past and expecting long-dead men to conform to our standards.
And is the argument for liberty really defeated by the fact that people misuse liberty? Am I really only allowed liberty if I use it in conformance with someone else's standards? That would be no liberty at all.
So while I maintain a keen interest in the history of the question of a state's legitimate powers and rights versus those of the Federal Government, I reject the idea that prior history invalidates present rights. That Texans, in their fight against Mexico and their later fight against the US Federal Government, believed in slavery, has no bearing on the rights of Texans today, or the rights of the people of any other state, to govern themselves.
-
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.
-
I guess we'll have to put you in the "not supporting TEXIT" category. :seeya:
I don't believe Obama is an out and out tyrant. He was legitimately elected, and we still have freedom of speech. He gets regularly spanked by the USSC, and he does obey the letter of the law (certainly not the spirit). This may be conservative heresy but that's my opinion.
If that changes, for example our own version of Marduro, then that changes. When circumstances change so do my opinions.
-
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.
Yes, further evidence that emancipation was a means to an end, not an end in itself, for the Lincoln Administration. One can legitimately argue that the Proclamation actually freed no one, because it only spoke to slavery in territories not then under Union control.
-
Texas will be blue in a few years anyway.
No basis for that claim. Our statewide elections are not trending that way.
-
No basis for that claim. Our statewide elections are not trending that way.
Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.
No idea if that's true or not.
-
The difference between Texas and California is who runs the State government. Texas is very successful due to Republicans and the people know it. Dimocraps have destroyed California.
-
Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.
No idea if that's true or not.
IF true, maybe it points out the limitations of identity politics.
-
Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.
The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.
Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.
No civil war has taken place in this country yet. History is tough when one has facts.
By definition, a civil war is one in which a group attempts to overthrow the current government.
Never happened. The previous war fought was for a completely different reason.
-
Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.
No idea if that's true or not.
Could be an indictment of the inability of California GOP to police voting booths and get fair elections, too.
Those in power certainly have a vested interest in retaining/strengthening their power.
-
No civil war has taken place in this country yet. History is tough when one has facts.
By definition, a civil war is one in which a group attempts to overthrow the current government.
Never happened. The previous war fought was for a completely different reason.
My grad school buddies were for the most part Northerners, since I was up north. I distinctly remember one of them remarking during a beer-drinking session at the local bar, "Just think, if the South had won the Civil War, the national anthem would be 'Dixie'". I of course corrected him about what our war aims had been.
Unfortunately I think most people who are even *aware of* that war maintain the same misconception.
-
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.
But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.
-
Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.
No idea if that's true or not.
Pretty obvious by elections and laws, even if true, it has no basis in determining election results.
-
Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.
No idea if that's true or not.
California voted for the Republican candidate with some sort of long streak except in 1960, they voted for JFK, California gave us Reagan. So, yes, there are a number of stats one can look at.
As of now, I think this question is a bit rhetorical, the votes do not exist for secession and if they did; that would be Democracy in action but I think the chances are very small for that to happen.
So, it appears, there was a big demographic shift in California.
-
I don't believe Obama is an out and out tyrant. He was legitimately elected, and we still have freedom of speech. He gets regularly spanked by the USSC, and he does obey the letter of the law (certainly not the spirit). This may be conservative heresy but that's my opinion.
If that changes, for example our own version of Marduro, then that changes. When circumstances change so do my opinions.
I do not think this is just an opinion, but a false statement.
Example is the unanimous SCOTUS opinion on recess appointments.
https://www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/
-
Ah, I see now that your point is as much about the Texican's revolt from Mexico as about the War Between the States. Not being a native Texan I've never formally studied that war, but it is my understanding that among the Texican's aims was the establishment or perpetuation of slavery in Texas. Native Texans are of course free to correct me on that.
And slavery was certainly a key rationale for the secession of the seven states of the Deep South, including Texas. But it was not a rationale for war. The Emancipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, some 21 months after the war began. Why was the Union fighting during those 21 months? To defeat secession, not to defeat slavery. And why was the Confederacy fighting? For the right to secede.
It is a great tragedy that both the Texicans and the Confederates made a self-contradictory argument about freedom - the freedom to enslave others. But what is clear to us today was not as clear to them. At some point in the future people might well argue that Americans of the 20th and 21st century were clearly hypocrites for arguing that a woman's "rights" included killing a baby in her womb; Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade might be discussed in the same paragraph of a law school textbook. We err in projecting our understanding and our beliefs back into the past and expecting long-dead men to conform to our standards.
And is the argument for liberty really defeated by the fact that people misuse liberty? Am I really only allowed liberty if I use it in conformance with someone else's standards? That would be no liberty at all.
So while I maintain a keen interest in the history of the question of a state's legitimate powers and rights versus those of the Federal Government, I reject the idea that prior history invalidates present rights. That Texans, in their fight against Mexico and their later fight against the US Federal Government, believed in slavery, has no bearing on the rights of Texans today, or the rights of the people of any other state, to govern themselves.
No, it has no bearing but if someone brings up the Texas war for Independence, there is no reason to leave some facts out.
-
But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.
So what if there were less slaves there? The whole premise that was given as a basis is in fact false.
-
The difference between Texas and California is who runs the State government. Texas is very successful due to Republicans and the people know it. Dimocraps have destroyed California.
And, there has been a huge demographic shift in California; that is a big reason why for the change.
The majority of children in Texas schools are minority, it is a minority majority state. California use to not be that kind of state. Same for Texas.
-
And, there has been a huge demographic shift in California; that is a big reason why for the change.
The majority of children in Texas schools are minority, it is a minority majority state. California use to not be that kind of state. Same for Texas.
Do you read the rubbish that is? How can a minority be a majority?
-
But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.
The number of slaves in any given state is not relevant; right and wrong are not quantitative concepts here.
If Lincoln's intent had been to free slaves, he could have freed the slaves in the states he still controlled - Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri - but he did not. He either did not because he feared that would push those states to secede as well, indicating that secession rather than slavery was the basis for the war, or because he lacked the legal authority to do so in the Union but not in a foreign enemy nation, indicating that the Confederate States did in fact secede and therefore the later Texas v White decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney was specious.
Lincoln issued the Proclamation to isolate the CSA from diplomatic support in Europe and to enlist Northern Abolitionists in a war which was at that time unpopular. I'm sure that didn't matter to the slaves in later-captured Confederate territory; they were simply happy to be free.
-
No civil war has taken place in this country yet. History is tough when one has facts.
By definition, a civil war is one in which a group attempts to overthrow the current government.
Never happened. The previous war fought was for a completely different reason.
Have to disagree. The definition of a civil war is one fought between groups of people within the same country. Since the Confederacy was determined both by military action and the Supreme Court to be extra-constitutional, the United States remained one country, thus the war between the states was a civil war. Beliefs to the contrary still exist, but have no legal standing. There are two ways to break up the Union, one by military action and the other by an agreement of the states.
-
So what if there were less slaves there? The whole premise that was given as a basis is in fact false.
Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.
Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?
Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?
If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.
Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.
-
No, it has no bearing but if someone brings up the Texas war for Independence, there is no reason to leave some facts out.
If particular facts have no bearing on the discussion, then what is the reason for bringing them up?
-
When the Northern states gave up the last remnants of legal slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of piety, morality, and ethics; fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had broken the Northern slaveowners' power and drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860.
http://slavenorth.com/
Slavery was largely non-existent in the North, this is a red herring.
-
If particular facts have no bearing on the discussion, then what is the reason for bringing them up?
So, one can talk about how Texans fought for their freedom but not for the freedom to own slaves? Got it!
-
When was the emancipation of proclamation? There was a large civil rights struggle still going on in the 1960s over people's rights. That problem was hardly solved back then.
-
So, one can talk about how Texans fought for their freedom but not for the freedom to own slaves? Got it!
Did you not say yourself in #120 that the fact of slavery in Texas' history has no bearing on the discussion of Texas' hypothetical right to secede today? In fairness, I might have misunderstood your meaning in #120.
-
Do you read the rubbish that is? How can a minority be a majority?
Perhaps one's complaint is to those who call it a majority minority state like California, Hawaii and New Mexico. Who coined the term, I don't know. It is used.
On the Records: Texas 1 of 5 "Minority-Majority" States
More than half of the 2011 Texas population, 55.2 percent, was of a race other than non-Hispanic white, according to demographic data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. That makes Texas one of five "minority-majority" states in the country. The release of new population estimates reveals that trend will continue to spread nationally, as 50.1 percent of babies younger than one in 2011 were a minority race.
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/05/17/on-the-records-majority-texas-minority-races/
-
Did you not say yourself in #120 that the fact of slavery in Texas' history has no bearing on the discussion of Texas' hypothetical right to secede today? In fairness, I might have misunderstood your meaning in #120.
Post #78:
In enumerating the pluses of Texas, it is said Texans fought for their freedom. At the same time, I don't think there is a problem in mentioning that was not freedom for all.
-
And so the conversation has been shifted from the pros and cons of Texas achieving independence now, in the 21st Century, to the old argument of what the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression was really all about, in the 19th Century. Perhaps that was the goal of bringing up those old topics, to shift the conversation away from what we'd like to happen going forward, and instead waste time and effort on arguments with no possible resolution. :shrug:
As for myself, I was not alive in the 1860s, no one I know was alive in the 1860s, so the discussion of what went on then and why it did has very little purpose except as a distraction. I'm not a racist (as my wife will attest) and I do not support slavery, in fact I think it's perhaps the second greatest evil that can be perpetrated upon a living person (murder being the first). I don't care why Texas revolted against Mexico 180 years ago, or why Texas joined the Confederacy 156 years ago. What I care about is why Texas would want to leave the United States today, in 2016.
Maybe if you want to argue the causes of History, you should go make your own thread and do that there. :nono:
-
For those questioning how Texas secession could be accomplished, I have provided the answers:
http://www.thetnm.org/answers
-
Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.
Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?
Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?
If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.
Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.
I agree that it is unlikely there would have have been a war sans slavery. The South feared the slavery issue in the new territories and states, and knew at some point an overwhelmingly anti-slavery congress would end it. Lincoln on the other hand said in his first inaugural address that he had no intention or authority to interfere with the institution of slavery. He did however have both to keep the Union together. The South for all its desires for "freedom of choice" nonetheless in its confederate constitution made it unlawful for any of its states to ban slavery. The entire constitution and declaration of secession was based on slavery.
-
Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.
Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?
Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?
If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.
Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.
There are two subjects of contention as to the cause of the Civil War and the reasons for fighting. The immediate cause of the war was undoubtedly slavery. Period. Tariffs were not the issue. Examination of the Ordinances of Secession and other documents and statements from the seceding states make it pretty clear that slavery was the overriding cause of secession.
However, that doesn't mean that everybody who fought for the South was fighting for slavery. I would guess a very sizable pct. of Southern fighting men were fighting for other causes. Very few average Southern soldiers had slaves.
But even a number of the generals who owned slaves, like Robert E. Lee, favored emancipation. Patrick Cleburne was another Confederate general who favored freeing the slaves and enlisting them to fight for independence.
After reading quite a few books about the war I've come the conclusion that many Southerners simply were fighting because they felt they were a separate people from the North, and they didn't like Northern soldiers entering what they felt was their country and trying to enforce the rules of a separate country.
I doubt many of the average soldiers were arguing for states rights, tariffs, slavery, or other causes. I think it was an "us vs. them" kind of struggle for most of them. When most of your family, friends, and neighbors are fighting for the same side, I think the tendency is to agree and fight with and for the people you know and love. Which is basically the reason Lee rejected the offer to command the Northern army. He couldn't bring himself to fight against the people whom he loved and were closest to him.
-
Post #78:
In enumerating the pluses of Texas, it is said Texans fought for their freedom. At the same time, I don't think there is a problem in mentioning that was not freedom for all.
While I don't agree with you fully, I concede that you are drawing a legitimate distinction between the causes of the Texas war for independence from Mexico and the hypothetical right to secession. However I respectfully suggest that the discussion of slavery is a thread hi-jack.
-
The South should have been allowed to secede. The intent of the Founders was not to force union by arms. We were founded as a Union of Sovereign States- with a limited and weak federal government. The Founders never intended to have a national government. The extra-Constitutional federal government is the cause of al the ills we face today.
-
There are two subjects of contention as to the cause of the Civil War and the reasons for fighting. The immediate cause of the war was undoubtedly slavery. Period. Tariffs were not the issue. Examination of the Ordinances of Secession and other documents and statements from the seceding states make it pretty clear that slavery was the overriding cause of secession.
It was not necessary for secession to mean war. Perpetuating slavery was without question the reason that the seven states of the deep South seceded. The cause of the war was that the Lincoln Administration would not tolerate secession. Also please recall that the four states of the upper south seceded in response to Lincoln's call to raise an army against the original seven Confederate states.
-
...I respectfully suggest that the discussion of slavery is a thread hi-jack.
+1
-
Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.
-
The South should have been allowed to secede. The intent of the Founders was not to force union by arms. We were founded as a Union of Sovereign States- with a limited and weak federal government. The Founders never intended to have a national government. The extra-Constitutional federal government is the cause of al the ills we face today.
I agree to the point that the Founders who established the Articles of Confederation created a more limited federal government. Still even then the Articles created a perpetual union that could not be severed or altered except by the Congress and confirmed by every state. The Constitution later was written, not by the states but by We the People, and was established to form a more perfect union. So if the Articles created a perpetual union unalterable by any state, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, those who now believe it can be altered by a state have a tough row to hoe. Nevertheless, Article V does provide a path for an amendment to the Constitution which if ratified, could permit that change.
-
Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.
Disagree, thread is about secession. Rightly or wrongly, this was a part of the last secession.
-
Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.
After rereading some of the posts, I believe that those arguing against the ability of a state to secede may simply be jealous.
Whether jealousy or just plain fear, those are powerful motivations to interfere with liberty, aren't they?
-
I do not think this is just an opinion, but a false statement.
What is?
-
After rereading some of the posts, I believe that those arguing against the ability of a state to secede may simply be jealous.
Whether jealousy or just plain fear, those are powerful motivations to interfere with liberty, aren't they?
Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.
Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.
-
Disagree, thread is about secession. Rightly or wrongly, this was a part of the last secession.
But it is not part of the secession proposed here.
-
Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.
Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.
Are you a Texan? What makes you an expert the seriousness of the Texas Nationalist Movement? There is a very serious effort for Texas to secede.
-
It was not necessary for secession to mean war. Perpetuating slavery was without question the reason that the seven states of the deep South seceded. The cause of the war was that the Lincoln Administration would not tolerate secession. Also please recall that the four states of the upper south seceded in response to Lincoln's call to raise an army against the original seven Confederate states.
Lincoln didn't actually start hostilities against the Confederacy until Fort Sumter. He appealed to the South for several months after the election to come back. All pleas went unheeded. Then when the South fired on federal troops, Lincoln had no choice.
Remember, Lincoln considered it a rebellion...he never thought the Confederate states was a separate country and used to chastise his generals when they talked about "driving the foe from our soil." To Lincoln the whole country, north and south, was their soil.
-
Are you a Texan? What makes you an expert the seriousness of the Texas Nationalist Movement? There is a very serious effort for Texas to secede.
I've been hearing proposals like this since I first got involved in politics on the internet. They have all amounted to exactly jack squat.
-
Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.
No, I believe the Federal Legislature would have a say in the proceedings before the Supreme Court would.
Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.
So why are you getting all het up about it? Let us crazies discuss our craziness in peace and you can safely ignore us. :seeya:
-
After rereading some of the posts, I believe that those arguing against the ability of a state to secede may simply be jealous.
Whether jealousy or just plain fear, those are powerful motivations to interfere with liberty, aren't they?
Jealous of what? You (mistakenly) believe Texas has more rights than any other state? It doesn't. There is no agreement between the fed. gov. and Texas that it can secede if it feels like it. When it joined the union it gave up all rights as a separate country. It was then a state of the union with the same rights as any other state . No more, no less.
-
Lincoln didn't actually start hostilties against the Confederacy until Fort Sumter. He appealed to the South for several months after the election to come back. All pleas went unheeded. Then when the South fired on federal troops, Lincoln had no choice.
Remember, Lincoln considered it a rebellion...he never thought the Confederate states was as separate country and used to chastise his generals when they talked about "driving the foe from our soil." To Lincoln the whole country, north and south, was their soil.
I believe those facts essentially validate my point.
-
No, I believe the Federal Legislature would have a say in the proceedings before the Supreme Court would.
So why are you getting all het up about it? Let us crazies discuss our craziness in peace and you can safely ignore us. :seeya:
This is an open forum, I may offer my opinion on any subject.
-
This is an open forum, I may offer my opinion on any subject.
Yup, and we may freely ignore and/or make fun of you. :tongue2:
-
Yup, and we may freely ignore and/or make fun of you. :tongue2:
Go ahead. Anyone who forms their opinion based on what others on the internet think of them shouldn't be on the internet IMO.
-
Jealous of what? You (mistakenly) believe Texas has more rights than any other state? It doesn't. There is no agreement between the fed. gov. and Texas that it can secede if it feels like it. When it joined the union it gave up all rights as a separate country. It was then a state of the union with the same rights as any other state . No more, no less.
So, do you then believe that no state has the power to pursue secession?
(Edited for a typo.)
-
I believe those facts essentially validate my point.
"essentially validate my point."
Which is what?
-
Go ahead. Anyone who forms their opinion based on what others on the internet think of them shouldn't be on the internet IMO.
I agree with you! Hooray! We have reached agreement on at least one issue today.
Time for lunch!
-
So, do you then believe that no state has the power to pursue secession?
(Edited for a typo.)
Meaningless statement. Do you mean legal power? Obviously states have actual power (ie. dudes with guns). Disputes are settled on the battlefield. Same as all throughout history.
-
Meaningless statement. Do you mean legal power? Obviously states have actual power (ie. dudes with guns). Disputes are settled on the battlefield. Same as all throughout history.
I wasn't asking YOU. But since you asked, yes, I meant legal power.
-
I wasn't asking YOU. But since you asked, yes, I meant legal power.
Theoretically, I believe that if a state holds a referendum, and more than 50% of the voting population agrees with it, then there may be a case for a state to have the moral authority to secede actually.
-
Theoretically, I believe that if a state holds a referendum, and more than 50% of the voting population agrees with it, then there may be a case for a state to have the moral authority to secede actually.
Two things we agree on! I'm definitely going to lunch now! :seeya:
-
I've been hearing proposals like this since I first got involved in politics on the internet. They have all amounted to exactly jack squat.
So you are not a Texan. Did you check out the Texas Nationalist Movement website?
-
So, do you then believe that no state has the power to pursue secession?
(Edited for a typo.)
Through Article V or force of arms.
-
I've been hearing proposals like this since I first got involved in politics on the internet. They have all amounted to exactly jack squat.
Texans narcissistic, braggadocious bullshit makes both Trump and Obama combined look like pikers.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
-
"essentially validate my point."
Which is what?
Please see my reply to you upthread in #140. That secession did not have to mean war. The war occurred because Lincoln chose to not tolerate secession.
-
So if the Articles created a perpetual union unalterable by any state, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, those who now believe it can be altered by a state have a tough row to hoe.
Only if "perfect" means "perpetual" and "unalterable by any state." Why should that be the case for a political union?
One could argue that a "perfect" political union is one alterable by any state. Since secession is not mentioned in the Constitution but all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states, and the people, I would more likely think that "more perfect" does mean alterable by any state.
-
Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.
Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.
Nothing like lettin' massah decide who is gonna be a slave.
-
Texans narcissistic, braggadocious bullshit makes both Trump and Obama combined look like pikers.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Well, that's a useful, fact-based comment.
-
What is?
Go reread your post #108
he does obey the letter of the law
-
It was then a state of the union with the same rights as any other state . No more, no less.
You never read the Congressional Resolutions on post #57 which gave Texas rights that no other state possessed when it joined. If you had, you would never post such a knowingly false statement.
-
Are you a Texan? What makes you an expert the seriousness of the Texas Nationalist Movement? There is a very serious effort for Texas to secede.
Haven't you heard? The definition of an "expert" is anybody over 50 miles from home, with a briefcase.
My grandfather was nicknamed "Tex," yet I have no idea if he ever set foot in Texas.
Finally, I thought "Texan" was a state of mind.
-
Well, that's a useful, fact-based comment.
..but it's the truth. The Texas pipeliner staying at the local RV park has in his back window of his truck "If you ain't from Texas you ain't sh*t"
(https://www.txtraders.com/images/bs2people-5.jpg)
(https://www.txtraders.com/images/bsdmwt-5.jpg)
@Sanguine
-
..but it's the truth. The Texas pipeliner staying at the local RV park has in his back window of his truck "If you ain't from Texas you ain't sh*t"
@Sanguine
Long before I ever moved to Texas, I heard it said once : "Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you himself. If he's not, you don't want to embarrass him." We native Tennesseans living in Texas just nod and smile.
-
Long before I ever moved to Texas, I heard it said once : "Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you himself. If he's not, you don't want to embarrass him." We native Tennesseans living in Texas just nod and smile.
Yes, I have heard that.
Another one of my favorites is that, "You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much".
-
Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.
Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.
The USCC had no say upon a state entering the Union. Only Congress did when it passed a resolution offering statehood, and the state accepted.
Why would the USCC have any say upon them leaving?
This is making no sense whatsoever, and is conjecturing. I note we have had a lot of that on this thread, as well as attempted hijacking such as the slavery issue and assertions that Obama has always obeyed the law, which has nothing to add to this discussion.
-
Only if "perfect" means "perpetual" and "unalterable by any state." Why should that be the case for a political union?
One could argue that a "perfect" political union is one alterable by any state. Since secession is not mentioned in the Constitution but all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states, and the people, I would more likely think that "more perfect" does mean alterable by any state.
It might be a hard argument to make. The Articles of Confederation did indeed create a perpetual union, unalterable except by Congress and agreed to by all states. The Constitution created a more perfect union by strengthening the federal government and better defining the powers of the states. While the Constitution did provide methods for altering or modifying it, no mention was made of any means that would permit a state to withdraw from the Union outside of Article V. Something this important might have been mentioned since in essence it would have changed the Union from perpetual to "at the discretion of any state".
The new constitution omitted Article II from the Articles of Confederation which had stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." And yet even with that wording, the union was made perpetual and unalterable by any state by Article XIII.
One would have to make a case that the 10th Amendment provided for an escape, without so stating.
-
Keep the Flatlanders out of New Mexican ski-resorts.
Who would keep them afloat?
-
It might be a hard argument to make. The Articles of Confederation did indeed create a perpetual union, unalterable except by Congress and agreed to by all states. The Constitution created a more perfect union by strengthening the federal government and better defining the powers of the states. While the Constitution did provide methods for altering or modifying it, no mention was made of any means that would permit a state to withdraw from the Union outside of Article V. Something this important might have been mentioned since in essence it would have changed the Union from perpetual to "at the discretion of any state".
The new constitution omitted Article II from the Articles of Confederation which had stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." And yet even with that wording, the union was made perpetual and unalterable by any state by Article XIII.
One would have to make a case that the 10th Amendment provided for an escape, without so stating.
I envy your knowledge of the Articles, and admire you bringing that context to the discussion.
Obviously it is a hard argument to make, in either direction, since there are such deeply-held opinions on both sides. However I think the entire meaning of the 10th Amendment is that it provides for liberties without listing what they are. Reasonable people can differ.
-
It might be a hard argument to make. The Articles of Confederation did indeed create a perpetual union, unalterable except by Congress and agreed to by all states. The Constitution created a more perfect union by strengthening the federal government and better defining the powers of the states. While the Constitution did provide methods for altering or modifying it, no mention was made of any means that would permit a state to withdraw from the Union outside of Article V. Something this important might have been mentioned since in essence it would have changed the Union from perpetual to "at the discretion of any state".
The new constitution omitted Article II from the Articles of Confederation which had stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." And yet even with that wording, the union was made perpetual and unalterable by any state by Article XIII.
One would have to make a case that the 10th Amendment provided for an escape, without so stating.
Why do you believe the requirements to leave the Union are greater than the requirements to join the Union?
-
One would have to make a case that the 10th Amendment provided for an escape, without so stating.
Perhaps this is why the PTBs have tried to minimize/negate the 10th as much as possible.
-
It might be a hard argument to make. The Articles of Confederation did indeed create a perpetual union, unalterable except by Congress and agreed to by all states. The Constitution created a more perfect union by strengthening the federal government and better defining the powers of the states. While the Constitution did provide methods for altering or modifying it, no mention was made of any means that would permit a state to withdraw from the Union outside of Article V. Something this important might have been mentioned since in essence it would have changed the Union from perpetual to "at the discretion of any state".
The new constitution omitted Article II from the Articles of Confederation which had stated: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." And yet even with that wording, the union was made perpetual and unalterable by any state by Article XIII.
One would have to make a case that the 10th Amendment provided for an escape, without so stating.
The hard argument to make is the one where you would have those same folks who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the dissolution of the political ties with England, agree to an insoluable union of the sovereign and several States.
Their very lives were shaped by the concept that Government derives its just powers from the consent of the Governed, and that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... These concepts had not fallen away with independence from England, the thirst for Liberty is not so simply sated as to enter capriciously into a compact from which there could be no withdrawal.
The Federal Constitution was written to find a middle ground, wherein there was a Federal Government of limited and defined duties, primarily to coin the common money, to provide for mutual defense, to settle disputes between the States, and to keep the post roads open.
That secession from this more perfect arrangement would be denied would have been written into this compact were that the case, and in that event would likely have prevented ratification by all the States.
The idea was that, with the specific addition of the first ten Amendments to further safeguard the Rights of individuals and the several States, the arrangement would be palatable enough, if not desirable enough that all the several States would agree to it. But nowhere does it say that they could not withdraw, and not only was that aspect not specifically agreed to, but the retention of all powers and rights not proscribed by the agreement or specifically delegated to the Federal Government were retained by the States and the People.
-
Why do you believe the requirements to leave the Union are greater than the requirements to join the Union?
Even in contract law that's the case; that is two parties freely enter into a contract, but cannot freely detach from it except by language within it. In any case, states come into the Union only through Congress. Even given the perpetual nature of the Union, it would at the very least then require the same to leave. At least now through several means contained in Article V, the Constitution could be amended to provide for that escape.
-
Texans narcissistic, braggadocious bullshit makes both Trump and Obama combined look like pikers.
Well goodness, you say things like that and then wonder why we don't want to stay around. :pondering:
Perhaps you'll be entertained by this fine piece of music from a true Texas original, Ray Wylie Hubbard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Mrez7ahZA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Mrez7ahZA)
-
I envy your knowledge of the Articles, and admire you bringing that context to the discussion.
Obviously it is a hard argument to make, in either direction, since there are such deeply-held opinions on both sides. However I think the entire meaning of the 10th Amendment is that it provides for liberties without listing what they are. Reasonable people can differ.
You're too kind. As for the 10th Amendment, it replaced the wording in Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which of course further within the Articles created a perpetual union. The argument that the 10th somehow changed that very significant aspect of the Union without so stating will be a tough one. Several of the proposed amendments during the ratification debates ensured that the states did have powers not specific or assumed by the federal government. Even within the perpetual union as reflected in the Articles, the states were considered to be sovereign, free and independent, yet could never leave the confederation.
-
Even in contract law that's the case; that is two parties freely enter into a contract, but cannot freely detach from it except by language within it.
No, they can agree to do anything. If they don't agree, the contract binds them. But if both parties agree, they can change anything.
In any case, states come into the Union only through Congress. Even given the perpetual nature of the Union, it would at the very least then require the same to leave.
Agreed.
At least now through several means contained in Article V, the Constitution could be amended to provide for that escape.
I also agree with this, but I do not see that as the only method.
-
Long before I ever moved to Texas, I heard it said once : "Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you himself. If he's not, you don't want to embarrass him." We native Tennesseans living in Texas just nod and smile.
Kind of like the saying in one state, please flush the toilet, some other state needs the water. There are a lot of sayings.
-
The hard argument to make is the one where you would have those same folks who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the dissolution of the political ties with England, agree to an insoluable union of the sovereign and several States.
And yet that's exactly what they did when they approved the Articles of Confederation.
Their very lives were shaped by the concept that Government derives its just powers from the consent of the Governed, and that When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... These concepts had not fallen away with independence from England, the thirst for Liberty is not so simply sated as to enter capriciously into a compact from which there could be no withdrawal.
The Federal Constitution was written to find a middle ground, wherein there was a Federal Government of limited and defined duties, primarily to coin the common money, to provide for mutual defense, to settle disputes between the States, and to keep the post roads open.
That secession from this more perfect arrangement would be denied would have been written into this compact were that the case, and in that event would likely have prevented ratification by all the States.
The idea was that, with the specific addition of the first ten Amendments to further safeguard the Rights of individuals and the several States, the arrangement would be palatable enough, if not desirable enough that all the several States would agree to it. But nowhere does it say that they could not withdraw, and not only was that aspect not specifically agreed to, but the retention of all powers and rights not proscribed by the agreement or specifically delegated to the Federal Government were retained by the States and the People.
And yet the one amendment looked to that would give a state the right to withdraw was simply a rewrite of what was in the Articles of Confederation, which did not permit a state to withdraw without approval of congress and all of the other states. My point is simply that if the 10th Amendment gave the states that option, it should have been mentioned somewhere, given that it was a tremendous change and weakening of the union created. But in any case, withdrawal still exists through Article V.
-
In any case, states come into the Union only through Congress. Even given the perpetual nature of the Union, it would at the very least then require the same to leave.
[/quote]
Only partially true. Both Congress and the state must agree prior to the state coming into the Union.
Important distinction, as it is not an only street.
-
No, they can agree to do anything. If they don't agree, the contract binds them. But if both parties agree, they can change anything.
I agree with that, which is my point. This "contract" binds the states, and they can only change it through agreement of the other parties, IOW utilizing Article V.
I also agree with this, but I do not see that as the only method.
Well, force of arms is always an option. What other option do you see a secession through legal channels?
-
I'd seriously consider voting to leave the Union, the morals and leftward leanings of the Democrats are too much. Also, there are other states that would like to do this. Whether some stupid Supreme Court decision is enough of a reason to want to leave the Union, I'm not sure.
-
I agree with that, which is my point. This "contract" binds the states, and they can only change it through agreement of the other parties, IOW utilizing Article V.
Well, force of arms is always an option. What other option do you see a secession through legal channels?
I see Texas and Congress agreeing as a possible, but not probable, legal channel.
Perhaps if the Feds cannot agree to follow the constitution (which would be the best scenario), making them wish Texas was gone could be another option.
-
I see Texas and Congress agreeing as a possible, but not probable, legal channel.
Perhaps if the Feds cannot agree to follow the constitution (which would be the best scenario), making them wish Texas was gone could be another option.
Haven't the Feds already, de facto, agreed to not follow the constitution?
-
Haven't the Feds already, de facto, agreed to not follow the constitution?
Hence the reason for this thread...
-
Hence the reason for this thread...
Exactly.
-
I see Texas and Congress agreeing as a possible, but not probable, legal channel.
Perhaps if the Feds cannot agree to follow the constitution (which would be the best scenario), making them wish Texas was gone could be another option.
Do you see Texas formally requesting that in any manner?
-
At nearly 200 posts in, how about some reality:
Texas GOP rejects proposal for vote on secession
12/7/2015
AUSTIN--UPDATE—As expected, a proposal to hold a statewide non-binding vote on Texas secession failed overwhelmingly at an assembly of the Republican Party of Texas in Austin Saturday. Approximately 10 of the party's 62 voting officials supported the resolution.
In heated debate before the vote, opponents rejected the idea of secession as far-fetched.
"I'm not sending my grandson out with a 12-gauge shotgun to take on the 82nd Airborne," said State Republican Executive Committee member Fred Henneke, speaking to the assembly.
Supporters denied that the non-binding vote would spark violence, and invoked the spirit of 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and the 1836 Texas Declaration of Independence.
"We're only asking for an opinion," said SREC member Tanya Robertson, who first introduced resolution to poll Republican voters on the March primary ballot. "It can't hurt anything."
snip
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Texas-secession-resolution-passes-GOP-committee-6676280.php
I realize numbers, data, logic won't carry the day on the internet however, where flights of fancy rule
-
At nearly 200 posts in, how about some reality:
Texas GOP rejects proposal for vote on secession
12/7/2015
AUSTIN--UPDATE—As expected, a proposal to hold a statewide non-binding vote on Texas secession failed overwhelmingly at an assembly of the Republican Party of Texas in Austin Saturday. Approximately 10 of the party's 62 voting officials supported the resolution.
(snip)
I realize numbers, data, logic won't carry the day on the internet however, where flights of fancy rule
So what?
No one was claiming secession was going to happen tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow. I think pretty much everyone knows it's going to be a years-long effort to achieve. I'm betting that was the first time the proposal made it out of committee to be voted on. So, progress! :beer:
-
Do you see Texas formally requesting that in any manner?
In the near future? No.
I do see it on a state-wide ballot within a few years.
I see this as continuing pressure to get politicians to better follow the 10th Amendment.
-
"I'm not sending my grandson out with a 12-gauge shotgun to take on the 82nd Airborne," said State Republican Executive Committee member Fred Henneke, speaking to the assembly.
That is about as ridiculous a statement as one could make. One attributable to a lawyer turned history professor.
The 82nd would most likely have a few Texans within it, and there is little doubt that their allegiance would be firstly to Texas and secondly to whoever gives an order to take on a kid.
Sounds similar to Jeanne Sheehan's pronouncement that tens of millions will die due to AR15s, doesn't it?
-
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state. Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty. As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion. I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country. No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.
-
Texans narcissistic, braggadocious bullshit makes both Trump and Obama combined look like pikers.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
@mirraflake
That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.
-
Documents useful to this discussion:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/texmenu.asp (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/texmenu.asp)
-
@mirraflake
That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.
Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.
-
..but it's the truth. The Texas pipeliner staying at the local RV park has in his back window of his truck "If you ain't from Texas you ain't sh*t"
(https://www.txtraders.com/images/bs2people-5.jpg)
(https://www.txtraders.com/images/bsdmwt-5.jpg)
@Sanguine
One obnoxious bumper sticker does not a trend make. And, that is obnoxious.
-
Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.
As is the automatic insulting of any Texans who disagree with your (not you specifically, but some posters) positions. And I say that as a Tennesseean, not a Texan. (Of course, most of the best Texans started as Tennesseeans... :laugh:)
-
Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.
I never said I was speaking for all Texans. I am speaking for myself and stated that @mirraflake insulted all Texans, which he/she/it did.
You can say any old thing you want if you don't mind looking foolish.
-
Wow, insultathons are so much more fun than discussing the legality of secession. :laugh:
-
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state. Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty. As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion. I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country. No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.
Please see post #57 wherein this was discussed with documentation.
-
As is the automatic insulting of any Texans who disagree with your (not you specifically, but some posters) positions. And I say that as a Tennesseean, not a Texan. (Of course, most of the best Texans started as Tennesseeans... :laugh:)
Some of them like Davy did indeed.
Some others like Sam began in Virginia but passed through your noble state.
My appreciation of them is not nearly as much as the Texians back 180 years ago.
-
@mirraflake
That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.
As I had said before, likely jealousy or perhaps simply fear instead.
-
Please see post #57 wherein this was discussed with documentation.
I did (it's #56, by the way). There really wasn't any discussion; you just posted one of the documents from the Avalon Project, but no one commented on it. I'm trying to get some actual response about it.
-
Some of them like Davy did indeed.
Some others like Sam began in Virginia but passed through your noble state.
My appreciation of them is not nearly as much as the Texians back 180 years ago.
Bowie was from Kentucky, but that's close. :laugh: And 31 Tennesseans died at the Alamo. which was about 1/6 of the total deaths. There were a lot of ties between Tennessee and Texas in the early 1800's.
-
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state. Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty. As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion. I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country. No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.
I did (it's #56, by the way). There really wasn't any discussion; you just posted one of the documents from the Avalon Project, but no one commented on it. I'm trying to get some actual response about it.
From a reading of the treaty of annexation and the two joint resolutions of Congress, without a reading of the Texas constitution preceding admission as a state, it would appear that no agreement of Congress is necessary except that no slave states could be created as was agreed to by Congress. And if somehow, Texas could agree on a split into other states, they would still be bound by the US Constitution. It would wind up in the courts, but I can't see the courts doing anything but allowing for the new states. Since Congress can constitutionally create new states and has already agreed in one joint resolution to do so, there would be no constitutional conflict as there would be if either Congress or the courts ended Texas statehood.
-
From a reading of the treaty of annexation and the two joint resolutions of Congress, without a reading of the Texas constitution preceding admission as a state, it would appear that no agreement of Congress is necessary except that no slave states could be created as was agreed to by Congress. And if somehow, Texas could agree on a split into other states, they would still be bound by the US Constitution. It would wind up in the courts, but I can't see the courts doing anything but allowing for the new states. Since Congress can constitutionally create new states and has already agreed in one joint resolution to do so, there would be no constitutional conflict as there would be if either Congress or the courts ended Texas statehood.
I understand your position, but I have serious doubts that Congress would agree to seat 8 new senators from states formerly part of Texas. And I strongly suspect the courts would refuse to take any case involving this, as it would clearly be a political rather than legal dispute.
-
I understand your position, but I have serious doubts that Congress would agree to seat 8 new senators from states formerly part of Texas. And I strongly suspect the courts would refuse to take any case involving this, as it would clearly be a political rather than legal dispute.
It would an interesting process because even though an earlier congress agreed through joint resolution to allow a number of states, they still retain the power to approve the constitutions of each prior to admission. You may be right that the courts wouldn't intercede. In any case it would only give Texas a moral rationale for leaving the Union, but certainly not a constitutional one. But again, it would be interesting... :pondering:
-
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state. Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty. As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion. I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country. No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.
Not exactly correct. All the original 13 were either independent States (countries) or Commonwealths prior to the Articles of Confederation, and retained Offices, Officers, and an army (Militia) of their own. My ancestors swore an oath of allegiance after the American Revolution to the sovereign State of Maryland, for instance, and such was common among the landed (property owners) at the time. A State was a nation, unto itself, and the meaning had not been watered down by the machinations of the Federal Government of the last 200+ years.
-
So what?
No one was claiming secession was going to happen tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow. I think pretty much everyone knows it's going to be a years-long effort to achieve. I'm betting that was the first time the proposal made it out of committee to be voted on. So, progress! :beer:
This is probably the first sober assessment on "your side" that I've seen in here.
Your average Joe isn't a kook. He doesn't think Obama is a tyrant and he doesn't think things are so bad in the US that it warrants the US splintering apart or falling into civil war.
Conservatives consistently overestimate the popularity of their ideas and this is another case of that.
-
This is probably the first sober assessment on "your side" that I've seen in here.
Your average Joe isn't a kook. He doesn't think Obama is a tyrant and he doesn't think things are so bad in the US that it warrants the US splintering apart or falling into civil war.
Conservatives consistently overestimate the popularity of their ideas and this is another case of that.
I guess you didn't bother to read about the years-long ongoing process undertaken by the Texas Nationalist Movement in the link I provided. Those who support secession are not "kooks." The ides is gaining traction. Each extra-Constitutional act by the bloated federal bureaucracy gives us one more reason to want to live independently.
-
We can make all the academic arguments about the legality of secession, but the reality is that it's not just an academic argument. Our fiscal position as a nation is severely eroded and it's very possible that the next recession, if deep enough, might result in the Federal govt no longer able to fund all of it's obligations.
If for example tax revenues fell and expenditures were to rise at the same percentage points as the last recession, we'd be running $2T dollar deficits, this time with an ailing oil patch and a China heavily in debt and with a stalled economy. If in any way that balloons up toward $3T and interest rates spike, the interest will begin to eat up the bulk of tax revenues within a few short years if those deficits can't be brought under control.
If the Federal money fountain stops, we are going to see extreme instability and breakdown in civil order. If DC cannot step up, the states will have to. At some point, in order to keep thing from spiraling completely out of control, the states will do what they have to do, and it won't just be Texas breaking away.
-
Do you see Texas formally requesting that in any manner?
Our TX Gov. Abbott has proposed a Conventions of States to get their attention and try to stop the overreach but, nothing as far as secession.
-
Our TX Gov. Abbott has proposed a Conventions of States to get their attention and try to stop the overreach but, nothing as far as secession.
I'm not sure how many applications are still valid (or considered valid by Congress). An amendment to provide for a state to leave the Union wouldn't have much support within either Congress or the states. Other possible amendments would be considered in a convention including a balanced budget, voting rights, gun control, term limits, and more. Mark Levin has been pushing a CoS for a while with a number of proposed amendments. He argues that it wouldn't be a constitutional convention but rather a convention of states, a distinction rather than a difference. The Convention of 1787 started out as a convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation and the central government. Be careful what you ask for.
-
I'm not sure how many applications are still valid (or considered valid by Congress). An amendment to provide for a state to leave the Union wouldn't have much support within either Congress or the states. Other possible amendments would be considered in a convention including a balanced budget, voting rights, gun control, term limits, and more. Mark Levin has been pushing a CoS for a while with a number of proposed amendments. He argues that it wouldn't be a constitutional convention but rather a convention of states, a distinction rather than a difference. The Convention of 1787 started out as a convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation and the central government. Be careful what you ask for.
I will.
-
Our TX Gov. Abbott has proposed a Conventions of States to get their attention and try to stop the overreach but, nothing as far as secession.
Of course he hasn't. And, as I have stated before, we need to do a Convention of States before we consider anything else.
-
You're too kind. As for the 10th Amendment, it replaced the wording in Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which of course further within the Articles created a perpetual union. The argument that the 10th somehow changed that very significant aspect of the Union without so stating will be a tough one. Several of the proposed amendments during the ratification debates ensured that the states did have powers not specific or assumed by the federal government. Even within the perpetual union as reflected in the Articles, the states were considered to be sovereign, free and independent, yet could never leave the confederation.
Even within the perpetual union as reflected in the Articles, the states were considered to be sovereign, free and independent,
Can you please direct to that part of the constitution that says states are "sovereign" and "free and independent."
Thirty-seven of the states were created by the fed gov. after the revolution. States that are "sovereign" and "free and independent" are in effect separate countries.
Why would a country creat separate and independent countries inside itself? (The only separate countries of a sort that I know of that have separate legal status are the Indian reservations. That is an entirely other matter.)
The truth is that it would nothing short of insane for any country to create separate, independent countries inside its boundaries. The fed. gov. wouldn't create separate countries.
The states are not independent, sovereign countries inside the boundaries of the U.S. A. And since no state can have more constitutional powers than any other state (sorry Texas), no state is independent. They are what they are...non-federal units with certain powers inside and under the auspices of the fed. constitution whose provisions supercede all state laws.
-
Haven't the Feds already, de facto, agreed to not follow the constitution?
Which Feds? I know Obama uses the constitution like a piece of toilet paper, but because he's close to being a dictator, that does not give other persons the right to take unconstitutional actions. In short, because the president breaks the law, that does not give private citizens the right to break the law. The law i.e. the constitution is what it is....all American citizens from the lowliest to the mightiest are bound by its provisions.
Throughout our history, there have been public officials like King Barack who have broken the law i.e. trashed the constitution. It is up to other public officials to make him obey. If those public officials abrogate their responsibility, it is the duty of the citizens to remove them as well as the tyrant in chief.
Now there may come a time when too much is too much...libs are pushing the patience of law-abiding Americans to the limit. Never say never when it might become a time to revolt against tyranny. And Obama is about as close to a tyrant as we've had. But FDR was a tyrant as well. Woodrow Wilson wanted to be one and did a number of tyrannical things.
But we're not quite there yet as far as utter tyranny. And the constitution still does not provide for state secession as the answer to governmental tyranny. The cure for gov. tyranny is for citizens from all states to combat the tyranny.
If the fed. gov. decides to tyrannize members of one part of the country, it is the duty of all patriotic citizens to help those tyrannized citizens regardless of states boundaries.
-
Even within the perpetual union as reflected in the Articles, the states were considered to be sovereign, free and independent,
Can you please direct to that part of the constitution that says states are "sovereign" and "free and independent."
Thirty-seven of the states were created by the fed gov. after the revolution. States that are "sovereign" and "free and independent" are in effect separate countries.
Why would a country creat separate and independent countries inside itself? (The only separate countries of a sort that I know of that have separate legal status are the Indian reservations. That is an entirely other matter.)
The truth is that it would nothing short of insane for any country to create separate, independent countries inside its boundaries. The fed. country wouldn't create separate countries.
The states are not independent, sovereign countries inside the boundaries of the U.S. A. And since no state can have more constitutional powers than any other state (sorry Texas), no state is independent. They are what they are...non-federal units with certain powers inside and under the auspices of the fed. constitution whose provisions supercede all state laws.
Two points. First, in spite of Article II of the Articles of Confederation containing the sovereign, free and independent wording, the Articles still clearly forbid any state from altering the Articles or the perpetual nature of the union. Second, that Article (II) was replaced by the 10th Amendment as a catch-all to ensure a republican form of government where states still had the power to make laws not held out for the federal government.
-
Even within the perpetual union as reflected in the Articles, the states were considered to be sovereign, free and independent,
Can you please direct to that part of the constitution that says states are "sovereign" and "free and independent."
States which were not sovereign and independent could never sign a compact for mutual defense, etc., now could they? They'd have to have their bosses do it for them. If one of the original 13 had decided to NOT ratify that agreement, they would have remained independent.
Why would a country creat separate and independent countries inside itself?
It didn't. Those separate countries wrapped themselves in another level of government to settle disputes, to coin common money, and to provide for their mutual defense. They also gave it the authority to settle disputes between them. But those separate countries created the Federal Government for the purposes stated, not the other way around. Those separate countries already had their executive, (Governor), their legislatures, their courts, and their own armies (Militias).
The truth is that it would nothing short of insane for any country to create separate, independent countries inside its boundaries. The fed. gov. wouldn't create separate countries.
It would seem so becuase you have the creation process bassackwards. Those separate countries created a Federation, the federation did not create them.
The states are not independent, sovereign countries inside the boundaries of the U.S. A. And since no state can have more constitutional powers than any other state (sorry Texas), no state is independent. They are what they are...non-federal units with certain powers inside and under the auspices of the fed. constitution whose provisions supercede all state laws.
Perhaps not technically as things are today because of the incredible usurpation of State Power and Authority by the Federal Government since the War of Northern Aggression, and especially during the last 105 years.
Again, I refer you to the narrowly defined and constrained powers of that Federal entity as created, the power and structure of the individual State Governments at the time, and recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the anti-Federalist as well). Please pay special attention to the wording of the Tenth Amendment.
It has taken nearly two centuries of misinterpretation of the Constitution and the progressive ignorance of the People to gradually concentrate that Power in Federal hands, one court decision, one ruling, one agency or program at a time, but the shift has been incremental, inexorable, and cumulatively significant in the removal of State Power and the Liberty of the People.
-
States which were not sovereign and independent could never sign a compact for mutual defense, etc., now could they? They'd have to have their bosses do it for them. If one of the original 13 had decided to NOT ratify that agreement, they would have remained independent.
It didn't. Those separate countries wrapped themselves in another level of government to settle disputes, to coin common money, and to provide for their mutual defense. They also gave it the authority to settle disputes between them. But those separate countries created the Federal Government for the purposes stated, not the other way around. Those separate countries already had their executive, (Governor), their legislatures, their courts, and their own armies (Militias).
It would seem so becuase you have the creation process bassackwards. Those separate countries created a Federation, the federation did not create them.
Perhaps not technically as things are today because of the incredible usurpation of State Power and Authority by the Federal Government since the War of Northern Aggression, and especially during the last 105 years.
Again, I refer you to the narrowly defined and constrained powers of that Federal entity as created, the power and structure of the individual State Governments at the time, and recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the anti-Federalist as well). Please pay special attention to the wording of the Tenth Amendment.
It has taken nearly two centuries of misinterpretation of the Constitution and the progressive ignorance of the People to gradually concentrate that Power in Federal hands, one court decision, one ruling, one agency or program at a time, but the shift has been incremental, inexorable, and cumulatively significant in the removal of State Power and the Liberty of the People.
That is worth repeating.
-
States which were not sovereign and independent could never sign a compact for mutual defense, etc., now could they? They'd have to have their bosses do it for them. If one of the original 13 had decided to NOT ratify that agreement, they would have remained independent.
It didn't. Those separate countries wrapped themselves in another level of government to settle disputes, to coin common money, and to provide for their mutual defense. They also gave it the authority to settle disputes between them. But those separate countries created the Federal Government for the purposes stated, not the other way around. Those separate countries already had their executive, (Governor), their legislatures, their courts, and their own armies (Militias).
It would seem so becuase you have the creation process bassackwards. Those separate countries created a Federation, the federation did not create them.
Perhaps not technically as things are today because of the incredible usurpation of State Power and Authority by the Federal Government since the War of Northern Aggression, and especially during the last 105 years.
Again, I refer you to the narrowly defined and constrained powers of that Federal entity as created, the power and structure of the individual State Governments at the time, and recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the anti-Federalist as well). Please pay special attention to the wording of the Tenth Amendment.
It has taken nearly two centuries of misinterpretation of the Constitution and the progressive ignorance of the People to gradually concentrate that Power in Federal hands, one court decision, one ruling, one agency or program at a time, but the shift has been incremental, inexorable, and cumulatively significant in the removal of State Power and the Liberty of the People.
What does the word "union" mean to you? Not like the ex Soviet Union where Russia simply told a bunch of other countries they were in. When we formed the United States of America, the states voluntarily gave up their right as sovereign entities....which they were for only a very brief period of time after the war.
Now you can find all sort of phrases or quote words from different people as to what the Founders "really meant," but the fact is if they wanted the states to be able to leave at will they would have very clearly put it in writing...in the constitution. They didn't. Because it would have been insane and the end of the union.
-
States which were not sovereign and independent could never sign a compact for mutual defense, etc., now could they? They'd have to have their bosses do it for them. If one of the original 13 had decided to NOT ratify that agreement, they would have remained independent.
True. Rhode Island rejected the constitution and only finally accepted it under duress, believing that as an independent country it would soon be taken over. Ratification barely passed.
-
True. Rhode Island rejected the constitution and only finally accepted it under duress, believing that as an independent country it would soon be taken over. Ratification barely passed.
And what get's lost in all this is that Rhode Island is but one of two different members of the original union under the Articles Confederation, which WAS chartered as a PERPETUAL union BTW, did not join the new union until years after the new constitution was ratified. What happened to that perpetual union? How could that happen?
The Constitution doesn't say a single word about the union being perpetual! Not a word.
-
We can spend days/months/years arguing over the legality of leaving or staying, but that avoids the bigger issue - that of what we are leaving or staying with.
-
And what get's lost in all this is that Rhode Island is but one of two different members of the original union under the Articles Confederation, which WAS chartered as a PERPETUAL union BTW, did not join the new union until years after the new constitution was ratified. What happened to that perpetual union? How could that happen?
The Constitution doesn't say a single word about the union being perpetual! Not a word.
Rhode Island just didn't like the new Constitution for a lot of reasons. It took several months to get ratification. People like to talk about what the Founders believed about this or that. They were tremendously divided even after the draft was signed. I'm not sure why you think that the perpetual union was somehow done away with. The fact is that there's a way out of any of the requirements through Article V including a way out of the Union very similar to Article VI of the Articles of Confederation.
The overarching purpose of the Convention was to make the union stronger and to make a national government far stronger than the Articles. If the authors wanted to eliminate the perpetual nature of the union, don't you think someone might have mentioned it at least in passing? Do you think the words "...in order to form a more perfect union..." are really written to actually make the Union weaker?
How strong would this new union be if a member state could leave whenever it wanted? Why bother with Article V? Just demand a change or the union would be dissolved. Not much of a stronger union.
-
What does the word "union" mean to you? Not like the ex Soviet Union where Russia simply told a bunch of other countries they were in. When we formed the United States of America, the states voluntarily gave up their right as sovereign entities....which they were for only a very brief period of time after the war.
Now you can find all sort of phrases or quote words from different people as to what the Founders "really meant," but the fact is if they wanted the states to be able to leave at will they would have very clearly put it in writing...in the constitution. They didn't. Because it would have been insane and the end of the union.
The Constitution was the vehicle by which those sovereign states granted power to a federal entity for the purposes I have outlined (which the founders specifically outlined, too). The purpose wasn't to cede all power to a National Government and leave the scraps for the States but to give narrowly defined roles to the Federal Government and Retain the vast bulk of power to the States and the People. That is stated repeatedly in the document and the Bill of Rights. It requires no more interpretation than a fundamental understanding of the English language.
Why would a Governor, a Legislature, the entire court system, the landholders, the People of a sovereign State throw all their self-determination, power and Liberty to a small group of people with conflicting interests one, maybe two weeks by land or a long boat ride away when they had just fought to eliminate that entire situation of being governed from afar?
The Constitution would never have been ratified had that been the case. The harping about
"The Union" . is a political artifact of the War of Northern Aggression, where the "Union" was used along with Abolitionist propaganda to justify forcing at gunpoint the return of the Southern agricultural producing areas northern textile mills heavily exploited to the purview of the heavily Northern dominated Congress and the cronies thereof. You won't see such ballyhoo about "Union" in the Federalist papers, and it is only used in the preamble in the sense of forming a Federation, not a National Government.
Otherwise, of what use would have been the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Supreme Courts, and State Legislatures (to mention a few) and other associated offices which perform the functions of those of a nation, but are found in each State? Why did the States have their several Constitutions, when one would suffice for a Nation united: a Union--in a time when many well established Nations did not have a Constitution?
Those offices and Constitutions are suitable for nations, not mere fiefdoms to rubber stamp the edicts from afar. The concentration of power we see today in DC was NOT the intent of the Founders, the original power resided with The People, who granted powers to their States, who grudgingly ceded only such power as was necessary to keep a Federation viable, for the benefit of mutual defense, coining money, negotiating with foreign powers, and to settle squabbles among the several States.
-
Rhode Island just didn't like the new Constitution for a lot of reasons. It took several months to get ratification. People like to talk about what the Founders believed about this or that. They were tremendously divided even after the draft was signed. I'm not sure why you think that the perpetual union was somehow done away with. The fact is that there's a way out of any of the requirements through Article V including a way out of the Union very similar to Article VI of the Articles of Confederation.
The overarching purpose of the Convention was to make the union stronger and to make a national government far stronger than the Articles. If the authors wanted to eliminate the perpetual nature of the union, don't you think someone might have mentioned it at least in passing? Do you think the words "...in order to form a more perfect union..." are really written to actually make the Union weaker?
How strong would this new union be if a member state could leave whenever it wanted? Why bother with Article V? Just demand a change or the union would be dissolved. Not much of a stronger union.
The SOLE purpose of the convention was to propose amendments to the Articles! The convention went rouge almost immediately and the entire delegation from New York left because of that. Hamilton later returned.
Instead of doing what it was charted to do the convention wrote an entirely new constitution which, when ratified, threw out the Articles of Confederation and the perpetual union with it!
-
What does the word "union" mean to you? Not like the ex Soviet Union where Russia simply told a bunch of other countries they were in. When we formed the United States of America, the states voluntarily gave up their right as sovereign entities....which they were for only a very brief period of time after the war.
Now you can find all sort of phrases or quote words from different people as to what the Founders "really meant," but the fact is if they wanted the states to be able to leave at will they would have very clearly put it in writing...in the constitution. They didn't. Because it would have been insane and the end of the union.
The very name United States defines separate entities, joined together in some respects, separate in others.
Their very first government agreement, the Articles of Confederation, made it clear they saw themselves that way.
Article II: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
When they refined their federal agreements in the new Constitution, the 10th Amendment, it kept the individual State authority.
-
What does the word "union" mean to you? Not like the ex Soviet Union where Russia simply told a bunch of other countries they were in. When we formed the United States of America, the states voluntarily gave up their right as sovereign entities....which they were for only a very brief period of time after the war.
Now you can find all sort of phrases or quote words from different people as to what the Founders "really meant," but the fact is if they wanted the states to be able to leave at will they would have very clearly put it in writing...in the constitution. They didn't. Because it would have been insane and the end of the union.
You mean like the European union?
-
We can spend days/months/years arguing over the legality of leaving or staying, but that avoids the bigger issue - that of what we are leaving or staying with.
While I agree that is a bigger issue, I see the first step is getting enough Texans to agree they want to consider leaving.
Over a quarter million have joined the Texas Nationalist Movement online.
http://www.thetnm.org/
-
While I agree that is a bigger issue, I see the first step is getting enough Texans to agree they want to consider leaving.
Over a quarter million have joined the Texas Nationalist Movement online.
http://www.thetnm.org/
My husband and I are members.
-
My husband and I are members.
I have been remiss in not signing up. I will correct that.
-
When DC no longer has the ability to pay the interest on the debt without cutting other bennies...that when the breakup will begin in earnest.
That's why the IRS is buying weapons, no? They don't plan to run out of other people's money anytime soon. Do you think they'll let one of the most productive states in the nation just leave?
-
That's why the IRS is buying weapons, no? They don't plan to run out of other people's money anytime soon. Do you think they'll let one of the most productive states in the nation just leave?
They can plan all they want, but they are on a collision course for reality. They will of course be in denial till the checks start bouncing.
-
I have been remiss in not signing up. I will correct that.
I'll sign up on the day the republican party nominates Donald J. Trump!
-
The SOLE purpose of the convention was to propose amendments to the Articles! The convention went rouge almost immediately and the entire delegation from New York left because of that. Hamilton later returned.
Instead of doing what it was charted to do the convention wrote an entirely new constitution which, when ratified, threw out the Articles of Confederation and the perpetual union with it!
A couple of points. First, you are correct New York among others did want to retain the Articles initially. New York was a small state having only three delegates, with Hamilton remaining. While I'm not sure how you saw replacement of the Articles with a new constitution resulted in throwing out the perpetual union concept with it. It also eliminated Article II which referred to each state's sovereignty, freedom and independence. Do you think the new constitution eliminated a state's sovereignty, freedom and independence too? If so, then apparently the term "Perpetual union" was no longer necessary.
Secondly, for those who are looking to an Article V convention of states, the 1787 convention should be a warning of what a convention can bring if its delegates agree.
-
Secondly, for those who are looking to an Article V convention of states, the 1787 convention should be a warning of what a convention can bring if its delegates agree.
What damned good is another agreement when the Federal Government doesn't abide by the present one?
-
What damned good is another agreement when the Federal Government doesn't abide by the present one?
No argument there, but the point was that a convention of states can go anywhere it wants in putting together amendments.
-
No argument there, but the point was that a convention of states can go anywhere it wants in putting together amendments.
Understood, and on that we agree. But if we can't get the Government to go by the rules it is supposed to go by now, there is no point in writing more.
-
Understood, and on that we agree. But if we can't get the Government to go by the rules it is supposed to go by now, there is no point in writing more.
Right now they have unlimited printing of money and spending power. When you think about it, where we are right now is pretty inevitable.
-
You mean like the European union?
What does the European Union have to do with the U.S. constitution? You're talking apples and oranges.
-
Right now they have unlimited printing of money and spending power. When you think about it, where we are right now is pretty inevitable.
Both thanks to Mr Woodrow Wilson!
-
What damned good is another agreement when the Federal Government doesn't abide by the present one?
Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:
"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'
"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."
-
No argument there, but the point was that a convention of states can go anywhere it wants in putting together amendments.
But of course, any amendments proposed would need to be ratified by the same method as congressionally-proposed amendments. The convention couldn't force anything on the states or the people. From Rob Natelson's Article V Handbook:
"If the convention validly proposes one or more amendments, Article V requires Congress to select one of two 'Mode(s) of Ratification' for each. Congress may decide that the amendments be submitted to state conventions elected for that purpose (the mode selected for the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition) or to the state legislatures (the mode selected for all other amendments). The obligation of Congress to select a mode should be enforceable judicially, but it is completely up to Congress which of the two modes it chooses. Neither the applying state legislatures nor the convention may dictate which mode Congress selects.
"Of course, the obligation of Congress to choose a mode depends on the measure qualifying as a valid 'proposal.' A proposal would not be valid if, for example, it exceeded the scope of the subject matter defined by the applications or if it altered equal suffrage in the Senate or the Constitution’s rules of ratification. Congress would be under no obligation to select a mode for such a 'proposal,' nor would it have the legal right to do so."
-
Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:
"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'
"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."
Yes, and that will tell us everything we need to know re: should I stay or should I go or should I just lay back and try to enjoy it, in the infamous words of Clayton Williams.
-
Both thanks to Mr Woodrow Wilson!
Got that right. He's the champion of Progressivism.
-
But of course, any amendments proposed would need to be ratified by the same method as congressionally-proposed amendments. The convention couldn't force anything on the states or the people. From Rob Natelson's Article V Handbook:
"If the convention validly proposes one or more amendments, Article V requires Congress to select one of two 'Mode(s) of Ratification' for each. Congress may decide that the amendments be submitted to state conventions elected for that purpose (the mode selected for the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition) or to the state legislatures (the mode selected for all other amendments). The obligation of Congress to select a mode should be enforceable judicially, but it is completely up to Congress which of the two modes it chooses. Neither the applying state legislatures nor the convention may dictate which mode Congress selects.
"Of course, the obligation of Congress to choose a mode depends on the measure qualifying as a valid 'proposal.' A proposal would not be valid if, for example, it exceeded the scope of the subject matter defined by the applications or if it altered equal suffrage in the Senate or the Constitution’s rules of ratification. Congress would be under no obligation to select a mode for such a 'proposal,' nor would it have the legal right to do so."
Just as the Constitution couldn't be considered legal until ratified. As to the limited subject matter, that issue has been heavily debated. Article V only requires sufficient applications (2/3 of states), it doesn't say that the CoS must in any way limit their proposals. This Country is so divided on many levels, and it's hard to see much agreement on any new amendments without an ability to negotiate and compromise, something some on the right vehemently eschew.
-
Just as the Constitution couldn't be considered legal until ratified. As to the limited subject matter, that issue has been heavily debated. Article V only requires sufficient applications (2/3 of states), it doesn't say that the CoS must in any way limit their proposals. This Country is so divided on many levels, and it's hard to see much agreement on any new amendments without an ability to negotiate and compromise, something some on the right vehemently eschew.
Exactly. The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.
Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.
-
Exactly. The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.
Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.
Agreed. Anyway, even if Congress decided enough applications had been received the courts would wind up overwhelmed with lawsuits concerning the limits of participation and content. It would be interesting though.
-
Exactly. The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.
Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.
@Oceander, I've heard that sentiment before, but I don't understand it. What do you think could/would be disastrous about it?
-
Exactly. The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.
Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.
So what would you consider to be a truly national emergency? From what I can see, we've passed that point already. If the feral federal government is boldly usurping authority that rightly belongs to the states or the people, that is the national emergency for which Article V was written. The only options that I see are to convene an Article V convention for the intention of forcing the federal government back into the constitutional limitations intended for it, or to throw up your hands and just give up. Or to go directly to a shooting war, which no one rational wants unless all other options have proven ineffective.
Oh, and here's an alternate take on the "runaway convention" trope, by Marianne Moran:
"A 'runaway' Convention is one at which delegates exceed the mandate of their state governments, and propose amendments beyond the original scope of their stated purpose. The Philadelphia Convention did not 'run away.' Following the War of Independence, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation which proved to be ineffective in resolving conflicts between the states due to the lack of a central government. The Founding Fathers called a Convention specifying that the Convention would have 'the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of the Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.' The Founders may not have originally envisioned the creation of a new Constitution, but the Constitution that ended up being proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was faithful to the letter and spirit of the original mandate, and has served our nation well for over 220 years."
Furthermore, the drafted Constitution was submitted to the Confederation Congress. It in turn forwarded the Constitution as drafted to the states for ratification by the Constitutional method proposed. This is a clear indication that the then-current government under the Articles of Confederation didn't believe that the convention had exceeded its authority.
-
@Oceander, I've heard that sentiment before, but I don't understand it. What do you think could/would be disastrous about it?
I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.
-
I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.
Which would need to be ratified by 38 states to go into effect. Really, do you see that happening?
-
I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.
They couldn't "pass an amendment".
-
Got that right. He's the champion of Progressivism.
You think he beat FDR?
-
You think he beat FDR?
Ideologically I'd say yes. Wilson was practically communist. FDR had the luxury of the Great Depression as a hammer, so he got more done.
Not do discount Wilson, the things he did were very damaging, even if it took far longer to bear fruit. They just weren't as obvious at the time.
-
So what would you consider to be a truly national emergency? From what I can see, we've passed that point already. If the feral federal government is boldly usurping authority that rightly belongs to the states or the people, that is the national emergency for which Article V was written. The only options that I see are to convene an Article V convention for the intention of forcing the federal government back into the constitutional limitations intended for it, or to throw up your hands and just give up. Or to go directly to a shooting war, which no one rational wants unless all other options have proven ineffective.
Oh, and here's an alternate take on the "runaway convention" trope, by Marianne Moran:
"A 'runaway' Convention is one at which delegates exceed the mandate of their state governments, and propose amendments beyond the original scope of their stated purpose. The Philadelphia Convention did not 'run away.' Following the War of Independence, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation which proved to be ineffective in resolving conflicts between the states due to the lack of a central government. The Founding Fathers called a Convention specifying that the Convention would have 'the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of the Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.' The Founders may not have originally envisioned the creation of a new Constitution, but the Constitution that ended up being proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was faithful to the letter and spirit of the original mandate, and has served our nation well for over 220 years."
Furthermore, the drafted Constitution was submitted to the Confederation Congress. It in turn forwarded the Constitution as drafted to the states for ratification by the Constitutional method proposed. This is a clear indication that the then-current government under the Articles of Confederation didn't believe that the convention had exceeded its authority.
Why has there not been more support for a COS with the outrageous overreach of the National Government?
-
Ideologically I'd say yes. Wilson was practically communist. FDR had the luxury of the Great Depression as a hammer, so he got more done.
Not do discount Wilson, the things he did were very damaging, even if it took far longer to bear fruit. They just weren't as obvious at the time.
It's a toss-up as to which one was worse.
-
Which would need to be ratified by 38 states to go into effect. Really, do you see that happening?
With this electorate? The same one that voted Odumbo in?
-
You think he beat FDR?
Fed Reserve, Federal Income Tax, League of Nations, etc. He opened the door for FDR.
-
Why has there not been more support for a COS with the outrageous overreach of the National Government?
I think there are two reasons - first, few are even aware of the possibility, and secondly, in my opinion, there is a certain amount of fear mongering being spread about the potential dangers of doing such.
From Wikipedia:
A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (presently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2016 the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments.[2]
While there have been calls for an "Article V Convention" based on a single issue such as the balanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit",[2] whereas law professor Michael Rappaport[3] and attorney-at-law Robert Kelly [4] believe that a limited convention is possible.
In recent years some constitutional scholars have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.[5][6] They include Michael Farris, Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin.[5][7][8] As of 2016, there is an active nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention. Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG), through a project called Convention of the States, is promoting Article V legislation in all 50 states in a bid to rein in the federal government.[9] CSG's resolution has passed in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Louisiana.[10][11] Similarly, the group Wolf PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution has passed in Vermont, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.[12][13][14]...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-
Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:
"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal.
Sorry, but someone has delusions of grandeur. The language the founders used was unequivocal. What could be more plain than "shall not be infringed"? How do you add to such a proscription? Will I will beat down your M-Fing mamma if you add any rules to that" say more plainly that it is a right to be and remain unencumbered with rules? There were the snakes of the legal profession even then, there will always be some SOB who will find a way to twist the original intent for fun or profit. There was no doubt as to the meaning of the Constitution when it was written, and had there been any the matters were thoroughly discussed in public media of the day.
There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'
Then the arguments would be over jurisdiction.
It was written to say the Federal Government takes care of A, B, C, D, leaves it's grubby tendrils off of the following specific Rights, and all else belongs to the States and the People.
It doesn't get much more plain than that, If the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over the privy, then it should have no power to say how much water goes down the pipe with a flush.
But the ink wasn't dry on the ratification documents before the meaning was being parsed and twisted, and by 1850 the drums of the secession movement were already beating. In less than 100 years, well under!! an entire region was ready to break away in dissatisfaction over the way the document was being interpreted. and the laws made thereby.
"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."
Really? Define "income". Is the exchange of a board for a duck income? Or is it an exchange? If I give you equal value for equal value, who made anything? There is no income. So is it with the exchange of my time and skill for a piece of paper. It is an exchange. Yet the government says I made an income. If I exchange less time or skill, then I get less for it, just like exchanging lumber for coal, yet the government wants to tax the alleged value of each transaction as if there was an appreciation in the value of either, and calls that amount of the value of either exchange "income".
Yeah, the meaning changed. What we call "unearned income" now was "income" then. So yes, somewhere in the library of tax code, the sixteenth has been tap danced all over. When the Prohibition of alcohol went out of effect, the Government retained the 'power' to regulate whatever you consume, be that food, pharmaceutical, or otherwise. It took some twisting, but where in the original (either Constitution or amendments) was the Federal Government granted the power to decide what you eat, smoke, or drink, aside from beverages containing alcohol, and that only by Constitutional Amendment (because it had NO such purview).
The list of usurpation goes on, including the use of tax money distributed to the states used as a bribe or blackmail to get the states to enact (not Federal laws, technically) laws which the Federal Government writes, in order to continue to receive or to receive that money. Call it bribery, call it blackmail, but it has that stench of compulsion and the reek of overreach.
You won't prevent that with words. There will always be some zipperhead who will argue over the meaning of "is". The only way to defeat such is an engaged, educated populace who love Liberty and jealously guard it. We have plainly enough written laws with documented intent, just as the Constitution was plainly written in its day. The "modern interpretation" of those laws comes from redefining words in popular usage and using those redefinitions to change the original meaning of the phrase. "General Welfare" is a fine example. "Interstate Commerce" is another, and "Income" is one we can all relate to.
Without the final sanction of the capability of withdrawal from the compact, the relationship of the Federal Government to the States/People remains >slap!< 'Now go get me a sandwich, bitch, and like it!--Or I'll kick your ass! ' Ask Wyoming, where the EPA tried to 'give away' a million+ acres of the State and put it under Federal purview through the BIA, after the EPA failed miserably to prove that fraccing had damaged groundwater--an action which would have not only put the property and test wells the EPA had constructed under Federal control, but would have changed toe fundamental form of government for private property owners as well (not to mention scooped up producing oil fields).
We are past negotiation without at least having the option for divorcement from the agreement. Otherwise, all that would remain (to continue the analogy) is 'death do us part'.
-
I think there are two reasons - first, few are even aware of the possibility, and secondly, in my opinion, there is a certain amount of fear mongering being spread about the potential dangers of doing such.
The following amendment is proposed: Strike all text after the word "We". Replace with "own your ass."
Amendments can replace the entire document or materially change the meaning thereof. As such, they should be carefully used. The insertion of just a few words could change the entire focus and meaning of a large document, and anything more complicated than a sound bite will have its meaning and interpretation distorted before the ink is dry, but especially so in any attempt to ratify such an amendment. The only guarantee is that those who benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep those benefits in the face of anything which would remove them in favor of the States or the People.
There are too many jobs at stake at the Federal Level, and a powerful union behind the Union aimed at keeping them, not to mention the K Street industry and the golden parachutes for former Federal Employees as lobbyists. Ultimately, we will fund both sides of the fight.
The prevailing thought among Article 5 Convention supporters seems to be that the proposed and passed Amendments would be Conservative in nature, returning us to Original Intent, but that might well not be the case. There is a significant number of people who benefit handsomely from either the corruption of Original Intent or the jobs, power, and benefits of offices created by that corruption. Millions, no tens of millions, get some form of benefit, either directly or indirectly, from Social Security to WIC. The whole function of Obamacare was to put every American on the teat, one way or another, as much as possible.
With so many in conflict of interest, and even prevailing attitudes among those who consider themselves "conservative" (who are conservative, except....), I have little faith that such a convention would be able to produce Amendments which would be ratified and would return the Federal Government to the scope and size it was originally intended.
-
The following amendment is proposed: Strike all text after the word "We". Replace with "own your ass."
Amendments can replace the entire document or materially change the meaning thereof. As such, they should be carefully used. The insertion of just a few words could change the entire focus and meaning of a large document, and anything more complicated than a sound bite will have its meaning and interpretation distorted before the ink is dry, but especially so in any attempt to ratify such an amendment. The only guarantee is that those who benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep those benefits in the face of anything which would remove them in favor of the States or the People.
There are too many jobs at stake at the Federal Level, and a powerful union behind the Union aimed at keeping them, not to mention the K Street industry and the golden parachutes for former Federal Employees as lobbyists. Ultimately, we will fund both sides of the fight.
The prevailing thought among Article 5 Convention supporters seems to be that the proposed and passed Amendments would be Conservative in nature, returning us to Original Intent, but that might well not be the case. There is a significant number of people who benefit handsomely from either the corruption of Original Intent or the jobs, power, and benefits of offices created by that corruption. Millions, no tens of millions, get some form of benefit, either directly or indirectly, from Social Security to WIC. The whole function of Obamacare was to put every American on the teat, one way or another, as much as possible.
With so many in conflict of interest, and even prevailing attitudes among those who consider themselves "conservative" (who are conservative, except....), I have little faith that such a convention would be able to produce Amendments which would be ratified and would return the Federal Government to the scope and size it was originally intended.
@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations. What do you recommend we do?
-
You think he beat FDR?
FDR was not an ideological progressive like Wilson...although he certainly did his share, more than Wilson, to further the progressive cause. FDR simply loved power....if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that. But a number of his advisors were real progressives and more than happy to urge FDR to take Marxist actions on many things.
However, in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.
-
@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations. What do you recommend we do?
Exactly. It's really easy to imagine the worst possible outcome and automatically assume that that's what will happen. All the nay-sayers are essentially giving up without trying.
-
@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations. What do you recommend we do?
The utter corruption of the entire DC cartel/power structure with the moneyed special interests of K street and Wall Street, and that includes both arms of the Uniparty, would be an immense hurdle to overcome. I can see their influence perverting the Originalist intent of a COS. That is why secession is such an attractive option to me.
-
[
However, in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.
Seems to be the definition of a progressive to me.
-
@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations. What do you recommend we do?
First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.
That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.
Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.
The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).
People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).
How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?
Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...
The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.
People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.
-
First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.
That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.
Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.
The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).
People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).
How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?
Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...
The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.
People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.
@Smokin Joe, so, what's your plan? Assuming that doing nothing or submitting is not a plan.
-
First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.
That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.
Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.
The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).
People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).
How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?
Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...
The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.
People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.
After considering your excellent comments, perhaps the best way to proceed is for a state to just avoid a COS altogether and take off on their own.
Should the federal govt try some draconian measures to prevent, am sure other states will rise to defend, and align with states of a similar nature.
I do not expect New York to align with Texas, but Oklahoma might.
-
.if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that.
He did a lot of unpopular things too.
-
@Smokin Joe, so, what's your plan? Assuming that doing nothing or submitting is not a plan.
Until you teach people to value freedom, no plan will succeed.
The vines of tyranny have so shrouded the structure put in place to guard our liberty that people think it is a bush. Maybe it is best to wean them off the teat (mentally) before getting them to vote on solid food. So teach people to recognize what should be, versus what is. That is the earthwork that has to be done, the foundation that needs to be present to unwind any of the mess.
Everyone wants a quick fix, but the problem has been 150 years in the making.
It isn't going to get fixed by a new rule if the people who are supposed to be following the rules don't anyway.
So...
You want me to come up with a solution? I don't have one at the moment.
If you think the COS will work, I have weighed in, because not only do I not think it will work, but it has the potential to get hijacked and make things far worse. I have fulfilled my moral obligation and said so.
What are you going to do? Say "I have the right to a gun and I really mean it when I say you can't make any rules about that"?
That wouldn't pass with people the way they are now, they wouldn't want it wide open, and the second you put down "...except...", they will clamor for their pet exceptions, which will be all the infringements and more that the Amendment was supposed to guard against in the first place, only now codified. Just follow the original rule,( but that isn't being done, and won't be until the electorate cleans house, maybe a few times).
Maybe a fair sized rock from space would clean out the mess and disrupt things enough that people would get back to basics, but I don't control those, nor does anyone else I know, so that isn't a solution either, not to mention the mess and loss of lives. I suppose there are other ways to 'break' the problem system so the replacement can be rebuilt the way it was supposed to be, but we don't likely have the people who would do the rebuilding who are as wise and are unselfish enough to set it back up based on equality, equal rights, limited government, etc. We were eminently fortunate to have had such a group once in our history, and I doubt there are a suitable cadre who would get the opportunity to do so again without a major problem.
Now, you may decry the idea that I said something won't work without having a solution to offer (which would be ideal). Some folks will even go so far as to say I should not criticize an idea because I don't have a solution, but I don't have to know something that will work to know when something likely won't.
That said, go for it. I'd be willing to work at it to try to get it to succeed, despite being skeptical that it would I'd give it my absolute best because any chance is better than none, and I am familiar with the Alinsky and Delphi tactics of the opposition.
However, I am afraid any peaceful solution will require a lot of time (generations), and more of that time to get people ready for it than to actually implement.
-
@Smokin Joe, if you have given up and assume there's nothing that can be done to regain our liberty, please don't stand in the way of those of us who disagree and are working toward just that end. If you want to help even though you don't believe success is possible, you should go sign up with the Convention of States Project and work to get a resolution passed in your state.
-
@Smokin Joe I really do enjoy your posts. They are thoughtful and very well written. You give us all food for thought. :beer:
-
@Smokin Joe I gotta agree with the others: I really enjoy reading most of your posts, including ones I disagree with.
-
Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.
-
Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.
It does make for interesting academic rumination from a historical perspective but people ought not get terribly worked up over it.
-
@Smokin Joe, if you have given up and assume there's nothing that can be done to regain our liberty, please don't stand in the way of those of us who disagree and are working toward just that end. If you want to help even though you don't believe success is possible, you should go sign up with the Convention of States Project and work to get a resolution passed in your state.
Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.
So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.
As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.
I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.
-
FDR was not an ideological progressive like Wilson...although he certainly did his share, more than Wilson, to further the progressive cause. FDR simply loved power....if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that. But a number of his advisors were real progressives and more than happy to urge FDR to take Marxist actions on many things.
However, in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.
FDR was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by Wilson in 1913. The same people who brought Wilson to power were responsible for the rise of FDR.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStFDR
Same groups who have bought HRC now want her in power.
-
Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.
Sorry but that is just plain wrong as has been aptly demonstrated already on this very thread!
-
@Smokin Joe I gotta agree with the others: I really enjoy reading most of your posts, including ones I disagree with.
Thank you @Oceander. It is nice to be on a forum where we can even disagree civilly. That is a breath of fresh air.
Through disagreement, we refine our ideas, improve them, and if used constructively, come to conclusions we can all better live with.
-
Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.
Perhaps, but the issue of kicking out the dead weight and the bankrupt liberal enclaves pandering to foreign interests hasn't.
-
Abe Lincoln's administration was filled with communists as was his army.
Woodrow Wilson was, as has been already noted, a full fledged progressive AKA communist and was surrounded but like minded people.
Franklin Roosevelt was, as has also been previously noted, simply a product of the Wilson administration.
-
Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.
You make history to be a static adventure, wherein no geographic boundaries or political entities can ever change.
Decidedly an opinion without merit, and easy to challenge.
-
Abe Lincoln's administration was filled with communists as was his army.
Woodrow Wilson was, as has been already noted, a full fledged progressive AKA communist and was surrounded but like minded people.
Franklin Roosevelt was, as has also been previously noted, simply a product of the Wilson administration.
As history has shown over and over, if you oppose Communists, they simply perform genocide.
-
Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.
So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.
As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.
I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.
Thank God there is someone else around here who has delved into the intricacies of this! RIGHT ON!,, :beer:
-
Thank God there is someone else around here who has delved into the intricacies of this! RIGHT ON!,, :beer:
Well, how can you know if you are for, against, or suspicious of something providing the anticipated results if you don't find out about it?
Or has everyone just been reading the headline and not the article? (Commenting without reading the article was a FR past time, which might have something to do with the situation their situation is in...)
BTW, if there is a single issue which should be the first to be brought up in an Article 5 convention, it is Term Limits for Congress. While some of them will see that as meaning they have to make their pile quickly, others just might listen to what we want them to do. At any rate, it would complicate the uniparty machinations in that every couple of terms they'd have to train in a new bunch of people to subvert the will of the people and the Constitution.
-
Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.
So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.
As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.
I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.
Those are great questions. For the first questions, I refer to Article V for instruction as to how to do it (there isn't any). So, the specifics would be left to the states and have to be hammered out.
As for what specific amendments are being offered, that again is a a great question. A number of states have offered a balanced budget amendment. I think that is the right track - cut off the carpetbaggers' ability to enslave future generations by spending money we don't have, and much of the overreach of the feds would necessarily disappear.
I would like to see a "no deficit spending" amendment passed. I would also add an order of spending, something along the lines of: military, border control, federal highways....social security.....federal welfare....salaries for Congress....staff for Congress, the end. If they run out of money before they get to their salaries, well, they are donating their time to this great nation.
-
A number of states have offered a balanced budget amendment. I think that is the right track - cut off the carpetbaggers' ability to enslave future generations by spending money we don't have, and much of the overreach of the feds would necessarily disappear.
Careful....There are two ways to balance a budget. One is to cut costs. The other is to increase revenue. There are herds of sacred cows on Capitol Hill, they outnumber the buffalo that once covered the great plains. If costs are cut, it won't be the sacred cows, it will be highway funding, the military, and the health care the government is taking over (especially for those nasty ol' conservatives).
Here is one for you: The Congress may not make itself, its members, nor their staff exempt from laws the rest of the population must obey.
-
.....
Here is one for you: The Congress may not make itself, its members, nor their staff exempt from laws the rest of the population must obey.
That's an excellent one.
What did you think of my proposal, above?
-
Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.
So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.
As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.
I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.
Surely you must realize that the majority of your questions are incredibly premature. Again, I urge you to go to the Convention of States Project website (http:www.conventionofstates.com (http://www.conventionofstates.com/)) and see what's being proposed. They have the requested wording of the resolution they ask state legislatures to pass, so that no one can claim that the various resolutions can't be counted together (as has been done many times previously to keep an Article V convention from being convened).
What amendments are being proffered? Obviously, none, since the convention hasn't been called. That is something for the delegates to decide. However, there are numerous proposals available to inform them, from Mark Levin, from Randy Barnett, etc. Expecting this to be a set piece with an outcome decided upon going in is frankly silly, in my opinion. Regardless of the left's repeated attempts to force their desires on the rest of the country without any input from the rest, an Article V convention would have to consider proposals brought up by any of the delegates sent to it. To do otherwise would only exacerbate the now almost irreparable political and philosophical divide in the country. And anything coming out of the convention will need ratification by at least 38 states to become a part of the Constitution. If you are sure 3/4 of the state legislatures would pass amendments that would destroy rather than enhance our liberties, then I submit that it's time for you to give up. I have a bit more faith in the American people than that.
-
I could see such a scenario happening:
Convention of states schedule for next year. Trump ushers in a Democratic takeover of state legislatures. New Article V convention amendments includes right to health care, schooling, and the right of transgenders to go to a crap in any house in the country. Also blacks and hispanics get 2 votes for every 1 white vote, to atone for centuries of oppression. Democratic state legislatures quickly ratify amendments before GOP can take back legislatures.
-
Here's the wording of the Convention of States resolution as it was put before the Delaware legislature. This is similar to that put before other state legislatures, only the specific references to Delaware are unique:
APPLYING FOR A CONVENTION OF THE STATES UNDER ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PROPOSE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS, the Founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people— particularly for the generations to come—by proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of power.
NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the 148th General Assembly of the State of Delaware, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that Delaware hereby applies to Congress for a convention of the states, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution to propose amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this application be provided to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states have made applications on the same subject.
-
As for how such a convention would operate, here's a set of proposed rules for such a convention:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/proposed_rules (http://www.conventionofstates.com/proposed_rules)
-
As to proposals for amendments, here's Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments proposal:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/160843892/The-Liberty-Amendments-as-proposed-by-Mark-Levin (https://www.scribd.com/doc/160843892/The-Liberty-Amendments-as-proposed-by-Mark-Levin)
and here's Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism proposal:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html)
-
I could see such a scenario happening:
Convention of states schedule for next year. Trump ushers in a Democratic takeover of state legislatures. New Article V convention amendments includes right to health care, schooling, and the right of transgenders to go to a crap in any house in the country. Also blacks and hispanics get 2 votes for every 1 white vote, to atone for centuries of oppression. Democratic state legislatures quickly ratify amendments before GOP can take back legislatures.
WTF, you might want to read Article V. It would reassure you somewhat.
-
The utter corruption of the entire DC cartel/power structure with the moneyed special interests of K street and Wall Street, and that includes both arms of the Uniparty, would be an immense hurdle to overcome. I can see their influence perverting the Originalist intent of a COS. That is why secession is such an attractive option to me.
Well, let's hope this secessionist movement offers more freedom than the last one did.
-
Of course it would. Secession would provide a chance for all to escape the national plantation.
-
Thank you @Oceander. It is nice to be on a forum where we can even disagree civilly. That is a breath of fresh air.
Through disagreement, we refine our ideas, improve them, and if used constructively, come to conclusions we can all better live with.
+1
-
Of course it would. Secession would provide a chance for all to escape the national plantation.
Good, because the last one forced each state to continue slavery, that is to remain on the plantation.
-
Good, because the last one forced each state to continue slavery, that is to remain on the plantation.
You know full well that the plantation is not the same.
Shame on you for inferring otherwise.
And BTW, forced slavery to the federal govt is alive and well, thank you for bringing it up after all.
-
You know full well that the plantation is not the same.
Shame on you for inferring otherwise.
And BTW, forced slavery to the federal govt is alive and well, thank you for bringing it up after all.
Plantations didn't use slaves? Didn't realize that. You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not. You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave? But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?
-
Plantations didn't use slaves? Didn't realize that. You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not. You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave? But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?
No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.
-
Plantations didn't use slaves? Didn't realize that. You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not. You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave? But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?
The shift is in full progress with you, I see.
You are indeed a forced slave to the almighty fed who apparently you see fit to serve, as you pay your taxes, your allegiance in honoring non-freedoms. You are serving, make no mistake, whether you are aware or not.
Do you not see your freedoms being subverted, aka being in slavery?
-
No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.
I didn't make the analogy, in fact I abhorred it. And nothing I have been involved in during my lifetime is in any way analogous to slavery. I do agree slavery was not limited to the Confederacy. That rebellion was formed for the purpose of continuing it. There was no moral justification for it.
-
The shift is in full progress with you, I see.
You are indeed a forced slave to the almighty fed who apparently you see fit to serve, as you pay your taxes, your allegiance in honoring non-freedoms. You are serving, make no mistake, whether you are aware or not.
Do you not see your freedoms being subverted, aka being in slavery?
:silly:
-
I didn't make the analogy, in fact I abhorred it. And nothing I have been involved in during my lifetime is in any way analogous to slavery. I do agree slavery was not limited to the Confederacy. That rebellion was formed for the purpose of continuing it. There was no moral justification for it.
You are abhorrent to slavery yet reject you are subject to the slavery foisted by this government?
You have no concept of true freedoms, apparently.
-
Plantations didn't use slaves? Didn't realize that. You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not. You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave? But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?
Another BS thread hijack.
Start your thread to argue history
-
Another BS thread hijack.
Start your thread to argue history
We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread.
-
We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread.
Then quit refighting the War of Northern Aggression and besmirching the family honor of those whose ancestors fought for the South.
-
That's an excellent one.
What did you think of my proposal, above?
There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.
No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.
-
There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.
No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.
One must go farther afield, am afraid.
Most countries undertake other mechanisms to cut a deficit. One is inflation. Countries can create more currency to cheapen it. Making a million dollars borrowed years ago now worth due to inflation one-tenth that amount makes perfect economic sense to a country in debt, doesn't it?
The other is to rescheduling of debt. Many simply say they cannot pay and then agree to repay pennies on the dollar. Think Obama's agreement to pay pennies to GM's bondholders.
-
No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.
Morally, I object to the concept of one person owning another. Even that feeling between parent and child leads to rebellion, despite the generally benevolent relationship.
But I would be remiss to not point out that Harriet Beecher Stowe, an Abolitionist, wrote a well crafted propaganda novel, which in the fashion of its day engaged the subject of slavery with hyperbole. To be sure, I have little doubt that such incidents occurred as portrayed in that book, but I must seriously question how widespread and common those were. To presume all slaves were mistreated, despite their bondage, is to fall victim to the propaganda and hyperbole of the day, driven by a specific political agenda.
I'm not an apologist, just a realist. The mistreatment of a significant investment in the means of production would be counterproductive.
-
One must go farther afield, am afraid.
Most countries undertake other mechanisms to cut a deficit. One is inflation. Countries can create more currency to cheapen it. Making a million dollars borrowed years ago now worth due to inflation one-tenth that amount makes perfect economic sense to a country in debt, doesn't it?
The other is to rescheduling of debt. Many simply say they cannot pay and then agree to repay pennies on the dollar. Think Obama's agreement to pay pennies to GM's bondholders.
While inflating the currency can reduce real value debt, it impoverishes all who have held assets or who are reliant on funds saved prior to the inflation.
Besides, I'm not sure how well that would go over with the current Reserve Currency, considering how much is held by other countries.
-
While inflating the currency can reduce real value debt, it impoverishes all who have held assets or who are reliant on funds saved prior to the inflation.
Do you really care if it is a foreign entity who holds the debt?
-
Do you really care if it is a foreign entity who holds the debt?
I think the Chinese would peg their currency to Gold (which China has been buying for well over a decade), and the dollar would lose reserve currency status. The fall in value worldwide would mean oil prices in dollars would jump significantly, as would any other goods we import, from produce to metals and ores to any finished goods. The effects on any American who had savings would be devastating as their life's savings plummeted in purchasing power.
Yes, it matters.
-
There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.
No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.
You are correct in that "they" won't pass it. It will be "we" who have to pass it.
And, Joe, I'm really trying to understand. You keep trying to poke holes in this idea, but you aren't proposing anything else. Like I've said before, doing nothing is not an option.
-
We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread.
Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.
-
Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.
Same reason then as it is today...government tyranny.
-
Slaves on Plantations has nothing to do with this topic.
It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation. I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession. The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path. And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory. ^-^
-
It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation. I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession. The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path. And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory. ^-^
In all fairness, Mac, that was 13-14 pages into the discussion.
-
Morally, I object to the concept of one person owning another. Even that feeling between parent and child leads to rebellion, despite the generally benevolent relationship.
But I would be remiss to not point out that Harriet Beecher Stowe, an Abolitionist, wrote a well crafted propaganda novel, which in the fashion of its day engaged the subject of slavery with hyperbole. To be sure, I have little doubt that such incidents occurred as portrayed in that book, but I must seriously question how widespread and common those were. To presume all slaves were mistreated, despite their bondage, is to fall victim to the propaganda and hyperbole of the day, driven by a specific political agenda.
I'm not an apologist, just a realist. The mistreatment of a significant investment in the means of production would be counterproductive.
By definition being a slave is being mistreated. If you are considered someone else's property, you are being mistreated.
-
You are correct in that "they" won't pass it. It will be "we" who have to pass it.
And, Joe, I'm really trying to understand. You keep trying to poke holes in this idea, but you aren't proposing anything else. Like I've said before, doing nothing is not an option.
My, my, you keep pushing me toward a corner.
Here it is:
You either fix it, or you scrap it and build back what was supposed to be there. To advocate overthrow of what is there would be seditious and I won't do that, especially here.
While I believe the core of the Republic was solid, with the exception of the slavery issue, it is some of the add-ons past the first ten Amendments which are the problem. You will have one hell of a hard time eliminating 150 years plus worth of statutory and interpretative add-ons with a few paragraphs. In fact, it would be miraculous if the concepts originally intended could be returned to in one or two generations, partly because of the nature of those add-ons, most notably Social Security, but interpretations of the Commerce Clause and "general welfare" and others.
There are, as I have said, herds of sacred cows which have been generated as a result. Entire Cabinet level Departments and all their programs, and the grant money from those programs, and hundreds of thousands of cushy government jobs will not be relinquished without a fight.
I am trying to take a realistic view of the battlefield, here. Just diddy-bopping in will get you slaughtered, politically, and the whole idea of an Article V Convention of States will be done for another hundred years or more.
If you think Article V is the answer, then go ahead, but know the 'battlespace', know what you are really up against. Keep in mind that you aren't just fighting over principle, but for those you will be fighting against, this is worth trillions of dollars a year, in wages, benefits, grants, contracts, and the like. They will not go quietly into that night.
Out of the TEA Party movement we got what, less than ten Congress people who would fight the good fight even after the dirty tricks, etc., and only a fraction of those kept the faith in the face of peer pressure, 'beltway fever' and K-Street. It is unlikely we will remove enough of the quislings from the Congress through the electoral process in time to do much good.
As for more Amendments, consider that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS rewrote a law to call a fee the Congress had insisted was a "penalty" a "tax"--which then even, should have voided the law because that revenue measure (a tax) originated not in the House of Representatives, but the Senate, and that is proscribed by the Constitution, as is the act of writing or rewriting legislation denied the Court. Despite that 'double whammy', the law was upheld, and our health care system is a wreck and getting worse. My doctor quit, and my insurance carrier with whom I had health insurance for over twenty years stopped writing health insurance policies. Twice was the Constitution violated, by the very people who are supposed to uphold it (actually, they all are--they took an oath to do so)
At that point, hypothetically speaking, the solution becomes a question of how much do you break before you rebuild, or do you tear it down to bedrock, pick up that original document (having already hashed out what it was supposed to mean and what does not fit), add in the few changes which worked, drop a couple which are particularly onerous (16th and 17th Amendments), and run with it, taking time only to clarify the language. Keep in mind, this is a process even more dangerous in even theory, because once the dogs of war are unleashed, no telling who they will bite. It would be all the excuse needed for an already overbearing government to go full totalitarian. At any rate, win, lose, or draw, it would be messy and give our enemies ample opportunity for mischief, not to mention our 'friends'.
Where do you get the people with the education and the integrity to put things aright? to keep them that way?--likely not from the most revered institutions of higher learning which have been seriously, if not completely compromised in their interpretation of the words "Right" and "fair", just for starters. Those currently in the system have become inured to those concepts for the most part, and their resignations would be called for. Consider the mayhem the Clintons left (and the things they didn't leave behind) when they vacated the White House, and multiply that by a few hundred thousand disgruntled former employees, many of whom were issued sidearms and body armour.
Oh, and pass out pink slips to the hundreds of thousands of former Federal Employees who worked for or were funded by the now defunct departments of Education, the EPA (necessary function rolled into interior) and all the other agencies which make up the alphabet soup we call the 'government'. Better cut a new deal with the cartel known as the Federal Reserve, too, because we're in pretty deep. (a little more than GDP).
So, I'm not sure there is a solution, which is why I am not against an Article V Convention of States per se. I am, however full of caution, and there are reasons here I have attempted to articulate for that caution. Sun Tsu said you (paraphrasing) have to know the enemy and yourself if you are to be likely to have victory, and I'm probing the potential problems. There are many, not insurmountable, but significant.
First, they won't go by the rules they had, why go by new ones?
Second, will the process be hijacked and have we reached the critical mass of parasites which will guarantee the outcome is more Socialist than intended?
Third, remember, there are not only the parasites, but the employees, and then every employee, investor, business, and person who has a stake in the contracts let and grant money distributed who will fight against this, too. I am reminded that where I grew up 50 miles from DC, the government is seen as an employer, a provider of contracts and business, a consumer of supplies, whereas out west, it is seen not as a family pet/watchdog/sheepdog, but as a ravening wolf come to eat our substance. Not all the taxpayers will fight to rein in the very spending which makes them a living in every profession and trade, doing work for the government, despite the taxes they may pay or rules they have become inured to.
Fourth: Understand that the American People will have to be, by and large reeducated as to not only what Liberty is, but to learn to like the self actualization that comes with it, and to bear the responsibility that walks hand in hand with freedom. Many will not go down that road. They prefer having their decisions made for them, and will fight being pulled form that comfort zone.
There is more than just getting a Convention involved, you have to have people in all the states (well, 38, anyway) who will push to ratify the measures you pass, and that means having a populace which is ready on a widespread basis to accept or desire those changes. With every onerous edict from Washington D.C. we get closer, as more people get frustrated, but timing will be important.
Fifth, on timing: If Trump gets elected, expect complacency from his supporters, who will lull into the somnolence that accompanies electing a "champion" to set things right. I do not share their faith, but that post election 100 days lets a lot get by an otherwise attentive populace, and if he pushed for measures and rulemakings which conservatives found onerous, after all, there is a chance they would meet with minimal resistance unless the Democrats sweep the Congress while those who would get over their normalcy bias realize that things aren't what they had assumed they would be. This would be a period of low enthusiasm for such a convention.
If Hillary gets in, expect conservatives to be more willing to fight because her first 100 days would have that part of the electorate ready to do battle in the political space at a minimum.
So I still haven't given you an answer, but I didn't tie the Gordian Knot, and am restrained from suggesting the stroke to undo it by prudence and the desire to not have Federal Agents knocking at my door.
-
By definition being a slave is being mistreated. If you are considered someone else's property, you are being mistreated.
Permit me to rephrase that, then. I stated my objection to the idea of someone being owned by someone else.
There were slaves which were well fed, who received medical care every bit as good as their owners, who had decent housing and adequate, if not necessarily fashionable clothing to protect them from the elements. They were not beaten, whipped, or otherwise subjected to physical abuse. They worked alongside their owners in the field doing essentially the same tasks. Some were even educated to read and write or do math, and many were taught trades. Most were not engaged in dangerous work, and the majority did not wear chains as a rule.
Beyond being someone else's property, they were not abused, and that was my point.
-
It's the reason given by some here for a new secession by Texas--the we are just slaves on the plantation. I didn't say it, but once said does demand some perspective by reference to the only other attempt at secession. The topic is secession and its moral and/or legal rationale and path. And should someone do it here again, once again I will refute it. While much farther afield, morphing into debt, deficit and inflation may not be related but is somewhat less inflammatory. ^-^
But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery. In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery. The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.
Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.
The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government. Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.
-
But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery. In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery. The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.
Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.
The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government. Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.
Beautifully said!
-
But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery. In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery. The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.
Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.
The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government. Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.
The analogy was intended as a comparison. And once done, opens up the issue of slavery being the central focus of the earlier attempt to break-away. If it's okay to use that analogy, it's okay to argue with it. In any case, I don't see either the claim or the argument as departing from the point of the thread. When one talks about slavery and the plantation in terms of today's issues, one will be challenged. It's no different from the use of Hitler today to describe every mainstream political figure, by both sides of the political spectrum.
-
But MAC it was said as an analogy, not as a defense of human slavery in 1860; I'll acknowledge that other posts might whitewash the realities of 19th century slavery. In fact the analogy itself indicts that human slavery. The issues which propelled people toward secession in 1860 are just not relevant to a discussion of secession today; my ancestors in the mid-1800s believed they could own other people, but no one believes that today and those who suggest 21st century secession are not doing so in order to assert a return to human slavery.
Having said that, I believe advocates of current-day secession would argue that freedom has been lost to practice one's faith in public, as demonstrated by penalties imposed on Christian bakers who refuse to bake a wedding cake for a "homosexual wedding", that the freedom to own a gun is under constant assault, that the freedom to manage one's property is similarly under assault by onerous EPA regulations concerning wetlands, and that the freedom to manage one's own affairs has now been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, by the requirement of procuring health insurance.
The analogy to human slavery might be over-blown, and earlier secessionists might have asserted at best a paradoxical notion of their rights, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate rights today, rights which are being seriously eroded by the Federal Government. Nor does the earlier corrupt intention for secession negate the hypothetical right to secession today.
Well done, sir!
-
In all fairness, Mac, that was 13-14 pages into the discussion.
Actually not Sanguine. It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread. And it was mentioned several times before I challenged the "plantation" assertion. And I understand the poster who decided my post was a thread hijack, since he's made it clear which side of that issue he resides on. He even mentioned the 1700s at one point. And yet if I hijacked the thread by a response, how about all the discussions about communists and various presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt? How about all the posts concerning various amendments that might be considered by a CoS? What does a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment have to do with secession? I understand that where you stand depends on where you sit, and who defends whom on issues and threads like this.
-
Actually not Sanguine. It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread. And it was mentioned several times before I challenged the "plantation" assertion. And I understand the poster who decided my post was a thread hijack, since he's made it clear which side of that issue he resides on. He even mentioned the 1700s at one point. And yet if I hijacked the thread by a response, how about all the discussions about communists and various presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt? How about all the posts concerning various amendments that might be considered by a CoS? What does a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment have to do with secession? I understand that where you stand depends on where you sit, and who defends whom on issues and threads like this.
I will defer to you on this one. My eyes glazed over pages ago and I must have missed it.
-
I will defer to you on this one. My eyes glazed over pages ago and I must have missed it.
Eye glazing is a common outcome of disagreeing with me on anything... :laugh: :beer:
-
The analogy was intended as a comparison. And once done, opens up the issue of slavery being the central focus of the earlier attempt to break-away.
I simply disagree here. The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession. No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented. One could just as credibly argue that the US participation in WWII was morally wrong because the Indian wars were wrong.
If it's okay to use that analogy, it's okay to argue with it.
Absolutely, and you have done so very effectively by outlining the ways in which freedom is more expansive in the US today than in the past, i.e. arguing that we are not enslaved, and by asking for contrary evidence. This is a spot-on and powerful argument on your part. But the anti-secession argument on the grounds of Confederate slavery simply misses the point, and furthermore is fallacious in itself. The first Jewish person to be a Cabinet-level official in an American government was Judah P. Benjamin, who served in the Davis cabinet. If secession today is wrong because the first secessionists were defending slavery, then is it also wrong to have a Jewish person in the cabinet today, because the first Jewish cabinet member in America was defending slavery?
In any case, I don't see either the claim or the argument as departing from the point of the thread. When one talks about slavery and the plantation in terms of today's issues, one will be challenged. It's no different from the use of Hitler today to describe every mainstream political figure, by both sides of the political spectrum.
There is certainly no valid comparison of the life of an American today to the life of a plantation slave, nor is there any valid comparison of any mainstream US politician today to Hitler. Neither equation can be helpful to us in reaching meaningful consensus. For that reason, I'm pretty sure that you would not oppose US Dept of Transportation expenditure for the Interstate Highway system on the grounds that the interstates were modeled after Hitler's autobahn. Highway expenditures should be considered on their own merits, without regard to the morals of those who built the first such highway. Similarly, a proposed secession should be considered on its own merits, without regard to the morals of those who attempted the first such secession.
Though I'm disagreeing with you here Mac, I continue to admire your erudition, patriotism, and good faith. Iron sharpens iron.
-
I simply disagree here. The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession. No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented. One could just as credibly argue that the US participation in WWII was morally wrong because the Indian wars were wrong.
Absolutely, and you have done so very effectively by outlining the ways in which freedom is more expansive in the US today than in the past, i.e. arguing that we are not enslaved, and by asking for contrary evidence. This is a spot-on and powerful argument on your part. But the anti-secession argument on the grounds of Confederate slavery simply misses the point, and furthermore is fallacious in itself. The first Jewish person to be a Cabinet-level official in an American government was Judah P. Benjamin, who served in the Davis cabinet. If secession today is wrong because the first secessionists were defending slavery, then is it also wrong to have a Jewish person in the cabinet today, because the first Jewish cabinet member in America was defending slavery?
There is certainly no valid comparison of the life of an American today to the life of a plantation slave, nor is there any valid comparison of any mainstream US politician today to Hitler. Neither equation can be helpful to us in reaching meaningful consensus. For that reason, I'm pretty sure that you would not oppose US Dept of Transportation expenditure for the Interstate Highway system on the grounds that the interstates were modeled after Hitler's autobahn. Highway expenditures should be considered on their own merits, without regard to the morals of those who built the first such highway. Similarly, a proposed secession should be considered on its own merits, without regard to the morals of those who attempted the first such secession.
Though I'm disagreeing with you here Mac, I continue to admire your erudition, patriotism, and good faith. Iron sharpens iron.
@HoustonSam, you continue to be a truly quality member here. Always nice to have someone disagree with you without calling you demented and asking God to forgive your ignorance. Anyway, I agree there is simply no comparison, and I also agree that the slavery articles would not be put into any constitution in the Western world, let alone a break-away state. Yet some here feeling that term adequate actually tried to make comparisons between the slavery that existed here prior to 1865, and what we are going through here today in the US.
Some supporting secession have spent many keystrokes explaining why in their opinion the South seceded, and how money was the principal end, so the linkage to the past is inescapable on multiple levels, and is only compounded when those who support the move continue to make comparisons. Why even use the term? Has it changed in context, or is it used to emphasize how truly bad off we are? When someone uses the Hitler analogy in the current political debates, are they trying to say that it no longer carries the mantle of horror it once did? Should the descendants of those who suffered under those abominations simply shrug and say, well they don't mean what they once did...because...?
Discussing secession is not an easy or pure topic without reference to the first attempt. Once opened up, it's hard to keep the discussion based solely on today's issues and legalities. That goes for both sides of this debate.
Anyway, enjoy the back and forth.
-
Actually not Sanguine. It was first brought up by the original poster who I presume understood what he wanted out of the thread.
Your comment on one's eye-glazing over is a reality when you make a blatant lie like that.
Show me where I mentioned plantations or slavery prior to you. I only mentioned it as a direct response to your mentioning. Trying to rewrite history?
And the condescending behavior is not very helpful to let anyone really be persuaded by your remarks.
-
I simply disagree here. The motivation of the Confederates has no bearing on current advocacy for secession. No one is recommending that the original secession ordinances or the Confederate Constitution be dusted off and re-implemented.
If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.
Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.
That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.
-
If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.
Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.
That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.
Well stated Joe. For whatever it's worth, I agree in whole.
-
If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.
Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.
That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.
Yes, very well said!
-
I don't believe Obama is an out and out tyrant. He was legitimately elected, and we still have freedom of speech. He gets regularly spanked by the USSC, and he does obey the letter of the law (certainly not the spirit). This may be conservative heresy but that's my opinion.
If that changes, for example our own version of Marduro, then that changes. When circumstances change so do my opinions.
0bama? The big 0 is merely the latest in a long string of federal overreaches.
-
Your comment on one's eye-glazing over is a reality when you make a blatant lie like that.
Show me where I mentioned plantations or slavery prior to you. I only mentioned it as a direct response to your mentioning. Trying to rewrite history?
And the condescending behavior is not very helpful to let anyone really be persuaded by your remarks.
My eye-glazing comment was an attempt at ending a conversation with a little humor. You first mentioned forced slavery in conjunction with keeping states within the Union. And when I said let's hope this attempt at secession offers more freedom than the last, the plantation comparison was made, and then you said we are still slaves to the federal government. My point is those are absurd comparisons and intelligent people should reject such rhetoric. That may be condescending, though if so, done unintentionally. Nor do I make any remarks to persuade, merely to offer another viewpoint on a topic. I doubt I've ever persuaded anyone on the internet to change an opinion. With the exception of the discussion on today's version of slavery here, I've enjoyed the back and forth, not only on this, but the other Texit thread. I find the whole topic interesting. Have a good day.
-
If anything, what needs to be dusted off and re-implemented is the US Constitution, without the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause and the 16th and 17th Amendments, for starters.
Extra-Constitutional functions should return to the States or be ceased.
That is the problem, that the original intent of the Constitution viewed as a contract has been breached by the Federal Government, which now legislates from all three branches, taxes and regulates far beyond the scope it was ever intended to, and yet fails in its primary function of providing for the common defense by maintaining a porous southern border and importing 'refugees' who may well harbor malicious intent without fully investigating them.
I'll add my support for your words that succinctly and accurately describe the problem that has created this topic.
-
Exactly. It's really easy to imagine the worst possible outcome and automatically assume that that's what will happen. All the nay-sayers are essentially giving up without trying.
Yes, and none of them would have had the guts to be a Revolutionary as these reasons they give, whether legal, political or financial are much different than what Texas faces now.