Texas Gov. Perry says Texas has right to Secede
Thread Starter
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
The US government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a representative form of government, meaning that it is a reflection of the citizenry. Yesterday I read someone say that we need to kick every single politician out of Washington. I had to laugh. Who are we going to replace them with? More people like us of course! And since we are the problem, the politicians will keep doing the same things and making the same mistakes.
You are right, the Constitution does not explicitly empower the fed to prevent a state from succeeding, however on the flip side, it also does not explicitly state that a state is permitted to succeed either. Its an intentionally ambiguous document for a reason and there is a precedent for not allowing states to succeed so I would highly doubt there would be a court ruling in favor of succession.
Now I have to disagree. When there is a sign at a left turn, and doesn't have a No U-Turn Mark, it also doesn't have a Yes U-Turn mark. Anything is legal as long as there isn't a "Dont do this" kind of sign. As for succession it won't just be Texas threatening, there are a lot more people across the nation who believe that the government is just too big and plain wrong and goes flying without their checks and balances. It's great to see the United States having this huge conflict and having to use the Army to regulate our own country. I mean ****, why the **** are we in the Middle East again? oil?
The constitution is our RIGHT, not a privilege. It was built on checks and balances thoroughly to prevent what is happening now (one side gains too much power or gets too corrupt) The founding fathers didn't want another Britain to the 13 Colonies, and so this document by all interpretations is to prevent one power from controlling the others without a freedom of voice and opinion. Unfortunately, money comes into play and our words are a lot smaller than those special interest groups with almost an unlimited supply of cash. This is where the conflict occurs. The government is FOR the people, not shutting the people up to continue condoning their activities.
**** I don't even believe the piracy crap on TV, what they don't tell you is that the United States and others fish in their zone stealing money from their product. They don't tell you that the United States paid off the mafia to dump nuclear waste product into their ocean and got their people sick. What do they do every time? They make us look like we're there for their liberty and to protect ourselves. Even the UN is being controlled. It's been allowing the United States to go everywhere and create "stability". I wouldn't be surprised if Somalia itself gets controlled by someone from the UN or multiple nations from the UN to gain control and "promote democracy. United States has expansions all over the globe and all this fake propaganda and dumb made up crap (like 9/11) to go into other countries is just furthering the NWO agenda (which again was agreed on by all UN Nations as Prime Minister of Britain said at the G20 that this Global Bank is to prevent global recession).
People need to stop being sheep, and thinking the government is 100% innocent. More people believe it now, that's why there is a fear of revolution and Military having to control our own people in our own country.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
From: Bay Area
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
Why don't you closely read your post #7. See the document you are referring to in that post. I understand how government works, I understand how our government works and where our rule of law comes from. Succession is not mention anywhere in the constitution. You might be able to make some argument regarding the states rights clause in the 10th ammendment, but I dont think there would be a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court in regards to succession. Texas might claim succession, but its soverignty will not be recognized by the Federal government and if Texas would continue to resist, I would like to see a militia from the State of Texas defeat the United States Army. Gov. Perry can make any absurd claims he wants, but when it comes down to it, which I ever doubt it will, Texas will not be allowed to succeed. You are right, the Constitution does not explicitly empower the fed to prevent a state from succeeding, however on the flip side, it also does not explicitly state that a state is permitted to succeed either. Its an intentionally ambiguous document for a reason and there is a precedent for not allowing states to succeed so I would highly doubt there would be a court ruling in favor of succession.
1. Natural rights
2. Law
To give you an example, the laws in the US at one time said that certain people did not possess the same inalienable rights that everyone else did, so slavery was ok according to the law. But it violates those individual's natural rights. Regardless of what the law states, natural rights take precedence. Thankfully, people woke up to this fact and the law was changed to put it in line with our beliefs about natural rights.
Moving ahead to our current debate, regardless of what the law states (which so far you have been unable to point out any laws that expressly forbid secession), the Founding Fathers have made it clear that secession is a natural right and therefore trumps the law. So secession is ok on a moral/philosophical level as well as a legal one.
And just to reinforce my point above, let me remind you that the Federal government only has power ENUMERATED to it by the Constitution. They can do NOTHING that isn't expressly allowed by the Constitution. We, on the other hand, can do anything we like unless specifically forbidden by the Constitution or by the State we live in. So if a state's electorate decide they are leaving the Union, then they may choose to do so. Period. And if the Feds want to stop them, they can't because they have not been empowered to do so. This all played out in the 1800's and clearly none of what I've said stopped Lincoln from crushing the 'rebellion' anyways. It also didn't stop King George from trying to do the same thing back in the 1700's. Difference is, he lost.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
The Civil War didn't prove that the states don't have the right to secede, it proved that the Federal government would kill it's own citizens to stop that from happening.
Big difference.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
From: Bay Area
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Why don't you closely read your post #7. See the document you are referring to in that post. I understand how government works, I understand how our government works and where our rule of law comes from. Succession is not mention anywhere in the constitution. You might be able to make some argument regarding the states rights clause in the 10th ammendment, but I dont think there would be a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court in regards to succession. Texas might claim succession, but its soverignty will not be recognized by the Federal government and if Texas would continue to resist, I would like to see a militia from the State of Texas defeat the United States Army. Gov. Perry can make any absurd claims he wants, but when it comes down to it, which I ever doubt it will, Texas will not be allowed to succeed. You are right, the Constitution does not explicitly empower the fed to prevent a state from succeeding, however on the flip side, it also does not explicitly state that a state is permitted to succeed either. Its an intentionally ambiguous document for a reason and there is a precedent for not allowing states to succeed so I would highly doubt there would be a court ruling in favor of succession.
1) Show me where in the Declaration of Independence it says states have the right to secede. Those states never seceded, the United States of America never recognized the sovreignty of the Confederacy, what you call Lincoln's tyrannical resirt to violence, I call the Presidents attempt to maintain the Union formed by the original 13 colonies. Last I checked, those states who "seceded" are still members of the Union. What the decleration of independence states is that it is the right of the citizens to violently overthrow their government in order to spark change, not to secede from the union and claim their own sovreignty.
2) I was mostly referring to the extreme right wing christian vote that Texas brings to the Union, remeber, no Texas, no Bush. Not to mention I was joking about us being better off without Texas.
2) I was mostly referring to the extreme right wing christian vote that Texas brings to the Union, remeber, no Texas, no Bush. Not to mention I was joking about us being better off without Texas.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits secession. Therefore, taking into account the tenth amendment, the right of secession is left up to the states.
Retaining a populace through force is tyranny, and it is the duty of every citizen to fight against those chains.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Ooooooo......
As the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is a legal act.
That being said, we have all seen what happens when states try to secede, but fail to win the war.
I do not see the benefit of any one state leaving, but I see a huge positive if another revolution was to happen....soon.
As the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is a legal act.
That being said, we have all seen what happens when states try to secede, but fail to win the war.
I do not see the benefit of any one state leaving, but I see a huge positive if another revolution was to happen....soon.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I agree with most of what you have to say but I have to point something out here. The US government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a representative form of government, meaning that it is a reflection of the citizenry. Yesterday I read someone say that we need to kick every single politician out of Washington. I had to laugh. Who are we going to replace them with? More people like us of course! And since we are the problem, the politicians will keep doing the same things and making the same mistakes.
Yes, the politicians and bureaucrats have done wrong but they are merely a symptom of a much larger problem. We, the people, have to change the way we think first of all. What are our rights? Where do they come from? What are our responsibilities? What is government and what should its role in our lives be? Until we can answer these questions properly, we haven't learned anything and will simply continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Seceeding will get us nowhere if we just create a smaller version of the (current) USA.
Nothing personal against Jewpac but you can see that he doesn't know the answers to the questions above. And neither do I! At least, not all of them. I'm learning though. I used to think like he and most of Americans do these days. And look where that has gotten us. This country is a mess right now and headed downhill fast in a number of ways. Hopefully we can change that.
Yes, the politicians and bureaucrats have done wrong but they are merely a symptom of a much larger problem. We, the people, have to change the way we think first of all. What are our rights? Where do they come from? What are our responsibilities? What is government and what should its role in our lives be? Until we can answer these questions properly, we haven't learned anything and will simply continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Seceeding will get us nowhere if we just create a smaller version of the (current) USA.
Nothing personal against Jewpac but you can see that he doesn't know the answers to the questions above. And neither do I! At least, not all of them. I'm learning though. I used to think like he and most of Americans do these days. And look where that has gotten us. This country is a mess right now and headed downhill fast in a number of ways. Hopefully we can change that.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Ooooooo......
As the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is a legal act.
That being said, we have all seen what happens when states try to secede, but fail to win the war.
I do not see the benefit of any one state leaving, but I see a huge positive if another revolution was to happen....soon.
As the Constitution does not prohibit secession, it is a legal act.
That being said, we have all seen what happens when states try to secede, but fail to win the war.
I do not see the benefit of any one state leaving, but I see a huge positive if another revolution was to happen....soon.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
And since we're on the topic of what the Constitution allows & prohibits the Federal gov't from doing, can someone point out where the redistribution of wealth is allowed?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
You are right, the Constitution does not explicitly empower the fed to prevent a state from succeeding, however on the flip side, it also does not explicitly state that a state is permitted to succeed either. Its an intentionally ambiguous document for a reason and there is a precedent for not allowing states to succeed so I would highly doubt there would be a court ruling in favor of succession.
Read The Federalist No. 84, specifically paragraph 9.
Last edited by saqwarrior; Apr 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Or, at least, that's their argument.