Texas Gov. Declares State Sovereignty

[Mr. Clean]

Personally, I think this is Governor perry doing a little grandstanding for a nomination ...

Ya think?!?!
He's an Aggie...and yep there's a reason for the multitude of jokes. The boy just ain't right...except for his hair. .

 

[jazzman]

Cool. Another civil war. Can't wait.

A cheaper solution that would seem to meet all of the Gov's problems would be to withdraw all federal spending from Texas and build the new border fence in southern Oklahoma.

 

[Leche]

I believe the Fed has been trampling all over the Constitution unchecked for so many years, that the folks no longer see an issue with it. This Nation was founded on those documents and it is disheartening to see it disregarded and be acceptable. Strong work to those states that are standing up to the Fed and asserting their rights.

 

[cjlandry]

I don't see as how it would do either. Provided the Feds would not react violently, it would be a painless transition. What Texas would do with it's sovereignty is anyone's guess of course.

I always argue that our nation was built on the principle of secession - it's the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

I agree with this, 100%. I have no desire, at this time, to see Texas or any of the states secede, but if you read the Declaration of Independence, which was read out loud during Superbowl XXXVI, the first Superbowl after the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks, you'll see that this is exactly what caused our great nation to begin in the first place.

So I am assuming the Governor will turn down any aid that the Obama administration is willing to send. I also assume we can start pulling out the U. S. border patrol from the state.

He's already turned down a large portion of federal funding, that which comes with strings attached.


I agree that this was political grandstanding, but it is in line with many other states who have proclaimed the same.

I believe some folks call it a "shot across their bow", where it does no harm, but sends a message. I guess we'll see how the feds respond.



The federal government has most definitely outgrown the intent of our founding fathers. If we don't do something to reign 'em in, we'll end up in worse shape than we've ever seen before.

 

[Prince]

Ya think?!?!
He's an Aggie...and yep there's a reason for the multitude of jokes. The boy just ain't right...except for his hair. .

Hey now, leave us Aggies out of this.

 

[Mr. Clean]

Hey now, leave us Aggies out of this.

Sorry 'bout that Prince...But now that I know you're here, I'll endeavor to type more slowly.












Sorry again...no, really this time I mean it.

What mountains? Guadalupe Peak or El Capitan?

 

[Tanksfurnutin]

He's already turned down a large portion of federal funding, that which comes with strings attached.

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan. But he turned down the unemployment benefits because he said it would require the state to increase the tax burden on Texas businesses.

I guess federal money is okay as long as the state doesn't have to pony up more.

 

[masonjarjar]

I believe the Indiana Senate passed something very similar recently.

but would anyone notice.. or care?

 

[masonjarjar]

Way to keep the discussion civil.

It may be that only by states asserting their granted rights that the federal government just might comprehend that individual states do have rights. That every state in the Union does not desire to be a copy of CA, NY or TX. The government that works best is the government that is closest. D.C. appears to be too far from many of us.

And for the record: I find the notion of Texas leaving the Union quite unappealing.

I don't see how states are going to be able to maintain any sense of personality over time. I think that idea is kind of antiquated, with the way we communicate, and travel. I think that implies the concept of "if you don't like our state, then move to another state" - I just don't think that's a direction any state should go.

 

[arghblech]

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan. But he turned down the unemployment benefits because he said it would require the state to increase the tax burden on Texas businesses.

I guess federal money is okay as long as the state doesn't have to pony up more.

There were some pretty nasty long term strings attached to the unemployment money. I don't recall the exact details but it went something like this.

1) Gov't gives you a fistful of money. You have to meet certain metrics to keep it.
2) Money stops coming in after 5 years but the metrics must continue to be met for the next 25 years or you will return all the money.

I generally think Perry is a waste of skin but I agreed with this move.

 

[SmoovD]

I don't see how states are going to be able to maintain any sense of personality over time. I think that idea is kind of antiquated, with the way we communicate, and travel. I think that implies the concept of "if you don't like our state, then move to another state" - I just don't think that's a direction any state should go.

The alternative being that large, heavily populated states dictate what the laws/regulations become in other smaller states, through the federal government. Simply because the world seems smaller doesn't mean that the foundational documents are to be cast aside. Perhaps it is precislely the time to adhere more closely to them. States rights, included.

 

[smoothjim]

FWIW, for all the crap Texans and Alaskans get, the state with the most vibrant, active secessionist movement for a couple generations now has been Vermont.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076.html

[URL="http://www.vtcommons.org/"http://www.vtcommons.org/]Vermont Commons
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.vermontrepublic.org/"http://www.vermontrepublic.org/]Second Vermont Republic[/URL]

 

[richmondesi]

Cool. Another civil war. Can't wait.

If Texas secedes from the Union, I'm moving in with Ouch

 

[richmondesi]

A cheaper solution that would seem to meet all of the Gov's problems would be to withdraw all federal spending from Texas and build the new border fence in southern Oklahoma.

I agree that we need a wall to keep OU and OSU out of Texas. Keep those Oklahomans out of our state for recruiting football players and their football programs would go the way of Isiah "Thompson's" reputation.

 

[cjlandry]

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan. But he turned down the unemployment benefits because he said it would require the state to increase the tax burden on Texas businesses.

I guess federal money is okay as long as the state doesn't have to pony up more.

My grandfather told me, a long time ago, that there are three things you never turn down.

1. A free meal

2. Free money

3. (He said he'd tell me when I got older, but he died. So I have no idea with #3 is.)


The "you have to pony up more" bit, makes it "not free money".

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that Texas gives more to the feds than we receive from them.

 

[cjlandry]

And the word is "secede", not "succeed", though many tried, but didn't succeed, the last time they tried to secede from the Union.

 

[Sullybob]

Cool. Another civil war. Can't wait.

Congratulations on 17,000 posts!!


I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting.

I don't think that it would really be practical for us to secede. For one, we would need more government and we are pretty limited and/or constrained by our constitution. As an example our legislature is only in session every other year for 140 days.

 

[liege]

Yeah, that's a pretty common urban legend, but it isn't true (see page bottom).

Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?

A: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state ...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]



I think we may be at or approaching this point. Both "D" and "R" are spending our future into oblivion. This, I believe, was the main reason for the tea parties around our wonderful land.

 

[Austin]

Congratulations on 17,000 posts!!


I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting.

I don't think that it would really be practical for us to secede. For one, we would need more government and we are pretty limited and/or constrained by our constitution. As an example our legislature is only in session every other year for 140 days.

Agreed.

I think the issue to secede is pretty lame. Texans enjoy the freedoms and laws of the federal government. We need them as much as they need us.

I appreciate this thread remaining free of personal attacks and hurt feelings. Let's keep it that way gents.

 

[Mr. Clean]

...I don't think that it would really be practical for us to secede. For one, we would need more government and we are pretty limited and/or constrained by our constitution. As an example our legislature is only in session every other year for 140 days.

Hold on there pard. Who says we need more guv'mint? Be outta town by sundown.

That's just about right. The less time in session the less opportunity to create a mess.