Posted on 04/27/2009 4:08:24 AM PDT by Scanian
Recently Governor Rick Perry rattled the cages in Washington when he suggested that Texas might at some point be so disgusted with Washington’s repeated violations of the United States Constitution that they might want to secede from the union. It stems from the one amendment to the Constitution that gets the least attention - the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment enumerates the rights of the states and the people. Specifically it states that 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. Shortly after Virginia ratified the Constitution back in 1788, New York and Rhode Island made similar claims to their ratification document.
On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
The original states made it clear that if the federal government exceeded the delegated rights, they had the right to implement their rights. If every state did not think it had the right to secede, there never would have been a union. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
So you're going to help run the debt up - aided by three recent Texas presidents - and then you're going to leave and repudiate all responsibility for it? And you expect the rest of the states to sit back and take it?
...Texan’s grit and determination.
Is that what you call it?
I don't know what you'll piss it away on. But you'll continue to pay taxes, that's for certain.
I vote for sitting back and watching Texas self destruct or get absorbed by Mexico but that's just me.
Something you probably wouldn't know anything about!
Whatever.
I wholeheartedly agree. Gov. Goodhair is not only bad but atrocious. KBH would not be an improvement.
Ah, but does each person have the right to dissolve the partnership on their own? A more accurate analogy would be a company with 50 partners. New partners are added only with the approval of the existing partners. Since all partners have a stake in the overall corporation, then shouldn't they have all have say if the partnership is to be dissolved and their own interest impacted?
There is no language in the Constitution forbidding secession. There is no statute on the books passed by Congress forbidding secession.
There is no language in the Constitution allowing an individual state to tresspass on the interests of any other state, and a lot of language specifically disallowing it. Why should states be allowed to harm other states merely by leaving? Shouldn't the remaining states have a say in their own interests?
That pesky 10th Amendment thingy that the Feeds seems so hell-bent to trample!
The Constitution is not a club that allows one state to beat up on the other states merely by leaving.
I never said it was a club. It is a partnership and agreement between the States to crate a Union of States.
The 10th Amendment was added by the Founding Fathers to protect the States from the Federal government.
Your analogy is wonderful. But if there are 50 partners and one or two leave ... the partnership still exists with the rest. There for the partnership and the individual partners are not harmed. They still survive.
As I said there is no law prohibiting secession. You have chosen the language basically of interstate commerce. It does not in any way, shape or form address secession.
What is one states’ interest in another state? What interest is it of one state what another state does? You imply that the governor of one state can dictate to the governor of another. Untrue.
One state leaving the Union is not beating up another state. There is no physical or economic damage. Commerce can continue.
Your argument doesn’t hold water. All you’re saying is that the Federal government is now omnipotent and omnipresent and must be followed no matter what.
It’s the Federal interest you are proclaiming, camouflaging it in another States’ interest. It doesn’t wash. You have shown no consideration for the rights of the individual States in what you have written and I have read. But the 10th Amendment does.
We are a government and a society of laws. Those laws mean what they are intended to curb or enforce. With the courts chiming in when questions arise.
As I said the Constitution nor any other law prohibits secession. No court decision has decided this issue, to date.
The Federal government holds jurisdiction in certain issues and the States in other issues. Both are sovereign in their own right.
Therefore it is legal for a State to secede if it chooses to do so. Until a law is passed or court decision opines differently.
How about protecting the states from the other states? Isn't a good part of the Constitution dedicated to that?
But if there are 50 partners and one or two leave ... the partnership still exists with the rest. There for the partnership and the individual partners are not harmed. They still survive.
But if the partners leave and repudiate their share of the partnerships obligations, or walk out with property jointly held by all, then their actions negatively impact the interests of the remaining parners. A fair and mutually agreeable separation requires that all matters of potential dispute be settled before the members leave.
As I said there is no law prohibiting secession. You have chosen the language basically of interstate commerce. It does not in any way, shape or form address secession.
No, I have chosen the language that recognizes that all parties to the compact have rights and interests to protects and not just those leaving.
One state leaving the Union is not beating up another state. There is no physical or economic damage. Commerce can continue.
There is no physical or economic damage? Say California left tomorrow. They take with her what? About 11 or 12 percent of the population and a considerable percentage of the GDP? What about the debt they leave behind? What about responsibility for Social Security and pensions for the people in the state? What if California cuts off access to the sea for the western states? What if the western states cut off some of California's sources for water? What about the military equipment in the state and other government assets owned jointly by all the other states? States don't operate in a vaccuum. If California walked away from obligations and kept everything they could get their hands on and was in a position to cut off access to the sea and transportation for a considerable part of the country, are you telling me you honestly believe there is no physical or economic damage to the remaining states? And do you seriously mean that there is nothing the states can do except sit back and get slapped around? And that the Constituiton protects that?
Your argument doesn’t hold water. All you’re saying is that the Federal government is now omnipotent and omnipresent and must be followed no matter what.
No. Nor am I agreeing with you that a state can do whatever it wants, regardless of the impact to the other states.
It’s the Federal interest you are proclaiming, camouflaging it in another States’ interest.
Nonsense. You are saying that only one state matters - the one you're allied with. All the others have no say, no rights, no protections.
We are a government and a society of laws. Those laws mean what they are intended to curb or enforce. With the courts chiming in when questions arise.
We do have laws, and they're meant to protect everyone and every state. Not just you and your's.
As I said the Constitution nor any other law prohibits secession. No court decision has decided this issue, to date.
I suggest you read up on Texas v. White, 1869 Supreme Court decision.
However, the defendants case centered around the claim that since Texas had seceded and not completed reconstruction then she was not a state in the Union and lacked the ability to take her case to the Supreme Court. So the legality of the Texas acts of secession were a central question for the court to decide.
The decision endorsed a union that once created can not be dissolved and secession was not legal.
No it did not. Chief Justice Chase identified the two ways a state could leave the Union - rebellion or through the consent of the other states.
If secession was upheld then the North through the Supreme Court would have to acknowledge a legal government existed. It didn't want that cause if it allowed it the carpetbagging governments set-up by the North would be illegal. DUH!!!! Judge Chase said Texas never left the Union and therefore settled all in favor of the North, not on Constitutional
You can attribute any sinister plot to the Texas v. White decision that your imagination can come up with. That doesn't change the fact that Texas v. White did rule that unilateral secession as practiced by the rebelling states was illegal. That isn't going to change unless the Constitution is amended of a future court overturns that decision.
Your elected officials in Washington DC believe they are above you, beneficent despots ... you must like it that way.
Why must I like it that way? Because I don't sign on with your asinine theories on secession?
Best not to count on that oil lasting forever.
And Texas has had a very volatile economy tied to the price of oil and things like Enron.
For that matter, you might not want to count on that non-union thing, either. Texas is Republican because it's a way of voting against the Northeast and the West Coast liberals. With them out of the picture, you might find pro-union Texas liberals a lot stronger.
Is the economy in these states volatile or simply more commodity and agriculturally based than the other states? A knowledge based economy is great but you still need energy, the cheaper the better. And, you still need food. How much of its own food does New York state produce? Massachusetts? Maine?
I don't know how deep the non union sentiment in these states runs. I do know that a low tax regime combined with cheap energy, food, and an unfettered labor force is a recipe for dynamic economic growth.
The "state" with the highest GDP by far was listed as the District of Columbia. I don't think there is much mining, farming, or manufacturing going on there, so I assume this high rank was achieved in the "service" category, specifically government services. Most conservatives would say, non-productive government services. In any case, services which do not produce wealth, in fact they waste it.
Next in line are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Delaware. There is some manufacturing in these states. However, I think there are lots of "knowledge based" industries and financial services companies. If the excrement really hits the ventilation device, these industries will collapse, fast.
Next is New Jersey. Some manufacturing but a lot of knowledge and service based industries.
At seven and eight are Colorado and Alaska. These states actually produce real wealth that people need, energy, basic materials and food. By the way, Texas is 20th.
My point is that knowledge based industries, financial industries and government are only sustainable when they are based on strong agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Cheap, plentiful energy underlies the whole shebang. Take away cheap food, cheap plentiful energy and a manufacturing base and the service industries cannot survive.
Don't be so sure about the survival of the US dollar. Your current administration seems to be hell bent on destroying it. Someday, soon, they may succeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.