Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Tell you what, Sanford Levinson, how about we moot most of the argument by doing away, in total, with the federal departments of agriculture, energy and education?
As round one, that is. After we do that, and the world doesn't fall apart (and in fact deficits fall and the economy booms) we can proceed to round two, closing down Health and Human Services, Labor, Commerce and Transportation.
“Montana and Tennessee have voted to nullify federal gun laws.”
As Solitar points out, Legal or not, the Law stands ready for the FEDS to obey, or take ‘em to Court.
If Eric Holder attacks this law in MT. and TN ..... He will be seen as attacking the 2nd Amendment rights. More really bad press on top of his really really stupid underwear Terrorist treatment as a US Citizen.
Retard = Harvard Grad (PC term)
Imagine that, a Liberal law professor quoting Donald Rumsfeld.
Even more surprising is that he seems to suggest that the Constitution is not a “Living document”.
I wouldn’t of posted this article if it weren’t somewhat balanced. LOL!
If Texas takes the big jump they won’t be alone for long.
Second:
Q: Did the terms of Texas’s admission to the Union include permission to withdraw if it found statehood not to its liking?
It is said of Texas (and, occasionally, Vermont) that it received a letter or document of permission to withdraw from the Federal Union if it so chose. In the case of Texas, this permission is sometimes said to have been granted at the time of Texas’s admission as a state. Other times it is said to have been included in the terms readmitting Texas to the Union after the Civil War.
In fact, Texas received no special terms in its admission to the Union. Once Texas had agreed to join the Union, she never had the legal option of leaving, either before or after the Civil War.
The early years of the United States had seen a great deal of debate over whether states could, in fact, legally withdraw from the Union. During the War of 1812 it was New England that wanted to secede from the rest of the country. Later, it was the Southern states. Secessionists argued that states were sovereign and had the right to withdraw from the Union. Opponents countered that the Constitution created a sovereign union that, once entered into, could never be broken. Eventually, the question was put to the test and settled permanently on the battlefields of the Civil War.
The Presidential Proclamation declaring peace between the United States and Texas after the Civil War, dated August 20, 1866, states very clearly in the following passage that no state had the right to leave the Union (emphasis added in all capitals):
And whereas,
the President of the United States, by further proclamation issued on the second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, did promulgate and declare, that there no longer existed any armed resistance of misguided citizens, or others, to the authority of the United States in any, or in all the States before mentioned, excepting only the State of Texas, and did further promulgate and declare that the laws could be sustained and enforced in the several States before mentioned, except Texas, by the proper civil authorities, State, or Federal, and that the people of the said States, except Texas, are well and loyally disposed, and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States;
And did further declare in the same proclamation THAT IT IS THE MANIFEST DETERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO STATE, OF ITS OWN WILL, HAS A RIGHT OR POWER TO GO OUT OF OR SEPARATE ITSELF FROM, OR BE SEPARATED FROM THE AMERICAN UNION; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States;
On March 30, 1870, Congress passed the Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. Likewise, this act contains no language that would allow Texas to unilaterally withdraw from the United States.
No one alive today will see Texas legally secede from the Union.
I agree. But, baby steps are better than NO steps at all. (speaking of nullification not secession)
It has the same terms as all the other States -- that the States retain those rights not expressly prohibited to them -- and some of those rights are secession and nullification.
You don’t know much about contract law do you.
Whether you believe it’s fantasy or not, the *threat* of rebellion must exist to offset government arrogance.
I feel, when it comes time for such rebellion, many will be surprised by it’s intensity and suddenness.
Ummm, the fact that Ft. Hood is in TX means you have a significant federal military force to deal with. If the Feds tell TX to piss off on the secession request then what happens?
ping
Doesn't the federal government get its money from the states? The states collect the taxes and send them to washington. What would happen to the federal government if the states refused to send any money to Washington? Including Income Tax...
The resistance in RED DAWN wasn't comprised of weekend paintballers.
While aging yuppies are wasting their money on permanent press cammies and the newest paintball experience in town, the people who really believe in the constitution are stockpiling live ammunition and know how to use it.
.
Obama being a communist and an admirer of communist dictators would most likely be more than happy to send in the troops.
Of course the next question is would the officers and soldiers of Fort Hood be willing to follow such orders?
No one of course answer that question until such events come to pass.
I wouldn’t mind seceding or being kicked out of the US. I would hink that most of those really smart , educated Ivy League types wouldn’t want us dumb old rednecks around anyway. Heck California , new York , and massachusetts are heaven on earth. So why not get rid of Texas. Heck, the libs have turned Austin into a sh@t hole
Well obviously with an avowed Islamofascist living and “teaching” in Houston, the Feds don’t take security seriously.
The supremes would end up making a ruling. Then you will see if the Supremes truely uphold the Constitution.
Unfortunately, people would not stand for it. They want their fed money, because they pay fed taxes. Recently when one of the more conservative governors said he would not accept stimulus money, there was such an uproar that he had to relent.
Everybody wants to maintain their place at the trough. They want the other guy to give up his. This is why we are on the spending train to destruction.
The Civil War was not just about slavery. The Federal Government had drawn to itself too much power in the views of many and a "revolution" was needed.
If you read Thomas Jefferson's papers you'll find that he recognized that history dictated that there is a generational change every 20 years. New ideas, inventions and religious and cultural events would dictate that our government would be faced with REVOLUTION. He believed that the government he had helped to construct would find that the revolution would be won with Ballots not Bullets!
. Jefferson was a true universal man right up there with Adams, Hamilton, Franklin and Goethe all true lights of the world in the late 18th early 19th Century.
2010 revolution will be fought with Ballots. That's why ACORN and the other Demoscamic Party members will be defused!
Interesting trivia. Both Adams and Jefferson would live to the 50th anniversay of our the revolution.
Adams retired to his farm in Quincy. Here he penned his elaborate letters to Thomas Jefferson. Here on July 4, 1826, he whispered his last words: "Thomas Jefferson survives." But Jefferson had died at Monticello a few hours earlier.
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.