Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
Uh, you can't.
How's that going to work if TX secedes?
God save us from yet another Texan president.
Is this a trick question, or is the answer the obvious one: liberty?
ML/NJ
You sir, are living in a fantasy. Step away from that Hash pipe, you’re beginning to hallucinate..
It means I believe in the Constitution.
I read the column to say that nullification is proscribed...that seccession would be required in order to ignore the federal government mandates.
I don’t know anything about Medina but I do know A State doesn’t need to secede in order to extricate itself from at least some of the power the federal government has grabbed for itself over the last century.
I call it “secession in place.”
Even today there are clearly programs that the only way the federal government “forces” the states to participate in is through refusing to give them money if they don’t. For example, states must participate in the federal school lunch program if they want to continue to receive federal dollars (misnomer) for education (that’s probably also a misnomer). There are many ways the States allow the federal government to intrude upon the people simply because the penalty for not volunteering such access is loss of various federal funding. It’s okay (constitutionally) for the federal government to tie the flow of federal money to its program goals, but the States do often have the power to refuse that money and do things their way, if only they will.
The question in those cases is, in fact, the political will of the State to go without the fedbucks and make it somehow on its own.
A great and fascinating website on these issues is: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
It addresses that in the article Read on.
“The ultimate manifestation of sovereignty is withdrawal — secession. This argument is spelled out at the foot of the hill leading up to the Texas State Capitol, where a statue celebrating the Confederate war dead describes them has having “died for state rights guaranteed under the constitution,” which included the right to withdraw “from the federal compact.”
I don't think that they want to do that.
I do believe that there would be a human wave of men, woman and children that would descend onto Capitol Hill armed to the teeth. So they just wouldn't have to deal with Texas but individuals and groups of individuals from the border states with D.C. and all those that will flock here to take back our country.
I don't know how realistic that is (maybe just fantasy land) but it is something that the leftist in Congress needs to keep in mind here.
This wouldn't be a war between the states but a war of the people against its government.
There are a LOT more PEOPLE than government so they better tread lightly.
Just a thought. You may flame away if you see fit.
Those Progressives in Austin ought to be afraid....very afraid.
I read it to mean that Medina believes the opposite. That she believes that states have the Constitutional right to nullify federal laws. And that means she has never actually read the Constitution or skipped right past Article VI.
And that's the name of that tune.
'Nullification' is just a way of saying it politely.
Obama ain't no Lincoln and I don't think that the military is his friend.
First of all 75% of your fellow Texans are against it.
Second there is NO provision for secession or breaking into 5 states.
So, a court will stop it and then the US military.
I spent a large amount of cash on a law firm researching this during the Clinton years. The answer was no way.
There’s a huge difference between the concept of state sovereignty and state secession.
A state can definitely take steps to reestablish its constitutionally defined sovereignty vis-a-viz the federal government without seceeding from the union.
No different from telling a HOA that is overstepping its legal bounds, “Get off my property.” Doesn’t mean you’re leaving the neighborhood or the HOA. You’re just reestablishing your property rights as defined in the controlling legal document.
Secession is the *violent* method.
Never touch the stuff. I'm just going with the Founding Fathers--those who decided for themselves what government they were to have. (Perhaps you consider Marx and Engels the Founding Fathers?)
Recall that the Constitution was ratified with states explicitly stating that it was only under the condition that secession is allowed. If it isn't allowable, then we have an unratified Constitution.
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.