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 ...
I won't hold my breath waiting on that one.
So then could 49 states decide to disassociate themselves from the 50th and kick it out of the Union?
Amen.
Liberals wont even fight terrorists that want to cut off their heads... you think they would fight Texans?
ROFL!
Don’t ask me why, but I recently found a fascinating Youtube video. It was an old Firing Line segment featuring Bill Buckley and Huey P. Newton.
Newton asks Buckley who he would have supported in the American Revolution if he had been alive. Buckley says that he thinks it be with the revolutionaries but could not answer that with 100 percent conviction. He says that - generally speaking - he is against revolutions because they usually leave countries worse off than before as they tend to result in massive death and destruction.
I found that fascinating because I had asked myself that same question years before and was slightly concerned with the answer I came up with. Obviously, no one wants to say in retrospect that they would be a Loyalist. But at the same time - would I really support a violent revolution against my King over some issues that may have seemed small in the grand scheme of things.
I will be in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missouri.
A bunch of the guys at Ft Hood are Texans. Hood would be an asset to Texas,not a liability. Most of that armor would be sitting on the Texas border on our side if it came to that.
“God bless Texas!!”
My sentiments exactly. (being a Native)
So how did my thread make it to *breaking*?
I think states would be shocked if they actually attempted this and realized to what degree they rely on federal dollars.
Texas would need to raise an army, a navy, and an air force, build a postal system, figure out a way to maintain the interstates, take over security at the airports and ports, fill a big hole in the education budget, figure out how to keep all the students at UT, A&M, Baylor, etc who are receiving loans in school, either buy NASA or see it mobe to Florida, take over border security and immigration, take over all public housing, find Ron Paul a new job....it would be wild.
I don't have a problem with a liberal state seceding. I don't have a problem with any state seceding if that's what the people there truly want. Just work out all the issues about their share of debt and national obligations, the return of federal property and the like in a manner that is fair to both sides and I'm willing to wave bye-bye.
“God save us from yet another Texan president.”
The last Texas president was sure a heck of a lot better than what we have now!
Which, you have to admit, is not saying a lot.
Jefferson is far from uncontested as a constitutional thinker.
John Quincy Adams was more or less picking up where his father and Washington had left off, before Jefferson took office. His view of what the constitution allowed wasn't so very different from theirs.
They didn't submit an energetic plan of internal improvements to Congress, but given what they did propose, it's hard to say that they would have found such projects unconstitutional.
Jefferson's own party didn't follow his own ideas when it was in power. The National Bank and protective tariffs that he rejected returned under Madison and Monroe. Indeed, Jefferson himself had trouble following his own principles during his own administration. Jefferson the constitutional scholar had real trouble accepting his own Louisiana Purchase and trade embargo.
If you're looking for a break in American constitutional history it wouldn't be when Jefferson's views were rejected or dismissed, because Jefferson's views weren't the only or the most authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. If there was a rupture it happened later.
Texas would do fine in all of that (at least the parts that would be necessary). They can let FEDEX deliver the mail, simply ban foreigners from traveling on airlines, and the students who cannot pay their own way can take a hike.
Easy answer to all those, they could just print money like the federal government does now.
He was raised in Abiline, right down I-70 from me. And that's where his presidential library is. We'll share him with you, if you want.
I don't know how long they spent there, but neither his mother nor his father was a born Texan.
Ike wasn't a very typical Texan by any means. In some ways, he was exceptionally un-Texas.
|
> Well let me know when your rebellion starts. > I wouldn't want to miss it. It would likely kick into high gear with a single act of Federal oppression — the modern-day equivalent to the 1770 Boston Massacre.
It took years to develop from there. However, with the immediacy of communications today, I would not suspect it would very long for people to react accordingly in the 21st Century, especially considering how many years we've been building to the Tipping Point today. Regardless, true Leaders lead and Followers (as usual) are along for the ride ... Support for the Declaration of Independence was reportedly evenly split: I feel it's quite safe to assume YOU, Non-Sequitur, would not have been in Group 1. > But what does that have to do with states leaving the Once again, look at the Declaration of Independence ... and note the words of the first paragraph. I can only help you if you pay attention ... Truthsearcher said it best earlier in the thread:
EVERYTHING is a matter of political will.
If enough people want something badly enough, they will make it happen.
We love our nation, but I can't think of ANY Poll today which shows the American people are pleased with Congress or Federal Government ... can you?
|
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.
