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 ...
Where Texas goes Louisiana will be there with them,,,
Been that way since the War of 1812,,,
At the Battle of Mansfield,,,April 8th. 1864 the Texas
Boys were the ones that rolled the Union flank,,,
My kin were in the 18th. La. Lt.Inf charging the Union
guns on Honnicut Hill,,,
History lesson over/,,,
Now,,,If the gubmint wants to get stooopid these two states
can just turn off the oil and gas pipelines and anything
that goes to Cushing,Ok/etc. ,,,
We should all have 3-4 months worth of whatever we need in
our homes,,,
Just stay home and bar the door,,,
No Work No Tax,,,
IIRC Louisiana produces about 80% of the home heating oil
for the north,,,
And about 25-27% of the total energy for this country,,,
I can't think of a damn thing we need the north for...;0)
The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States" ... not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US. Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.
Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group. Superior strength does not prove morality or legality as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White "proved" that secession is unconstitutional. Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to "re-admit" Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be "re-admitted" and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.
Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.
One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the 'readmission' of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. White...it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
Because of this, if state's rights proponents continue to argue that a state's right to secede is implied because they joined the union as 'independent states', a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution. Membership in a union does not dimish in importance or totality a state's sovereignity. That's the whole point of federalism. However, it does imply relinquishing some power to the national government. Indeed, federalism is 'shared' power, but it is not 'equal' power, at least in the example of the US. Clearly national dominance was designed into the structure of the Constitution.
“Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.”
That I agree with. Sorry, I just get ticked when I see people on occasion state that since the Oligarchs in robes say we cannot secede, we should just bend over and take it from Washington. That logic just doesn’t make sense to me.
“But the judges have not ruled that. Many would say and I agree that the Constitution states that we have a right to revolution in the sense to from a more perfect union than the one we have now.”
Understand. And actually, as I see it, even if we (Texas) pulled away from the 49 states in order to follow the US Constitution as it is written...then who really seceded? In my opinion it was the other 49 states, who decided that they didn’t need to follow the Constitution anymore - and we are the only state that didn’t secede. Deal with that.
May I suggest that Texas adopt the Coinage Act of 1792 for all of Texas’ monetary needs.
There was a provision in the Coinage Act of 1792 which provided for the death penalty for debasing the currency.
Funny how everyone has forgotten about that.
Debasing the currency is just another form of taxation without representation.
If a Compact of Association to which a member has made application, and been admitted, contains clauses permitting such forceful expulsion -- then yes, of course such a member may be expelled according to the terms of such clauses.
If not, then of course it's entirely up to the member himself as to whether or not he wishes to continue his membership in the club.
OK, what clause of the Constitution says that a state cannot be expelled against its will?
Nothing to doubt. I read it, the whole ratification. I noted the date. I read the third clause. And?
If a Compact of Association to which a member has made application, and been admitted, contains clauses permitting such forceful expulsion -- then yes, of course such a member may be expelled according to the terms of such clauses.
If not, then of course it's entirely up to the member himself as to whether or not he wishes to continue his membership in the club.
When our Constitution was ratified by the first nine (not 13) acceding States, the remaining four non-ratifying States were "turned out of the Union." That is historical fact - denied by people like N-S, but historical fact nevertheless...
Yes. Do you?
Very curious. It is also the case that the Articles of Confederation required all 13 states to alter them. The Constitutional Convention clearly changed the Articles, but did so with only 9 states.
"..do not necessarily..." Which means that it could imply it, right?
If you were right, anyone who entered the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes would need some kind of official permission to disassociate themselves with said program.
You don't find an analogy comparing the Constitution with a contest to be somewhat...idiotic? What are you joining when you send in your Publishers Clearing House entry?
In other words, you're wrong - as usual...
Because you say so? That always seems to be the only reason why anyone is wrong - because you say they are. Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.
If I had to guess... I would say that the government is supposed to be for the people and by the people or some such nonsense. /sarc
When there is a disagreement of this proportion over the 9th and 10th Amendments, I would think the 2nd is the deciding factor.
"Nothing to doubt. I read it, the whole ratification. I noted the date. I read the third clause. And?"
"[C]an a state be turned out of the Union against their will if the other states choose to end their assocaiation [sic] with them?" Your answer (historically speaking ;>) is "yes." The State of Rhode Island was "turned out of" the existing union, and did not become a member of the new union with the majority of States, until they ratified the Constitution on the date specified by their ratification documents.
(And "You're welcome" for the information - which was obviously new to you... ;>)
It AIN’T fiction!
Oh, and don’t MESS with Texas!
Oh, so you're one of those totalitarians who thinks that the Federal Government can do anything and everything except what the Constitution specifically says it can't do.
Sorry, it's the other way around. The Federal Government can only do what the Constitution specifically says it can do.
Ergo, the burden of proof is upon you to show me the clauses in the Constitution which say that a State can be turned out against its will.
I'm waiting.
Why hasn’t Texas broken into five states if they have that power?
Ten conservative Senators and a bunch of Representatives could be a game changer today.
Not many people know about this and I would love to see Barry’s head explode when a bunch of new Texas congressional representatives show up in the District of Corruption to take their seats.
Actually, Representatives being apportioned on the basis of (1 per State + additional Reps based on Population), it would only add about 4 Representatives.
But it would add 8 Senators.
So, yes, it would be a game-changer in the Senate.
And as usual with you, any doubt benefits the government, rather than the States or their people - right?
You don't find an analogy comparing the Constitution with a contest to be somewhat...idiotic? What are you joining when you send in your Publishers Clearing House entry?
And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
Because you say so? That always seems to be the only reason why anyone is wrong - because you say they are. Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.
Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790. By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
;>)
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.