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 hear this arguement all the time. “you ain’t a Texan less your born in Texas”.
No "trick" involved! That is EXACTLY what they did and your ROFLYAO doesn't alter the fact one iota!
The Treaty of Paris was an agreement between King George and the United States of America, not 13 seperate, sovereign entities. It was proclaimed between the U.S. and Great Britain and was signed by John Adams, Ben Franklin, and John Jay on behalf of the U.S.
Nor does your claiming your opinion to be fact. They changed a form of government. They didn't disband one country and for another.
Indeed,in the various postw it seems there is uniformity in the liberal northern “re-education” on: 1.)what the War of Southern Independence (it was NOT a civil war) decided constitutionally as regards secession (it did not decide that question at all- in a federal sense the invasion of the South by federal troops was an executive act supported by a non-representative “congress” controlled by northern industrialists and Western expansionists-railroads) and 2.)The actual causes of the secession and subsequent war. Slavery was an economic part of the raw materials (cotton, indigo,tea,rice) in question, as was the desire of New England industrialists to prevent export of Southern cotton to England and to the East India Company and the institution of selective tariffs to do this. The net result of the war was realization of cheap labor for northern owned textile mills which sprang up in the South, the illegal seizure and seizure by induced bankruptcy of property held for generations, and vast numbers of freed slaves homeless and harasses wherever they wentt.The only Amendments to come out of all this were the ones outlawing slavery and disposition of rights. Secession remains a choice of political will spelled out in the Constitution.
Whether enough citizens exist today in our bloated, addled nation of television slobs, have the fortitude to successfully secede remains in doubt. Of course such chaos would be the desired result of Cloward-Piven strategy and a great opportunity for foreign enemies, and dictatorship of marxists. Cheery thought.
Indeed it was and you should take note of the FACT that not one person on either side objected to the fact that each and every one of the thirteen former colonies was singularly named and referred to as free, sovereign, and independent states in that document!
Then why didn't representatives from all 13 free, sovereign, and independent states sign it?
Because they saw fit to authorize, through their elected representatives, the persons you named to do so.
So it was one country after all?
It was a confederation of free and independent states at that point which had seen fit to authorize a central authority to act on their behalf in certain, very limited matters.
After the Constitution was ratified it became a republic of republics in which the central government was authorized to act on behalf of the states or the people in certain, very limited, matters.
After the Constitution was ratified it became a republic of republics in which the central government was authorized to act on behalf of the states or the people in certain, very limited, matters.
Riiiight....
“ROFLYAO” is nonsensical speak for “I’m squealing like a pig”.
It means you’ve kicked his butt.
Excellent job.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)
“It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government.”
Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805
And finally:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
...of the *roll* of the Federal Government vis a vis the *roll* of the states and the people.”
You mean the ROLE I suppose?
Realistically, here's nothing stopping the 49 States from all choosing to secede from the Union, and form their own Union which does not include the 50th State.
However, as far as forcible expulsion: As with any limited-membership club, a member may freely choose to leave at any time unless the Contract specifies otherwise, but a member may only be forcibly expelled according to the club's bylaws for expulsion (if any).
That's the way that all limited-membership clubs work. Churches, social clubs, whatever. You know this; you're just trying to invent rationales for your silly "Forcible Union" ideology. But there aren't any, because limited-membership clubs simply don't work the way that you want them to. (Indeed, you probably don't even want any other voluntary limited-membership clubs to work the way you propose, except in this one case, because this is the only case in which you want a limited-membership club to be able to Force its Members to stay in the club. So, the truth is, you're just making this idiotic drivel up as you go along, with no concern whatsoever for any intellectual consistency at all).
Having been formed by the individual members, each member has the right to leave (unless the Contract says otherwise), and each member has the right to stay (unless the Contract says otherwise) -- because the Union only enjoys such powers as the Members specifically declare that they are ceding to that Union (including whether or not they can be forced to stay, or forced to leave).
“My wife and I both had to sit for Membership examinations with the Eldership of our church prior to being admitted into communicant voting membership.
Should we so desire, however, we can freely leave the church at any time.”
If however when you leave you decide to take a few pews and maybe the altar, the other members just might try to stop you.
I expect that we would only take out whatever we brought in (not counting tithes already paid, of course).
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 49 states that expel the 50th.
However, as far as forcible expulsion: As with any limited-membership club, a member may freely choose to leave at any time unless the Contract specifies otherwise, but a member may only be forcibly expelled according to the club's bylaws for expulsion (if any).
We're talking about the Constitution here, not some club. You've been talking about freedom of association and church membership and all the rest. Well then what part of the Constitution prevents the states from exercising their right of free association and booting a state out of the Union. It's still a simple question. Why not answer it?
You know this; you're just trying to invent rationales for your silly "Forcible Union" ideology.
No, it's more a question about your asinine "unilateral secession" ideology. You say that a state can walk out, at will, without permission, because the Constitution does not prevent it. Well then by extension a state can be kicked out, at will, without its permission, because nothing in the Constitution prevents that. Right? If not then what clause of the Constitution prevents it?
But there aren't any, because limited-membership clubs simply don't work the way that you want them to.
And I doubt that the Constitution works the way you seem to want it to as well.
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.