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 ...
...Texas Gov Rick Perry made a big splash this year by speaking about states rights...
Yep in a battle for governor and doing what Perry does best, say what he thinks the audience wants to hear. But the talk doesn’t match the walk as Perry used some $12 billion in stimulus money to balance his state budget.
Perry may choose to run for the GOP Presidential nomination but he pledged to serve the full four year term if he is re-elected.
......Under questions from a panel, Perry said if he is re-elected he will serve his full term of office if the “good Lord” lets him live that long......
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6842880.html
I would wholeheartedly challenge the right of anyone who remains a resident of state that has seceded to run for the presidency. If a state has seceded it means they have ceded all their ties to the Constitution and therefore all of its residents would no longer be eligible for any protection under the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.
Well... I’m a “natural born” Texan, since both of my parents and I were born in the Republic/State.
Those idiots in Austin that write crap like this should be living in San Francisco or some other far left enclave, as they are really an embarassment to real Texans.
Articles have been written for years about the possibility of secession by Texas. Not in the cards any time soon.
I disagree with what some have said that indicated that Federal Law overrides State law. I even heard Bill O’Reilly say that on his program a night or two ago. Not true, based on my readings over the years.
The issue is really the 10th Amendment basically states that the Federal Gov’t. has ONLY the powers granted by the Constitution and those powers do not include usurping the rights of the individual States. The Feds, for instance, would not be able to force everyone to purchase medical insurance or face fines or jail, as the Feds don’t have the right to do so. ........Many States are taking action to pass legislation that clarifies that the Feds cannot force them to accept any edict not allowed by the Constitution.
I read this in a different way than you do. Once you don't allow one state to secede, where does it end? It ends in a centralized unified state tyranny.
Nullification is Constitutional. Read Madison and Jefferson or
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by William Watkins
There is provision for secession -- read the 10th amendment. Oh, you see that provision is not prohibited to the States and thus it IS retained by the States. Note also that the original Articles of Confederation had the phrase "perpetual union" but the present Constitution does not -- purposely so. Did you know that New England was the first group of states to seriously consider seceding -- in 1814.
Trivia question, what State was the first to secede from the United States of America?
It was Delaware on on December 7, 1787.
Sure would make an interesting courtroom drama on C-SPAN.
I guess you do not want to answer the question I asked.
But since you brought up the Constitution, I wonder if you would indicate where it says in the Constitution that a State doesn't have the right to withdraw from the Compact.
ML/NJ
You’re exactly right, many states are striving to regain their rights/sovereignty.
Makes you wonder what people who disagree with that mission have in their minds.
I’d suggest this putz apologist read the Tenth Amendment. While it does not specifically create a right to nullification, it certainly iterates the points the gubernatorial candidates cite.
Of course secession is constitutional, but the War was still right: a liberty-loving nation cannot abide slavery.
Let me illustrate. Suppose a man kills his parents to gain an inheritance. If he throws himself on the mercy of the court as a orphan, should we listen to him? What about the inheritance? Rather than set the man free with his ill-gotten gains, the court will rely on the equitable requirement of “clean hands.” The doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”. The man will receive no mercy and will be treated as having predeceased his parents in the matter of succession.
Likewise, the South had a right to secede in order to preserve slavery, just as the murderous heir had a right to inherit. Those with unclean hands, those who contravene the rights of others, cannot complain that their rights have not been vindicated. Of course not; justice demands that they not profit from their own perfidy.
The War Between the States was a righteous war, and we better encompassed our ideals by enduring it.
ML/NJ
Oh really?
Let's see what a fellow who actually participated in the construction of that Constitution has to say on the matter.
Let it be remembered then, that the business of the federal Convention was not local, but general – not limited to the views and establishments of a single state, but coextensive with the continent and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sovereignties. (emphasis added)
In common parlance, indeed, it is generally applied to petty associations for the ease and convenience of a few individuals, but in its enlarged sense it will comprehend the government of Pennsylvania, the existing Union of the states, and even this projected system is nothing more than a formal act of incorporation. (emphasis added)
James Wilson’s Speech at the State House 6 October 1787
By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
The average level of self-delusion and fantasy on the first page of replies is just sad.
The issue of secession was conclusively decided in 1865. And playing paintball occasionally with surplus army cammies and grease-painted faces doth not a Robert E Lee make.
That's what the limeys said a couple of hundred years ago.
They were wrong too.
Gee, Johnson, Bush and Bush vs. Carter, Clinton, and Obama? Can I have some time to mull that over?
IMO, slavery was an excuse, money and power were the real culprits. (I’m from the South of course)
We’ll alway beleive the war was the result Northern (Federal)agression. As will the next one if it comes to pass.
Public school is showing.....slavery existed in the north and the south....and the majority/most Confederates never owned a slave nor wanted one....
Lincoln opposed complete abolition..... In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free. Somehow the facts get in the way of the legend....
The constitituonal method of banning slavery was to propose an amendment to do that and get three quarters of the States to voluntarily ratify that amendment.
NOT
By using military force to coerce States into ratifying amendments -- as was done after the Civil War. Only 24 of the 36 States in 1865 voluntarily ratified the 13th amendment -- the other 12 ratified it with a gun to their heads.
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.