50 States Secede

[mamabearCali]

To millions of people who did nothing more than sign a petition........I think that would be detected and obvious. This like everything else will get a big yawn and a shrug.

[equin]

If the law is unconstitutional, the courts will strike it down if an aggrieved party brings suit. Have we so quickly forgotten the famous case of District of Columbia v. Heller?

Oh yea?

Have you quickly forgotten about the SCOTUS and Obamacare ruling? And if you remember it......and how unconstitutional it was but still upheld........how do you think it will be when MaoBama appoints two more Justices?

You're right. I did forget about the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare and was just as surprised as many others that it was not ruled unconstitutional. I was even more surprised that Justice Roberts announced the decision and delivered an opinion on it.

However, I still believe that there is nothing in our form of government preventing Congress from repealing Obamacare if it so chooses. The point I was trying to make is that our form of government with its triangular checks and balances is still intact as the Founders had designed it. If Congress wants to, it can repeal Obamacare. The recent election results did not take that power away nor did it alter our country's governmental structure and framework. Now, whether Congress actually will do such a thing is another story. But the authority for it to do so was not affected. And just as the Democrats once had control over the Executive and Legislative at one time, the Republicans did as well. And as history has shown over time, the political pendulum will most likely swing that way again.

[AEA]

Hopefully so........

[Richard_B]

Saw this on another forum. Call me a die-hard American patriot who still believes in America, but I respectfully disagree with secession.

Many from Texas fought and died for these UNITED States, including Harlon Block shown in the famous flag-raising photo at the Battle of Iwo Jima (photo by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press):

[ Image ]

Sadly, many from Texas and other states and territories of the UNITED States continue to do so in Afghanistan.

The matter of secession was settled by force of arms some time ago.

On the other hand, if enough states call for a Constitutional Convention the result might be very different from what the signators of those petitions envisioned. If those changes were to be ratified, this could become a very different nation from the one we have known.

[equin]

It's not that any one state or person wants to remove themselves from the USA, it's really America wanting to remove themselves from the current administration.. If Anyone besides the current President had won this election we wouldn't have these petitions..

Many understand the frustration and disappointment when one's candidate loses. However, to request secession because the other candidate wins on the grounds that the country has supposedly lost its values or is somehow acting unconstitutionally reveals a severe lack of credibility for one's political cause. It rises to the level displayed by a sore loser. Was the Republican candidate not given a fair chance? Were Republican voters kept from voting? Was the election a complete fraud? If so, then I could give some credence to those crying foul, but if not, then let's all do the sportsman's-like thing, take our lumps and wait to vote again another day. Does not the Constitution require the re-elected President to step down after 4 years? It's not as if he was voted to the position of monarch for life.

But let's try to put things in perspective. I think the Office of the Presidency, albeit a powerful and honorable one, is sometimes overrated and given way more credit than it deserves when compared to the true power of Congress. The President CANNOT PASS LAWS! The President can only sign them into law once passed by Congress, or can veto them, but Congress can still override the President. And as an aside, let's not forget that Republicans still control one chamber of Congress through their majority in the House. And if the President is overzealously enforcing Congress' laws or supposedly abusing its executive power, guess what? CONGRESS can shut down the enforcement simply by not funding it. That's right - Congress controls the purse strings, not the President.

I hear a lot of complaining about government spending on entitlements to Americans that don't deserve them. However, where was the outcry and calls for secession when the same entitlement programs were in full force and effect when the Republicans controlled not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress during the Bush Administration? Why was nothing done then to reform welfare and entitlements even further? Very little if anything happened on that front if I remember, and there were no calls for secession about that or the growing debt, either.

Others claim the country is headed towards socialism or some other un-capitalistic, tightly controlled market system. And I ask, where is the proof of this? The wife and I are hoping to start a business, and in my research I've seen nothing by any federal government agency hindering us to do so. If anything, it's the local and state governments, not the federal government, that requires business licenses, fees, etc. When my sister and brother-in-law tried to start a business in another country, they came running back a few months later in disbelief over how difficult it was. They returned to their own businesses in Alabama with an even greater appreciation for the business-friendly climate here in America dispelling once and for all any notion of trying to start any kind of business anywhere else in the world. And aside from business, what about professions? Does the federal government have any control in permitting doctors, lawyers, plumbers, engineers, barbers or real estate agents? Of course not. The states have that control.

How can the President wield much control over the economy and commerce when it is CONGRESS that has the exclusive power to pass our country's laws, including laws affecting commerce, free trade, taxation, and capitalistic enterprise? If the answer is by Executive Order, then again, CONGRESS has the authority to override any Executive Order if it so chooses, and even if it doesn't, the third branch of government (the Courts), has the authority to declare any Executive Order invalid and/or unconstitutional if it fails to pass legal muster.

Many of us also worry about the passage of another assault weapons ban. Again, the President has no authority whatsoever to pass a law bringing back the AWB. Only Congress can do that. The President can introduce legislation, but Congress can simply ignore it if it so chooses. And as mentioned earlier, Republican conservatives still control the House and there is no super majority in the Senate to stop a filibuster unless I miscounted the seats.

But more to the point on secession. If Republicans retained a majority in the House and a sizable minority in the Senate, how and why would so-called "secessionists", supposedly claiming to champion the Republican cause and its values, clamor for secession?

I've noticed political swings come and go over the decades in this great country. Sometimes, Democrats take control of the White House and Congress, sometimes Republicans take over and sometimes it's split evenly or slightly in favor of one party over the other. Aside from the checks and balances built into the Constitution with the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial), we still have checks and balances between the two major political parties. Secessionists talk as if the Republican party was completely wiped out, when in fact not only was the Presidential election a very close one, but the Republicans still control the House. So knowing this as well as our country's historical political swings, why give up now and call for secession?

Again, I urge my fellow Americans to embrace this great country of ours, work within the system to lawfully advance your respective political cause, and leave this nonsensical talk of secession. God bless America.

And all of this works for you if you're more of a centrist who is content to gradually drift leftward....because although everything you've posted here is undeniable, it is equally undeniable that much of what both major parties stand for today was integral to the socialist left's platform 100 years ago. And all of that is made possible by both parties—whichever is more in power than the other at any given moment—stretching past the breaking point the original intent of much of the Constitution. For instance, are you going to stand there and tell me with a straight face that the way Congress wields the Commerce Clause today is entirely consistent with the Founders' original intent? Of course, it isn't. And as more and more of the national population has migrated to the nation's large metropolitan areas, more and more of that population is willing to elect politicians who use the Constitution for toilet paper exactly because it serves their interest to do so.

You point to Heller and McDonald as examples of defense of the Constitution in action. Exactly TWO cases, which in a very limited way protect the individual right to keep (Heller) and bear (McDonald) arms. In exactly what constitutional world does the NFA pass? The GCA of 1968? Exactly which constitutionally minded court refused to strike down the NFA in Miller? There isn't one. The side which would seek to disarm you, restrict your right to carry any gun you want, any place you want so long as there is no sign on the door asserting a property owner's rights, is the side which has dominated national firearms policy over the past 100 years.

Why is that? It is because ALL politicians are willing to trample on the Constitution if it will get them votes, and the American public for the past century has been content to be dumbed down by an educational system which is firmly in the grasp of the far left. Lawyers cynically seek to affect policy through the courts when they know that their ideas will not survive election scrutiny, and Judges, who are all former lawyers and who tend to share that world view go along with it in deciding those cases of social policy brought before them. This is damaging to the stability of the body politic. (I realize that there are many honorable lawyers and judges who take an originalist view of the Constitution, but you are FAR outnumbered by those in your profession who do not, and there aren't enough like you to overcome the damage done by the others.) You want an example? Here is one, and I am not making a statement about this issue one way or the other, only to point out how it was managed......Do you have ANY idea of why there is no ongoing debate in France—another nation with a Republican form of government—over abortion, but there is one here in the USA? Here is why: The French had a chance to vote on it. We did not. That simple. Back when abortion was legalized in France, it was still a predominantly Catholic nation, and yet they legalized abortion. To this day, the Catholic church, while diminished in France, still holds a certain amount of cultural sway there.....but there is no ongoing debate over abortion.......because they had a chance, as a body politic, to settle the issue in terms of law of the land, and of course, individual citizens are free to according to the dictates of their consciences. At the time Roe v Wade was handed down, abortion was already legal in several states. It would most likely have been a mere matter of time before all the states would have voted to legalize it in some form or other. Conversely, Congress could have taken it up at the national level, and gutless politicians would have been forced to deal with it and accept the consequences of their votes. But either way and regardless of outcome, The People would have had a say in the matter, and like the French, we would have moved on in terms of the national debate. Instead, the right of the people to have a say in the matter was robbed from them, and now they continue to agitate for or against it, according to their consciences.

Instead, lawyers and judges found ridiculous legal fictions called "penumbras" and "emanations" under which to declare a right not previously known to exist. But those SAME lawyers and judges can't find a plainly stated right to keep and bear arms in the naked language of the 2nd Amendment? Your faith in the system is misplaced. It is misplaced because the system in which you put your faith is NOT consistent with the system in which our Founders put their faith.

Now, like you, I prefer an intact United States of America. I did not sign the secession petition, but not because I disagree on some philosophical level with it; rather because when a blister like Obama is in office, it is extremely stupid to put your name on a list of people who hate him so much that they want to secede, when said list is then submitted to the White House. Why did Obama do almost no campaigning in Texas? Because he knows it is a lost cause. Why did Houston not get one of the retired Space Shuttles? Political payback. Pure and simple. When Texas sends a petition to the White House telling the rest of the nation to jump in a lake, does anybody seriously think that you'll then be able to get congressgoons from other states to vote favorably in matters related to Texas? No. The petitions were a temper tantrum. Nothing more.

BUT.....I absolutely endorse the sentiment. When Ronald Reagan famously stated that he did not leave the Democrat Party, it left him; he was expressing exactly the sentiments that many conservatives feel today about the Republican party.....me included. And a mere few years ago, our views were mainstream Republican views. We did not change. The party did. So when a nation continues to drift leftward leaving behind those who actually believe in and are willing to stand for principles, what recourse is left to them? This leftward drift may well represent the majority of the people, who also happen to mostly live in massive cities, but that does not mean that it is either Constitutional or wise.

At the end of the day, one has to decide for one's self, "am I a statist, or am I one who reveres the Constitution enough to get loud and obnoxious in its defense?" Your argument, which I have quoted in its entirety above so that there can be no accusation of cherry-picking, sounds like you've made that choice for yourself, and I hate to tell you, but it is the statist position, and the statist position is that which is content to vote, even vote conservatively, and then to accept in totality the outcome of the vote, even when that outcome carries you further and further from the values you assert to uphold. And yet you want to claim this ground in the face of an administration which, through its own naked exercise of power, ignores Congress, the courts, and the Constitution anyway?

While I think that these petitions are indiscreet and unwise, I accept them fully as that "loud and obnoxious" defense of the Constitution, and God bless people for having that passion. Personally, I take the long view. I love my country, but so did the Romans, and Rome no longer exists except as a metropolis in a socialist state. Why should the United States be any different? Why should we not be subject to the lessons of history? Many of the Founders did not believe that this divinely inspired political device of theirs would survive beyond a couple of hundred years, because they understood human nature—and if there is one thing that has not changed in 10,000 years, it is human nature. If a million Americans think that secession is the pathway to rededicating at least a portion of the nation to essential liberty and the rule of law instead of ever bigger and intrusive government and the rule of men, they ought to be encouraged, and anyone who ridicules them for that sentiment ought to be ashamed to call themselves "American."

I bow down to your articulate and eloquently stated argument. I may be in over my head engaging in a political debate with the intellects on this board; but hey, it's Friday night, and since I live a boring life with little to do on Friday nights, I figure I'll entertain myself with another feeble retort. So here goes.

I understand your position that you do not condone secession and think it unwise. I think I also understand your statement that these petitions are more or less a passionate sentiment of frustration if I may be so bold to rephrase it.

If the true purpose of the petition to secede was simply to express one's frustration with the election result, then I think it's a poor means to communicate that sentiment. It may serve as a rallying cry for some, but for the vast majority of Americans, including moderate swing-voters and many conservative Americans (such as political talk show hosts like Sean Hannity) it's viewed as silly. And when something is viewed in that light, it and the message it purports to carry loses credibility. More damaging, though, is that it is divisive, and divisiveness tends to alienate those who might otherwise sympathize for one's cause and values if given a chance to be educated on those values.

As for mentioning only two cases where the Supreme Court exercised its "check and balance" power, I refer you to a source, albeit an internet link, which claims the Supreme Court has actually ruled over 1300 laws unconstitutional since its inception up to the year 2002:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Granted, I have no idea how accurate the information is, but it does cite to a publication by the Congressional Research Service as its source. So assuming the information is accurate, then over a 210-year period the Supreme Court has ruled a law unconstitutional at least 6 times per year. And that's just the Supreme Court. That does not include district courts and appellate courts whose cases were either not appealed or whose appeal was simply denied review. So to me it appears the trifecta of checks and balances framed within our form of government is working.

You also referred to the French experience concerning their law on abortion and our country's experience with the precedent found in Roe v. Wade. My opinion agrees with yours. In my opinion, I think it should be a state matter with the people in each state voting on it. But I'm no constitutional jurist, and I don't pretend to understand the Court's rationale in its decision in that case.

Perhaps my faith in America is misguided. Maybe I'm blinded by the star-spangled banner and am simply a naive optimist when it comes to my belief in America. I admit I got a little teary-eyed the last time I saw the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and walked by the Vietnam Memorial. My heart got a bit too patriotic when I visited the Lincoln Memorial and thought about our country's great history. But yeah, i still believe in America, still believe it's the best country in the world, still believe it's the most free country (despite the complaints on here), and still believe it will improve and grow to achieve even greater accomplishments. There may be some obstacles and bumps in the road, but America has overcome greater obstacles in the past and come out stronger (Shay's Rebellion, Civil War, Plessy v. Ferguson and segregation, WWI, Prohibition, Great Depression, WWII, McCarthyism, Soviets, communism, etc.). God Bless America!

[smoothoperator]

The matter of secession was settled by force of arms some time ago.

Once in 1783 for a lot of the East Coast and later, in 1863, where I live.

[tommyg]

Texas Secede will not happen.....The petitions will let BO know
that he has less popular support than he thinks he has....It will
let congress know that giving BO full support is a bad idea

[tomharkness]

Don't know if you have noticed or not, but if you read Article 4,5, and 6 of the U.S. Constitution (not just the amendments), it appears that several States have already Seceded. Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey (To name a few) have already written off the Constitution as a "Set of Guidelines" and not really "Laws". In fact, even the Supreme Court has sent several messages to States like Arizona that their rights under the Constitution are no longer valid. Maybe they have not formally Seceded, but they have certainly separated from the Constitution.

What, therefore, would be the problem? Of Course, the problem is, if Texas actually Seceded, those States listed above would loose all of our tax dollars. That won't go over well with the socialist and Marxist from the Northeast... not without a fight. They need those monies keep their people voting socialist.

Buy ammo!!!

[sjfcontrol]

I thought I heard or read somewhere that as of this year, Texas actually collects more from Washington than it pays.

[snatchel]

::immediately likes Equin::

Touchè to TAM.

I'm not signing any petition...... fought too hard, too long, and bled too much for America. I'm invested.

**Edited to fix typo

[equin]

Don't know if you have noticed or not, but if you read Article 4,5, and 6 of the U.S. Constitution (not just the amendments), it appears that several States have already Seceded. Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey (To name a few) have already written off the Constitution as a "Set of Guidelines" and not really "Laws". In fact, even the Supreme Court has sent several messages to States like Arizona that their rights under the Constitution are no longer valid. Maybe they have not formally Seceded, but they have certainly separated from the Constitution.

What, therefore, would be the problem? Of Course, the problem is, if Texas actually Seceded, those States listed above would loose all of our tax dollars. That won't go over well with the socialist and Marxist from the Northeast... not without a fight. They need those monies keep their people voting socialist.

Buy ammo!!!

Not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say in the first paragraph. Here's a link to the text of the original U.S. Constitution, including Articles 4, 5 and 6:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't read where it says what you're purporting to say. Also, Illinois and California were not states when the original Constitution was adopted, unless I'm misunderstanding something? And do you have a citation to that Supreme Court case you refer to?

As for the remaining states losing Texas' tax dollars, according to an April 12, 2012 article in the Dallas Morning News, Texas actually receives more federal funds than it pays into the Treasury:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... rnment.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[zaroffhunts]

With all the recent talk that Israel should go back to '67 borders, I think it's only fair to ask the USA to go back to '62 borders. 1862.

[VMI77]

I thought I heard or read somewhere that as of this year, Texas actually collects more from Washington than it pays.

It depends on how you do the math......I wouldn't believe it until I saw the numbers. What is counted as "collecting" and what is counted as "paying." For instance, Rachael Maddow is quoted as saying that Texas "gets a lot more federal spending" than it pays in Taxes. That kind of statement raises a red flag from the start.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... nely-rece/

The implication is different from the reality, and I think the reality is different from the suggested inference. I take it to mean essentially that the citizens of the State of Texas get more money back than they pay in income taxes --but that may not be reality. In the first place, military spending in the state is counted as getting money back. Just what does that mean? It's not stated just how military spending is allocated between states --by which I mean, how supposed spending is counted as occurring in one state versus another. If the Air Force buys a jet in Seattle to be based in Texas is that Federal spending counted as occurring in Washington or Texas, or both? --we don't know. But aside from that, consider this analogy. The mob forces my business to pay protection of $300 a week, and then an assortment of these same mobsters spend $350 a week in my store --am I getting back more money than I paid in protection? The money isn't coming back on the same side of the balance sheet.

Second, isn't there a good reason for Texas to get back more as a percentage of Federal tax revenue, than say, Alabama or Georgia? Texas has a long border with Mexico, and there are significant costs to illegal immigration to the state. Some of the counted spending is in benefits paid to illegal immigrants....such as Federal public school funding to educate illegals and the children of illegals who were born in the US. Counties in the Rio Grande Valley have some of the highest rates of people on government assistance in the whole country --a phenomenon largely fueled by illegal immigration. Also, the Federal government claims authority for immigration, so why should Federal spending for border enforcement in Texas be considered a benefit solely accruing to Texas? Counting this as income to Texas is like the government forcing me to provide housing at my cost for foreign dignitaries and then counting the money spent on rent as my benefit, instead of a cost to the nation.

Next, again, related to illegal immigration, a lot of money goes into the "welfare" system. Clearly those on welfare benefited economically --which is how the supposed benefits are being determined-- but how have those of us who have been taxed to pay for those who don't pay taxes benefited economically? When our tax dollars pay for illegal aliens to get medical treatment how can that payment to a foreign national be counted as a benefit to Texas?

And the article referenced talks mostly about income related taxes on individuals --how are Federal taxes on oil and gas production counted in this mix? I suspect they aren't. The term used over and over is "residents" --i.e. individuals. How are corporate taxes counted? What portion of corporate income taxes paid by corporations with operations in Texas and other states or countries is counted? Apportionment of some kind? Again, I suspect they aren't.

Finally, I'd bet there is double counting in these supposed benefits. The article says Federal payroll is counted as "get back" and that's bookkeeping legerdemain. Despite the fiction encouraged at tax time, the economic reality is that government employees don't pay taxes....all their pay comes from taxes paid by the private sector, and the notion that they pay taxes is just a bookkeeping fiction. From a purely economic perspective the reality is that the amount they pay in "taxes" is just an adjustment to their fictional wages that reveals their true income. A government employee making $100K and paying $20K in taxes is really just making $80K, as both the supposed gross income and the tax they are supposedly paying both come from the same source. So essentially, the private sector paying the income taxes of government employees is counted as "income" to the private sector.

[sjfcontrol]

I would NEVER put any weight on anything that Rachael Madcow had to say.

[tallmike]

It depends on how you do the math......I wouldn't believe it until I saw the numbers. What is counted as "collecting" and what is counted as "paying." For instance, Rachael Maddow is quoted as saying that Texas "gets a lot more federal spending" than it pays in Taxes. That kind of statement raises a red flag from the start.

Have you ever looked at the budget for the State of Texas? Below is a link to an easy to read pie chart for the 2010-2011 budget. Last year 37% of the state budget came from the federal government. This years budget it was down to 31.5%, still a pretty significant portion of our state spending.

http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/budget ... comes-from

The idea that we are the only ones pulling our weight around here is not exactly accurate. Our state does pretty well for itself when it comes to bringing home the federal dollars. I have found studies and charts saying we bring home more than we pay and others saying we bring home less, so I won't post any of them because they are unreliable. It's funny to me how studies and statistics almost always show exactly what you want them to show and rarely what would be considered the "truth" to an uninterested party.