• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

Hmm... well you're right. The left sure did a lot of complaining about the stolen election.

I don't remember however, talks about secession, revolution, hoping for the president to fail, voting from the roof tops...
No... y'all vowed to leave the country.
Unfortunately, y'all lied.
 
People I talked to today were absolutely furious about these protests. They couldn't believe that all those rich stupid republicans were yelling in the street because they wanted to pay even less in taxes and take away money from police departments and garbage men, etc.

It was really surprising to see how angry liberals got over this.

I've often noted the utter hypocrisy of the liberal core... who seem to pride themselves most on their intellectualism, yet are the first to scream and shout and throw hissy fits and tantrums in public. The continuing campus disruptions when conservatives speak are a perfect example of their childishness and their rage. Here's a fine example from UNC just two days ago...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0tYPblZqs"]YouTube - Police mace students at UNC protest, April 14th, 2009[/ame]

These are angry, often violent, people.

And really base, too. I lurk on a liberal board... it's the most foul-mouthed bunch you can imagine. So yes, I can see their rage over the tax protests.

:shock:
 
Last edited:
Do any of you right wingers know what happend last time Texas as well as 10 other states that it would be okay to use the10th Amendment to tear this country apart 149 years ago?

Don't you realized the issue of seccession has already been settled with a war that pretty much dessimated the southeast part of our nation for at least a generation?

What are you people thinking? What is Rick Perry thinking? Are you thinking??

I get the symbolism of the tea parties, but leave it at that, symbolism.
 
Do any of you right wingers know what happend last time Texas as well as 10 other states that it would be okay to use the10th Amendment to tear this country apart 149 years ago?

Don't you realized the issue of seccession has already been settled with a war that pretty much dessimated the southeast part of our nation for at least a generation?

What are you people thinking? What is Rick Perry thinking? Are you thinking??
That some things are worth fighting for, even if you might lose, and that doing so might make a real mess?
 
Don't you realized the issue of seccession has already been settled with a war that pretty much dessimated the southeast part of our nation for at least a generation?
The only thing the Civil War "settled" was that Lincoln was willing to shred the Constitution and abandon his oath of office under the presumed virtue of "saving the Union."

Given that the Radical Republicans under Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner compelled the former Confederate States to be "readmitted" to the Union, they established that secession was indeed possible and plausible, and even permissible.
 
Given that the Radical Republicans under Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner compelled the former Confederate States to be "readmitted" to the Union, they established that secession was indeed possible and plausible, and even permissible.
Yes. You cannot argue that the states cannot constituionally leave if they must go thru some procedure to be readmitted to the union.
 
Yes. You cannot argue that the states cannot constituionally leave if they must go thru some procedure to be readmitted to the union.

However, you CAN argue that the "readmission" process was unjust and wrong.
 
However, you CAN argue that the "readmission" process was unjust and wrong.
Well, sure. You cannot 're-admit-' someone that never left, and so anything you do to that effect is unjust and wrong.
 
Good Riddance. Texas is already a third world country in many of its backwards mentalities.

As an added bonus, that 34 less electoral votes for the GOP and two less GOP Senators that we will have to deal with.
 
Well, sure. You cannot 're-admit-' someone that never left, and so anything you do to that effect is unjust and wrong.

Lincoln was prosecuting the war on the theory that secession is legally impossible. The "readmission" pursued by Congress after he died wasn't of his doing, and by all accounts, he would have opposed it. It was pursued on a different theory from which the war was prosecuted. That process is the outlier, not the notion of indivisibility.
 
Lincoln was prosecuting the war on the theory that secession is legally impossible. The "readmission" pursued by Congress after he died wasn't of his doing, and by all accounts, he would have opposed it. It was pursued on a different theory from which the war was prosecuted. That process is the outlier, not the notion of indivisibility.
The re-admission process was the outrgowth of Charles Sumner's legal rationalizations of "state suicide" and statewide felo de se.

The flaw in the logic is that if a state has the capacity to dissolve itself via secession from the Union, then secession becomes accomplished fact, and that the inhabitants of the presumably dissolved state are then free to establish such government outside the Union as they see fit; felo de se fails because there was no statute prohibiting such dissolution, nor does common law address the notion as applied to states, and thus no state felonious conduct.

However, if a state, by secession, ceases to be a state, then the territory of that dissolved state necessarily is outside the United States--it cannot be a territory of the United States because the territory was not "owned" by the United States for the duration of statehood, and thus, upon secession/dissolution, the territory of that state is outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and the inhabitants of that territory are unencumbered from fashioning a new government for themselves.

It is worth noting that even Texas v White, the one Supreme Court ruling I know of touching on secession, did not absolutely say that secession was unequivocally legally impossible.

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

If there can be "consent of the States," there can be secession.
 
Good Riddance. Texas is already a third world country in many of its backwards mentalities.

As an added bonus, that 34 less electoral votes for the GOP and two less GOP Senators that we will have to deal with.

What, if anything, did that add to the conversation except to prove that your perceptions are hysterical, warped, mega-super-jumbo-hyperpartisan, and uncalled for?
 
Good Riddance. Texas is already a third world country in many of its backwards mentalities.

As an added bonus, that 34 less electoral votes for the GOP and two less GOP Senators that we will have to deal with.

This would be an interesting experiment.
Texas would vacuum up a ton of wealth and skill in a hurry.

.
 
What, if anything, did that add to the conversation except to prove that your perceptions are hysterical, warped, mega-super-jumbo-hyperpartisan, and uncalled for?

I support the Governor's call.
The rest is just added bonus.
 
I support the Governor's call.
The rest is just added bonus.

Sort of like when you made that really lame attempt at convincing the daft that Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP?

You push the dailykos talking points like it's your job or something.
 
The only thing the Civil War "settled" was that Lincoln was willing to shred the Constitution and abandon his oath of office under the presumed virtue of "saving the Union."

In what way?

That some things are worth fighting for, even if you might lose, and that doing so might make a real mess?

Are you talking about the original Civil War?
 
Sort of like when you made that really lame attempt at convincing the daft that Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP?

You push the dailykos talking points like it's your job or something.

Never been to the dailykos....don't have the time, although from what I hear...I'd probably like it. I spend too much time here and on facebook...don't even have enough time for TMZ and Towelroad...or whatever it is.

Although...I do believe the Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican party...at least at this point in time.
 
Never been to the dailykos....don't have the time, although from what I hear...I'd probably like it. I spend too much time here and on facebook...don't even have enough time for TMZ and Towelroad...or whatever it is.

Although...I do believe the Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican party...at least at this point in time.

I have never been to TMZ but I do like Perez Hilton on occasion. ;)

Off topic: you didn't, perchance, go to the A list awards did you?
 
I have never been to TMZ but I do like Perez Hilton on occasion. ;)

Off topic: you didn't, perchance, go to the A list awards did you?

Perez Hilton - I've been there a couple times. TMZ is my favorite though.

I'm not familiar with the "A list awards" ....enlighten me.

BTW...its Towleroad: More than gay news for more gay men.. Have you been there? I think you might like that one. I rarely go to it...but when I do, I always find something of interest.
 
Last edited:
Perez Hilton - I've been there a couple times. TMZ is my favorite though.

I'm not familiar with the "A list awards" ....enlighten me.

BTW...its Towleroad: More than gay news for more gay men.. Have you been there? I think you might like that one. I rarely go to it...but when I do, I always find something of interest.

It was some bravo thing. Josh and I went to it because we got invited at the last minute. First award thing like that we've ever been to.

I just checked out towleroad and already learned something. Cristiano Ronaldo is my next ex. :mrgreen:
 
I don't think the Federal government should step in as each state should have a degree of sovereignty I feel the feds have over stepped. The penalty's for crimes in my opinion should be handled by the state unless it is a Federal crime. This would include sentencing and punishment.

I see your point and will just agree to disagree.

Mentally retarded people are not responsible for their actions. As such, they should not even be imprisioned... let alone executed.

Texas have proven they cannot be trusted to control their ridiculous bloodlust.

Therefore, the federal government had to put a foot up some redneck asses.

States that want to execute mentally retarded people or other people with severe mental illnesses do not deserve ANY sovereignty.

Until the government of Texas pulls their heads out of their collective ass, they do not deserve sovereignty of ANY kind.
 
No, they cant.

Perry is an idiot who needs to step down.

We lost that right with the civil war. Prior to that we could secede. However the right to secede does continue to live in Texas folklore and that is what Perry is appealing to.
 
Back
Top Bottom