Secession?

This is a discussion on Secession? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Geezer Talk of secession has followed every election since 1865, or before. It's just talk, though inviting. Most States couldn't exist without ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 124
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Secession?

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    Talk of secession has followed every election since 1865, or before. It's just talk, though inviting. Most States couldn't exist without the federal dollars. What I'd like to see is that if a State, like TEXAS, is remotely considering such a foolish move, they should first start refusing any/all federal dollars, and likewise stop collecting federal taxes. Money talks, and it the only way to make a politician listen.
    We routinely refuse federal dollars and it just drives some folks crazy. I forget how many hundred million we turned down in education funds last year or the year before because the feds restricted how it could be spent.
    Texas by itself is (depending on whose figures you use) anywhere from the 16th to the 10th largest economy in the world. It has a landmass larger than any european country except Russia.
    Of course if we really wanted to mess with D.C. politics we could still (by terms of the treaty under which we joined the union) divide the state and send six or eight more senators to D.C.
    I believe it was Chief Justice Berger who said "The United States needs Texas more than Texas needs the United States."
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    We routinely refuse federal dollars and it just drives some folks crazy. I forget how many hundred million we turned down in education funds last year or the year before because the feds restricted how it could be spent.
    Texas by itself is (depending on whose figures you use) anywhere from the 16th to the 10th largest economy in the world. It has a landmass larger than any european country except Russia.
    Of course if we really wanted to mess with D.C. politics we could still (by terms of the treaty under which we joined the union) divide the state and send six or eight more senators to D.C.
    I believe it was Chief Justice Berger who said "The United States needs Texas more than Texas needs the United States."
    Bad ideas (secession) well articulated are still bad ideas.

    Read Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 (1869)

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
    Doghandler likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #93
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Basing the argument on SCOTUS opinions from the days of Plessy v Ferguson and the Civil Rights Cases?
    It could be argued that the rationale of that opinion is as flawed as any of the cases of that era that have since been overturned. Perhaps it is time to take a new look.

    What about principal 3 of the Atlantic Charter of 1941?
    and
    "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . "

    —Woodrow Wilson
    And what of the various and sundry United Nations resolutions regarding colonialism and self determination?
    Is self determination only a good thing if it does not directly effect us?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #94
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Basing the argument on SCOTUS opinions from the days of Plessy v Ferguson and the Civil Rights Cases?
    It could be argued that the rationale of that opinion is as flawed as any of the cases of that era that have since been overturned. Perhaps it is time to take a new look.

    What about principal 3 of the Atlantic Charter of 1941?
    and

    And what of the various and sundry United Nations resolutions regarding colonialism and self determination?
    Is self determination only a good thing if it does not directly effect us?
    When should I stop laughing.

    [sarcasm]So now you turn to the UN for protection? Oh yeah.
    I thought that was an evil body we should have nothing to do with. Certainly a sovereign Texas
    would never join; and any self-respecting Texan wouldn't rely on their "international law" as justification for anything. Why next thing you know you'd have a free Texas, I mean a gun-free Texas. [/sarcasm]

    Anything can be argued, but for now
    Texas v White is the law of the land.

    Added a moment later: Don't confuse Plessy v Ferguson and the related Slaughter House cases which conferred states rights (allowing bigotry and segregation) with Texas v White-- a decision that pre-dated the others by a couple of decades or more, and which was necessary for reconstruction.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    I never said anything about U.N. protection. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the position of the United States on the issue. If Russia were to provide weapons to U.S. Citizens and behave as we did in Libya it would be an act of war and the rebellious citizens traitors. But it is perfectly acceptable for us to arm and support "freedom fighters" in another sovereign nation.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #96
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I never said anything about U.N. protection. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the position of the United States on the issue. If Russia were to provide weapons to U.S. Citizens and behave as we did in Libya it would be an act of war and the rebellious citizens traitors. But it is perfectly acceptable for us to arm and support "freedom fighters" in another sovereign nation.
    LOL, I thought you were a conservative. Like Quadafi wasn't our business after that little Pan Am incident?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #97
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    LOL, I thought you were a conservative. Like Quadafi wasn't our business after that little Pan Am incident?
    Gee Hopyard I never figured you for the type to endorse vigilante justice. After investigation warrants were issued, arrests made and one man convicted for that. Ka- Daffy was never charged.

    But if you think foreign policy developed on vigilante justice twenty plus years removed from an incident is good policy I guess you would have no problem with Cuba retaliating next week for the Bay of Pigs. I guess the Lebanese government can now retaliate for the car bomb we used to try to kill Sayyed Fadlallah back in 1985. How about those cruise missiles Clinton launched in 1998 against Sudan and Afghanistan? When can we accept payback on those?

    If you want to use Pan Am 103 as justification for any actions in December of 1988 or even January or Febraury of 1989 I could accept that. But hey, since we used that disco bombing in 1986 to justify our bombing of Libya that killed his kids, would it be OK for one of Mubarak or Quadafi's people to target Obama's kids?

    Oh wait, what about the U.S.-Libya Comprehensive claims agreement? That was supposed to settle everything. Just another worthless piece of paper from Uncle Sam?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #98
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Gee Hopyard I never figured you for the type to endorse vigilante justice. After investigation warrants were issued, arrests made and one man convicted for that. Ka- Daffy was never charged.

    But if you think foreign policy developed on vigilante justice twenty plus years removed from an incident is good policy I guess you would have no problem with Cuba retaliating next week for the Bay of Pigs. I guess the Lebanese government can now retaliate for the car bomb we used to try to kill Sayyed Fadlallah back in 1985. How about those cruise missiles Clinton launched in 1998 against Sudan and Afghanistan? When can we accept payback on those?

    If you want to use Pan Am 103 as justification for any actions in December of 1988 or even January or Febraury of 1989 I could accept that. But hey, since we used that disco bombing in 1986 to justify our bombing of Libya that killed his kids, would it be OK for one of Mubarak or Quadafi's people to target Obama's kids?

    Oh wait, what about the U.S.-Libya Comprehensive claims agreement? That was supposed to settle everything. Just another worthless piece of paper from Uncle Sam?
    A little topic drift here to cover over a losing argument on secession, me thinks.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    A little topic drift here to cover over a losing argument on secession, me thinks.
    Yeah but I followed you for the fun of it.
    Moops likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #100
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Texas v White is the law of the land, but that does not mean it is necessarily good law. All it means is that no one has been before the court with a better argument on that subject since then.
    And lets look at the court that was sitting at that time shall we?
    CJ S.P. Chase- appointed by Lincoln
    Grier
    Clifford
    Miller- Appointed by Lincoln
    Nelson
    Swayne- Appointed by Lincoln
    Davis- Appointed by Lincoln
    Field- Appointed by Lincoln.

    Gee, hard to imagine how that would shake out isn't it? Most of the court appointed during wartime by the president who suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned Marylanders with differing political views without charges for the duration of the war.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #101
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Texas has no state tax as of now. We have more fortune 500 companies than any other state. We have a thriving petroleum industry, a thriving semiconductor industry, and many others that go right along with it. Quite frankly I have about as much in common with someone from NY or CA as I do with someone from Australia. Let me stop paying half of what I'm paying to the fed (which for all I know is going to NY or CA anyway) and let me pay half that to the Texas government and I'm sure Texas would be just fine.

    Quite frankly I'm sick of decisions being made for states by governmental figures that have nothing to do with that state (think AZ being sued for trying to enforce federal laws the fed refuses to enforce.) Also quite frankly I'm quite sick of being associated with the idiotic centers of liberalism in this country... NY (Bloomburg) and LA lobbyists need not try to decide what is best for me, Texas, or the rest of the country for that matter. That's why some of us are pushing for succession. Call me a traitor again.
    In 2009, the last year of available data, NY gave $956B more to the feds than it got; and CA gave $336B more. No, it doesn't mean that the states have a negative relationship with the feds. And at least two states have a lot more money than their electorate has sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ctr View Post
    Adding, if I may, that it ended badly for all involved. The most American casualties of any war, actually all combined since, not to mention the nearly 50 or so years it took post war for things to finally reconcile. Something to hopefully never be repeated.
    A lot longer than 50. Some imagine that we would have incorporated much of Latin America and possibly South America if the U.S. didn't have to stop those excursions for the Civil War. The Radical Republicans and the racial resentments they fomented. I guess what goes around comes around. It's still not right.

    Quote Originally Posted by varob View Post
    One of the problems with "fixing America" is one half thinks were on the right track and the other half thinks were not.
    It's not the one's that are wrong that are the problem. It may even be naive to believe that it's the one's that are wrong and think that they are right. Because, rigged or not, it's really the manipulators of the system that rule the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    no, the colonies were not part of the United Kingdom. They were Provinces.
    Tell that to the patriots who shed blood to declare independence from British tyranny - from which the original thirteen colonies seceded. But the new United States had a more universal mission than simply overthrowing the tyrant of the day (as we see in the Arab Spring) and American citizens believed that the freedom to unite comes from the freedom of self-determination.
    There's nothing inherently American about indivisibility, but there is a lot socialist about indivisibility.
    I and most Americans applauded every decremental balkanization or breakup of the Soviet Union because we recognized that citizens of weaker countries were involuntarily serving the Soviet tyrants.
    Tyrants are shortsighted and don't care if you're a citizen of a province, a colony, or a state. The purpose of unity is strength against tyranny. If unity serves tyranny, then its time to declare independence. And where one is not free - none are free.
    Doghandler likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #102
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Texas v White is the law of the land,
    Yup!!! And that's all that needs to be said until either the constitution is amended or a modern Supreme Court has cause to hear a similar case and reverse itself (when donkeys fly).
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #103
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164
    If I felt the need to find another country to live in, I would travel elsewhere. But in my experiences from military travel and civilian travel, it will be hard to find the freedom here in the U.S anywhere else in the world,even living in the state I am in now. Been in a few countries that ban weapons overall, without option for permits.
    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

  15. #104
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by mulle46 View Post
    If I felt the need to find another country to live in, I would travel elsewhere. But in my experiences from military travel and civilian travel, it will be hard to find the freedom here in the U.S anywhere else in the world,even living in the state I am in now. Been in a few countries that ban weapons overall, without option for permits.
    And that's why I thank you for your service: because the flag has a sweetness to you that many of us will never know first hand. Your first love of this country I share. Many times, I believe that there is plenty between here and the arctic circle to last a lifetime. We have our enemies, foreign and domestic, some deserved. But Americans, if anyone, can welcome and reward self responsibility and give folks a chance before shutting them out. Then the flag has true meaning - a beacon more than for only those who shipped from our own shores.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  16. #105
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

secession humor

Click on a term to search for related topics.