Walter Williams on TX and secession

This is a discussion on Walter Williams on TX and secession within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Thought some of you might like this one. It's a Walter Williams article on the TX Governors recent statements on secession. Emphasis added by me... ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Walter Williams on TX and secession

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196

    Walter Williams on TX and secession

    Thought some of you might like this one. It's a Walter Williams article on the TX Governors recent statements on secession. Emphasis added by me...

    Parting Company: Rick Perry and Seceding From The Union by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

    Parting Company: Rick Perry and Seceding From The Union
    by Walter Williams (April 22, 2009)

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry rattled cages when he suggested that Texans might at some point become so disgusted with Washington's gross violation of the U.S. Constitution that they would want to secede from the union. Political hustlers, their media allies and others, who have little understanding, are calling his remarks treasonous. Let's look at it.

    When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."

    On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."

    On June 26, 1788, Virginia's elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, "The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will."

    As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede otherwise there would not have been a Union.

    Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.

    While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

    Finally, here's my secession question for you. Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196
    Seems to me...that some states are already working on these intermediate measures... States like AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ME,NV, OR, WA that have pushed to create their "medical" marijuana laws; Montana specifically towards their recent gun law changes (ignoring the FEDS for firearms created and staying within the state). All of these seem like the intermediate measures Mr Williams may be suggesting. What say you all? Are we on the right track? Is the states individually nullifying Fed law within their boundaries the right way to go...at least for the time being?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    The problem is that the states are reliant on the feds for funding. Take for instance LA when they didn't adopt the age 21 for alcohol consumption. The feds took away their road dollars. They caved a short time afterwards because their road were, and still are really terrible.

    Yea some states put in more to the fed gov than they get back, but in reality it is the people of the states that put the money in through their payroll deductions, estimated taxes, and various other taxes paid on cigs, fuel, etc. The states don't have access to this money before it heads off to Washington.

    Could the states refuse to enforce federal laws, yea, I guess they could but then most states would have to change their own laws, as some have done and leave it up to the feds to try to enforce the ones they saw fit. DEA doing drug stuff in states where pot has been decriminalized. What would Texas do if they saw fit to ignore a bunch of federal laws, and the feds said fine, boarder patrol is up to the state, federal road dollars are now being held back, military posts and other federal properties are being shut down. Education dollars are no longer being sent to Austin, medicare and medicaid dollars are stopping so good luck with your healthcare system.

    How many on just this site have been up in arms about what some deem as "safe haven" cities for illegal immigrants. The local authorities not enforcing immigration laws, which personally I don't think most have the time, resources or capabilities of enforcing, but this stuff gets lots of folks bent out of shape.

    It just isn't realistic to think that any state could remove itself from the system of government and funding that has been created by the country. It will have to come from the grass roots by replacing the congress and senate with folks that truely want to reduce the size of government and in turn, turn authority and control of certain issues back over to the states. It will have to be a nationwide change, not just a few states trying to make a stand. The monster is too big to poke with a pin and think that it might somehow get an infection and die a quick death.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,218
    I would rather do without funding from Washington and wait for Texas to become economically sound. I still believe we could be very self sufficient. The BS in Washington is just that!

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    The problem is that the states are reliant on the feds for funding. Take for instance LA when they didn't adopt the age 21 for alcohol consumption. The feds took away their road dollars. They caved a short time afterwards because their road were, and still are really terrible.

    Yea some states put in more to the fed gov than they get back, but in reality it is the people of the states that put the money in through their payroll deductions, estimated taxes, and various other taxes paid on cigs, fuel, etc. The states don't have access to this money before it heads off to Washington.

    Could the states refuse to enforce federal laws, yea, I guess they could but then most states would have to change their own laws, as some have done and leave it up to the feds to try to enforce the ones they saw fit. DEA doing drug stuff in states where pot has been decriminalized. What would Texas do if they saw fit to ignore a bunch of federal laws, and the feds said fine, boarder patrol is up to the state, federal road dollars are now being held back, military posts and other federal properties are being shut down. Education dollars are no longer being sent to Austin, medicare and medicaid dollars are stopping so good luck with your healthcare system.

    How many on just this site have been up in arms about what some deem as "safe haven" cities for illegal immigrants. The local authorities not enforcing immigration laws, which personally I don't think most have the time, resources or capabilities of enforcing, but this stuff gets lots of folks bent out of shape.

    It just isn't realistic to think that any state could remove itself from the system of government and funding that has been created by the country. It will have to come from the grass roots by replacing the congress and senate with folks that truely want to reduce the size of government and in turn, turn authority and control of certain issues back over to the states. It will have to be a nationwide change, not just a few states trying to make a stand. The monster is too big to poke with a pin and think that it might somehow get an infection and die a quick death.
    You're bolded is exactly what I would be looking for! That would effectively make the perfect state. What? You think BP is working now? Ha! Let folks guard themselves and see how long you have an "illegal" immigration problem. Better yet, how much of a problem do you think it's going to be if there's no social system freebies for them to steal?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    Washington may have a large hammer in the form of tax dollars going back to the states, but at some point the benefit vs the downside will tip away from DC and back to the states (some, not all). Don't forget a lot of the dollars spent on health and education are due to federal laws and policies.

    At that point, if a state still refuses "help" from the federal government, then the autocrats in DC will authorize the use of brute force.

    Let's hope the legal system reverts to the constitution before that happens.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    You're bolded is exactly what I would be looking for! That would effectively make the perfect state. What? You think BP is working now? Ha! Let folks guard themselves and see how long you have an "illegal" immigration problem. Better yet, how much of a problem do you think it's going to be if there's no social system freebies for them to steal?
    The states could ignore all the federal laws they wanted to, but you would have to get every employer in the state to stop withholding federal taxes and social security and medicare. It is one thing for the state to ignore something, they can't lock a state up, but they can lock up an individual employer or the heads of a particular company. That is where the tax dollars are generated that get sent to the feds. That is where I see the failure in this approach.

    I don't necessarily disagree with the approach, I just don't see it as a practical sollution.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    Well Farronwolf how about if all employers made their workers 1099 contractors instead of W-2 type employees? Still offer all of the other benefits just tell the workers "You handle your own taxes now." If a couple hundred thousand Texans didn't pay the IRS, what are they going to do? They don't have enough cells for all of us.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Well Farronwolf how about if all employers made their workers 1099 contractors instead of W-2 type employees? Still offer all of the other benefits just tell the workers "You handle your own taxes now." If a couple hundred thousand Texans didn't pay the IRS, what are they going to do? They don't have enough cells for all of us.
    Very true.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    It just amazes me that so many would advocate rebellion against the United States, treason.

    I thought forum rules prohibited discussion/promotion of illegal acts.

    It is beyond me how anyone can think that these ideas of secession are patriotic.

    They would be catastrophic if put to action.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    I think that just the fact that these discussions are being held nationwide should give our elected officials cause to worry; not because it may actually happen, but because it reflects the anger everywhere at what they are doing in our good name. I think things like secession are a last resort, and really wouldn't worry about the feds cutting off dollars, because at that point I don't think it would really matter much, because we would probably better off at that point anyway.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,408
    If enough states start issuing calls for a Constitutional Convention, that might get some attention:

    Article. V.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
    Scholars disagree on whether a convention can be called for general rather than a specific amendment, but the text above seems to indicate that, at least in the case of two-thirds-state-legislature calls, the amendments would be proposed at the convention itself. In my opinion, this would be the constitutional way to reinforce limitations on the national government, if that were the desired result.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    Not better off

    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    I think things like secession are a last resort, and really wouldn't worry about the feds cutting off dollars, because at that point I don't think it would really matter much, because we would probably better off at that point anyway.
    Not better off at all.

    Even if such an act didn't immediately bring down a military reprisal--as it should---

    1) We would immediately lose, Ft. Bliss, Ft. Hood, the bases in San Antonio, near Corpus. An enormous amount of the economy would disappear

    2) There is a nuclear materials reprocessing and research facility in TX (sorry I've forgotten the name for the moment); that would immediately disappear.

    3) Air traffic control--if not air traffic itself into and out of the state-- would immediately disappear.

    There is no reasonable scenario in which we would be better off.

    But, even if you think we might be better off, that doesn't justify the advocacy of a criminal act--which is rebellion against The United States.

    The moderators and owners of this board would be wise to treat this topic as if it were the advocacy of any other criminal conspiracy, take the forum rules to heart, and disallow such discussion, because this is NOT mere political discussion.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The moderators and owners of this board would be wise to treat this topic as if it were the advocacy of any other criminal conspiracy, take the forum rules to heart, and disallow such discussion, because this is NOT mere political discussion.
    This thread is fun...
    Yes, we should all be censored...Time to self censor the 1st Amendment. Heaven forbid...everyone would start free speeching amongst themselves to figure out how best to get their rights back...

    I hate to have to repost this here, considering most if not all know it but here we go again...
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security
    So how long do you suggest we remain more disposed to suffer? When taxes are at 60%, 80%, 90%? What's a good number for you? When your land is no longer your own? When you have to pay a double tax on family heirlooms left by your dead parents and grandparents? When your children are required by law to learn only what the government allows and no more or less nor will you have a say in the matter? When average citizens are being sized up as terrorists because they voted for the opposition? Oh wait, that's right. We're already most of the way there... Lets see...taxes - check, Land - check, taxes on dead people - check, forced learning and forced parenting - check, and oh yeah...political oppositional terrorists...check check and check.

    What about that whole despotism thing? You think because they tell you to bend over with a smile and a wink that it's not despotism? Or is it just because 51% of your neighbors voted for you to bend over?

    And what is with this flawed logic that's always floating around that basically boils down to "Only the government can fix it or it doesn't need fixing". The sky might fall if the governments hands got chopped for socialized medicine or for welfare or for "education" or or or...

    You know what...you just might be right. The sky might fall. AND ITS A GOOD THING! Finally we'd get a choice in the matter as to where the product of our hard earned effort goes. An example...Don't like illegal aliens? Quit feeding them, clothing them, allowing them to steal your neighbors homes, and quit stealing from your neighbors all the while just to pay for it to happen in your name! Don't think you're guilty? You're in denial my friend. You're a thief. On the best of days we're all thieves in the name of a government that knows nothing but to steal and pillage for the supposed "common good".

    Every time you hop on one of those nifty super duper highways, or send your kid to public school, or use medicare, medicaid, social security, and the list goes on...You've effectively spent the money that was reaped by force.
    Hell, there's another example...You want to know why our soldiers get paid dirt...there's your answer. It was all spent on johnny's last fix, or julio's welfare check, or Jenny's spendulous check.

    Heh...It's like tax return day around here...Everyone's so excited that they got their $3.50 back from bubba. Nevermind the whole thing started when bubba strolled up and said "gimme your $6 or you'll be sorry". Of course we'd all be so excited to get our $3.50 back! How about bubba never gets the $6 in the first place. How about we tell bubba he only gets what we think he needs and no more? How about we feed ourselves and our children first, then bubba MIGHT get a turn if we feel so inclined to give alms.

    The sooner you realize that the pluses of reaping what the government steals from me(via a majority with big friggin guns) are FAR outweighed by the minuses, the better off we'd all be. And yes, we're all thieves. We have no choice in the matter now. Our government has made it an infinite cycle. We are all both being thieved and doing the thieving, all in the name of a "just" government that you seem to think any such talks of doing away with it or changing it is treason.

    What if 3/4ths of the states legislatures all magically start talking about it at the same time? Is it treason then?
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Well Farronwolf how about if all employers made their workers 1099 contractors instead of W-2 type employees? Still offer all of the other benefits just tell the workers "You handle your own taxes now." If a couple hundred thousand Texans didn't pay the IRS, what are they going to do? They don't have enough cells for all of us.
    See that wouldn't work either. If for instance Lockeed Martin, or UPS or some other major company all the sudden switched from reporting wages on 940's, 941's and W-2's, and only gave a 1099 and 1096 at year end the IRS would still have the income reported. They would go after both the individual and the business, more than likely freezing or putting a lien on the business or individual assets until the money was collected. If they aren't employees, they can't have benefits such as insurance, 401 k's or cafeteria plans. These are all IRS rules, if your giving 1099's instead of W-2's your simply using different IRS rules not getting away from the fed gov. When the IRS put the levy on the bank account you would have to rely on the bank, credit union or other financial institution to disregard the levy, they in turn would be looked at and if they were participating in the revolt, then their assets would be seized. Where are most of the banks assets, well their held at the federal reserve banks.

    The only way would be for the employers to simply not report anything to anyone, including the state of Texas for Workforce Commission reports or taking deductions for payroll off of their annual franchise tax report for Texas. This is where the sticky part is, your not going to get employers across the state to do this.

    Guess what it ain't going to happen. It is a great hypothetical arguement but it is just that, a pipe dream, never going to happen. It is going to have to happen in exactly the reverse order that it all got started. If you start out as a 160 lb kid, and end up being a 400 lb adult, you don't wake up one day and say, tomorrow I am going to weight 160 again. No you work your way back to the desired weight. We are going to have to put folks in Washington that are willing to scale back the size of the fed gov, and get it back to what it was designed to do. But hey, it ain't just the feds, our state and local gov's have the same problems for the most part.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Walter Cronkite passes at 92
    By msgt/ret in forum Bob & Terry's Place
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 8th, 2009, 03:18 PM
  2. Walter Cronkite , War on Drugs
    By mr.stuart in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: August 1st, 2009, 09:28 PM
  3. NH introduces HCR6, Secession over NWO
    By taseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 04:26 AM
  4. "Control Criminals Not Guns "- Walter Williams
    By goawayfarm in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2008, 02:50 AM
  5. Walter E. Dellinger III
    By Bill Bryant in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 18th, 2008, 06:34 PM

Search tags for this page

texas secession walter williams
,
walter williams and secession
,

walter williams ontexas session

,

walter williams secession

,
walter williams secession of texas
,
walter williams secession texas
,
walter williams, secession
Click on a term to search for related topics.