Texas wants to secede from the Union?

[Thanatos34]

First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

States DO have sovereignty. They were the original sovereigns. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government only has powers that
the states collectively granted it under the Constitution. All other authority not given to the federal government remains with the states.

The reasons why alaska wants to leave the union
*snip*

So true. The federal government keeps stepping in and telling Alaska what it can and cannot do. If it was up to the Alaskans, they would have drilled for oil a long time ago, (as it has been able to do so safely for quite awhile now), made a large profit off of it, and the US would be sitting nicely right about now with our own supply of oil. Instead, the feds decided that they know better than Alaskans what is best for Alaska. People can jump on the smear Sarah Palin bandwagon all they want, but she did something right, obviously: She had an 80-85% approval rating in Alaska.

She may not be suited to running the country, but she is damn well suited to running Alaska. Frankly, I'm surprised the Alaskans haven't just said "Screw you," and drilled for oil anyway.

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

I couldn't imagine Texas seceeding. Even if they did, they would be cut off from our resources, military, government funding, and the economy as a whole. Granted, leaving the economy isn't such a bad thing right now, but to cut and run would deprive the state of all the amenities that help keep it and other states together.

Also, I have an uncle down there. I'd hate for him to have to get a passport to cross the Empirial Dominion of Texas/USA border.

Yeah, I named it. Bet you're reeeeeeal jealous you didn't think of it first. Alright, I know you're not. Leave me alone.

 

[GyroCaptain]

Wait, wait. Suddenly the Huffington Post is holy writ? This changes everything.

 

[bjj hero]

I lived in Texas. Hes not spreading ill will. He just said out loud what a lot of Texans are thinking.

I found Texas hospitable and very friendly. They are on a whole good people. They are also fiercely independent. A lot of the people I talked too were Texans first, Americans second. Every other person told me at some point that Texas would work better on its own and had the right to seceed the union. I also heard dont trust anyone north of Dallas more than once. I assume that included the UK...

I had a friend who wouldnt leave the state without putting his gun rack in the cab of his truck and putting on his stetson and boots. That guy was patriotic like Ive never seen.

It seems to spread to none Texans too. More than once I saw bumper stickers along the lines of:

"Yankee by birth, Texan by choice"

 

[AceDiamond]

From what I've gathered they want to secede over a tax cut ($400 tax cut for 95% of americans). So not only are they determined to remind me that Texas sucks, but they're also bad at math. Also they don't know what "fascist" means, so they're bad at english. Oh and they no longer have the right to secede, they changed it to "the right to subdivide into 4 smaller states" but I'm sure that was mentioned earlier. So they're bad at history. In fact they're very bad at history. At least when the New Englanders did the tea party back in the Revolution days they were protesting an actual increase in taxation. Anyway I know a couple Texans who thought that, should they have to fight to secede, they could use the state's nuclear power plants to create nuclear weapons. However those aren't breeder reactors so they can't. So they're bad at physics. I could go on and on and eventually prove (comedy central-style but not nearly as funny) that nobody in Texas has graduated from High School, which would make this general confusion that they seem to be displaying all the more pointed.

And as to Alaska, there is not enough oil there to support the US by itself, there just isn't. And it's not worth killing a bunch of animals for no reason just to get it. I'm going to just take any bullshit from Sarah Palin with a grain of salt, just as I did during the '08 election.

 

[MagicShroom]

Okay, so why are people so against this? America is a far too big country already, especially for the inefficient form of government you have, it's a far too powerful country as well. Dividing it up a bit would make it both easier for people in the country to be heard, to be able to live as they wanted, and it would serve to calm down a huge portion of the world, since we wouldn't have to worry about America snapping anymore and taking out half the world with nuclear weapons.

Just let them leave if they want to, what's the big deal? If they want to stay in America, great (or not), if they want to leave, so what?

They do not want one of the last few states with a good economy to secede from the United States

 

[bodyklok]

*Ding*

You've got mail (1) new e-mail!

*Clicks on email*

From: The rest of America.
To: Teaxs

Theirs the door, now get the fuck out!

 

[MagicShroom]

From what I've gathered they want to secede over a tax cut ($400 tax cut for 95% of americans). So not only are they determined to remind me that Texas sucks, but they're also bad at math. Also they don't know what "fascist" means, so they're bad at english. Oh and they no longer have the right to secede, they changed it to "the right to subdivide into 4 smaller states" but I'm sure that was mentioned earlier. So they're bad at history. In fact they're very bad at history. At least when the New Englanders did the tea party back in the Revolution days they were protesting an actual increase in taxation. Anyway I know a couple Texans who thought that, should they have to fight to secede, they could use the state's nuclear power plants to create nuclear weapons. However those aren't breeder reactors so they can't. So they're bad at physics. I could go on and on and eventually prove (comedy central-style but not nearly as funny) that nobody in Texas has graduated from High School.

Sir as a Texan, this comment is insulting, hateful and misinterpreted, I demand an apology for this comment.

 

[Oldmanwillow]

And as to Alaska, there is not enough oil there to support the US by itself, there just isn't. And it's not worth killing a bunch of animals for no reason just to get it. I'm going to just take any bullshit from Sarah Palin with a grain of salt, just as I did during the '08 election.

by saying that we kill the animals on the north slope just proves your ignorance of the region. caribou are at all time recorded highs on the north slope.

The north slope is a barren wasteland that in the winter time is drier than death valley and during the summer time it is arctic tundra.

You right we cant support all of America's gas needs but anything that reduces our dependence on middle east oil should be welcomed.

sorry for being off topic.

 

[Seldon2639]

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

In fairness to Governor Palin (five words I promise you I never expected to write, say, or even contemplate), she wasn't as abjectly wrong as you imply. She used the word sovereign correctly (in the same way any state in the EU is sovereign, but still subject to EU regulation). Similarly, the debate between federal and state power isn't quite as cut-and-dry as you indicate. It wasn't until the 14th amendment passed that any part of the federal constitution applied to the states. It's a long-standing disagreement between strict and loose construction of the constitution.

First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

States DO have sovereignty. They were the original sovereigns. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government only has powers that the states collectively granted it under the Constitution. All other authority not given to the federal government remains with the states.

Except for the necessary and proper clause, which gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to the carrying out of their enumerated powers. But, we could probably argue this back and forth for the better part of the rest of our lives (and as lawyers, depending on what we do, may very well). Does interstate commerce include the power to regulate schools? Does full faith and credit include the power to regulate marriage?

 

[McClaud]

You right we cant support all of America's gas needs but anything that reduces our dependence on middle east oil should be welcomed.

Well, if you actually read the report created by Alaska about the reserves under Alaska -

1. It would take $450m to set up the proper drill sites and create a functioning transport system for the oil. Alaska does not have $450m on its own to do that.
2. It would take seven years before the actual oil made it to the refineries. Since invasive oil extraction takes longer.
3. The supply would only last for less than 10 years with current oil consumption in the US. 10 years if only the western portion of the US refined and used the oil from Alaska.

What is being weighed by the Federal government (that Governor Palin continues to ignore) is where is the $450m going to come from, is the speed of extraction going to come before things get too bad, and is less than 10 years of oil worth it? So far, the answer is "we don't know."

Otherwise, ask Governor Palin to pull the $450m out of her own ass for you. She seems to come into money quite regularly, and spend the state's money quite easily. My sister lives up there and she tells me there are plenty of Alaskans who think that woman is a fucking CURSE and drag to the state.

From what I've gathered they want to secede over a tax cut ($400 tax cut for 95% of americans). So not only are they determined to remind me that Texas sucks, but they're also bad at math. Also they don't know what "fascist" means, so they're bad at english. Oh and they no longer have the right to secede, they changed it to "the right to subdivide into 4 smaller states" but I'm sure that was mentioned earlier. So they're bad at history. In fact they're very bad at history. At least when the New Englanders did the tea party back in the Revolution days they were protesting an actual increase in taxation. Anyway I know a couple Texans who thought that, should they have to fight to secede, they could use the state's nuclear power plants to create nuclear weapons. However those aren't breeder reactors so they can't. So they're bad at physics. I could go on and on and eventually prove (comedy central-style but not nearly as funny) that nobody in Texas has graduated from High School, which would make this general confusion that they seem to be displaying all the more pointed.

Aside from being insulting, that is pretty much true about the TEXAN SUCESSIONIST PARTY, and not all of Texas. Which Perry is presently catering to in the hopes of keeping his job. My friend who works for Raytheon and lives down there (been there 20+ years) says that those that desire to leave the US are a very vocal minority good at sounding like they speak for all of Texas. Which is a problem for most Texans - they seem to want to speak for their brothers and sisters when they have no idea what they are thinking.

Perry did start out sounding sane, until like two months into his job, where he started talking about a state ban on chicken. Then I realized - like the rest of Texas - that he was batshit insane and this was going to be a long term.

 

[Chad Brumfield]

From what I've gathered they want to secede over a tax cut ($400 tax cut for 95% of americans). So not only are they determined to remind me that Texas sucks, but they're also bad at math. Also they don't know what "fascist" means, so they're bad at english. Oh and they no longer have the right to secede, they changed it to "the right to subdivide into 4 smaller states" but I'm sure that was mentioned earlier. So they're bad at history. In fact they're very bad at history. At least when the New Englanders did the tea party back in the Revolution days they were protesting an actual increase in taxation. Anyway I know a couple Texans who thought that, should they have to fight to secede, they could use the state's nuclear power plants to create nuclear weapons. However those aren't breeder reactors so they can't. So they're bad at physics. I could go on and on and eventually prove (comedy central-style but not nearly as funny) that nobody in Texas has graduated from High School, which would make this general confusion that they seem to be displaying all the more pointed.

Aside from being insulting, that is pretty much true about the TEXAN SUCESSIONIST PARTY, and not all of Texas. Which Perry is presently catering to in the hopes of keeping his job. My friend who works for Raytheon and lives down there (been there 20+ years) says that those that desire to leave the US are a very vocal minority good at sounding like they speak for all of Texas. Which is a problem for most Texans - they seem to want to speak for their brothers and sisters when they have no idea what they are thinking.

Perry did start out sounding sane, until like two months into his job, where he started talking about a state ban on chicken. Then I realized - like the rest of Texas - that he was batshit insane and this was going to be a long term.

Thank you.

One of the things I find hilarious about this entire thread is so many people not realizing that this is nothing more than Perry stirring up his hardcore supporters for the upcoming election in 2010. He's rattling the saber and beating his chest to get things started. I don't disagree with him on the points that I think the federal government is going overboard with spending or that the money they're trying to hand out has way too many strings attached. But I think a lot of people here didn't even read the article, just the headline.

A lot of Texans like to joke about seceding from the union for a lot of different reasons. But that's all it is, joking. As many headaches as we have to deal with dealing with the federal government, those are outweighed by the benefits of being part of the Union.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Wait, wait. Suddenly the Huffington Post is holy writ? This changes everything.

It's an AP wire. Huffington just printed it. The exact same story is on several other news sites, including (perhaps surprisingly) Fox.

 

[Po_the_ads_toner]

alright go texas!

 

[KillerScott]

...again?

 

[Velocirapture07]

First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html

So good ol' Governor Perry and his infinite wisdom is starting up secessionist feelings in the Lone Star state.

I just have to ask (and no offense meant to any Texans here). Is he fucking retarded? Not only did secession not work the first time (because of a Republican, ironically), but Texas gets about 80% of the money its citizens pay in taxes back in pork and government projects, so his argument is invalid. Also, it was a Texan in the white house the last 8 years that blew up the deficit in the first place.

I don't know, someone, anyone, please, tell me this is all just a bad joke.

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

The problem is......you get your news from the huffington post....nuff said.

 

[Velocirapture07]

Wait, wait. Suddenly the Huffington Post is holy writ? This changes everything.

Very well said gyrocaptain, very well said.

 

[SilentHunter7]

The problem is......you get your news from the huffington post....nuff said.

You see the little AP that appears under the headline? That means it was written by the Associated Press.

Huffington's writers [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D97J48IO2.html]had nothing to [http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Perry_Tea_Party.html]do with it [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/]. They were just the one that got Digg'd [http://digg.com/politics/Gov_Rick_Perry_Texas_Could_Secede_Leave_Union].

 

[kawligia]

First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

States DO have sovereignty. They were the original sovereigns. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government only has powers that
the states collectively granted it under the Constitution. All other authority not given to the federal government remains with the states.

The reasons why alaska wants to leave the union

2) we are tired of the lower 48 saying they know whats best for Alaska when they dont have a clue
3) we have a libertarian mind set and the government has had too much power since Jimmy Carter and as gotten worse every prez since.(worse prez ever)

We will never get a chance to leave because we accepted too much federal money.

State have the best understanding on how to deal with states problems not a federal government. If a state feels like it will be in their best option to leave then they should be able too.

#2 this is why the federal government was intended to have limited power. What's best for one state is not necessarily best in another.

#3 Carter did not start the massive federal power grab. It was that piece of shit FDR who RAPED the commerce clause. For those of you who don't know, the commerce clause, Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

That was supposed to mean that the federal government has the ability to regulate commerce in ways that the states, individually, cannot. There was supposed to be an actual NEED for uniformity that is unlikely to be achieved through individual regulation by each state.

FDR forced the Supreme Court to reverse its prior decisions and now, ANYTHING that has ANYTHING to do with money is open to regulation by the federal government. And I do mean ANYTHING. Under this interpretation, the government could limit the amount of time someone spends playing WoW, because video games are "articles of commerce." They actually HAVE taken a lot of authority to prosecute certain criminals away from the states because criminal acts "affect commerce" since people might not travel for fear of getting attack.

The Supreme Court has recently backed off a tiny bit from the plenary grant of ultimate authority and we can only hope that trend will continue. As a direct result of this, the federal government has EXPLODED in power far beyond what was EVER intended. In fact, the Constitution was almost never adopted and the federal government never created because they were afraid of this VERY THING happening.

That being said, no state will ever be allowed to leave the union, except through civil war. We can only hope it doesn't come to that, but I have to admit the recent trends make me fear that it might come to that one day.

First you have Palin making comments that Alaska is a sovereign government*, and now a week later we get this.

* Though the Palin comment was probably more her not knowing what the word sovereign meant than it was a call for rebellion

States DO have sovereignty. They were the original sovereigns. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government only has powers that the states collectively granted it under the Constitution. All other authority not given to the federal government remains with the states.

Except for the necessary and proper clause, which gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to the carrying out of their enumerated powers. But, we could probably argue this back and forth for the better part of the rest of our lives (and as lawyers, depending on what we do, may very well). Does interstate commerce include the power to regulate schools? Does full faith and credit include the power to regulate marriage?

My discontent stems from the shockingly broad view of the commerce clause, not from the necessary and proper clause. The commerce clause is the sword of Damocles that looms over the states.

Well, that and the administrative agency which combines all three branches of government into one, essentially under the control of the President. If that system gets any more bloated, we might wind up with a fucking emperor instead of a President.