Bill on Texas Secession presented to Texas Legislature

Originally posted by kinda kurious

I am the only one puzzled by someone choosing an Avatar image depiction a person in a
Movie they know absolutely NOTHING about?

It strikes me as another 'dodge' by someone who enjoys movable goal posts.

I picked that avatar by google searching images during a tiff with some off site opponents who decided to make war on ATS. After I gathered up materials that I thought were appropriate to the situation, I handed them over to ATS member A Boy In A Dress, who made the actual avatar. It was actually the clip I mentioned seeing above on the internet that gave me the idea, and produced the tag line on the avatar.

The story of that tiff is told in the book which can be found by clicking the link in my signature, OR by reading the 190 page or so thread that chronicles it. I recommend the book for lighter reading, as it's only 399 pages, and cuts out a lot of the extemporaneous material from the thread, while including some materials from other corners of the internet where the war was waged. It also includes documentary evidence of the hoaxers involved. We did out homework on that one!

I found out that the movie in question was a re-telling of the Thermopylae tale from a friend of mine, a former Marine who DOES go to movies. He too was sort of shocked that I was so uninformed in modern cinema, but is aware of my bellicose proclivities... it was actually him, being aware of the young war in progress and my own inability to shift into reverse some times, who sent me on the search for the clip.

BTW, mine is an image from the 50's by NASA studying shape of human head for Apollo helmet research, It seems like 'Zebra Man" art but it isn't. I feel it is incumbent on me to know the back story of all my ATS vanity plates. Just sayin.'

Now you know mine!

I like yours, btw, as I have an inordinate fondness for maps, in particular topographic maps, any sort of 3D representation - or anything a 3D representation can be reconstructed from - and the human figure in general. Your avatar wraps all those up nicely, and frankly I'm a bit jealous

QUESTION FOR OP:

Are YOU willing to break this little girl's heart and make her relearn that silly song?



The guilt will lie on YOUR shoulders and that is simply unforgivable. :shk:

reply to post by GullibleUnderlord


Texas doesn't have a state income tax.

For a Texas politician to suggest one is considered evidence of a desire to leave politics or senility.

My daughter and her husband have already moved back to Texas. It would take much, either the passage of this or grandchildren to get me to move back.

Regarding Texas being financially 'solvent' and fiscally self sufficient enough to secede:

Rick Perry the Hypocrite Uses Stimulus Money to Balance the Budget

Governor Rick Perry is the gift that keeps on giving. First he's the highest and most visible government official to date to publicly state that our great State of Texas should secede from the rest of the union. I guess at the time it made him feel like some sort of edgy, rebellious guy, but sadly his buffoonish remarks made our great state the laughing-stock of the country.

Back when the economic recovery package (i.e. “the stimulus”) was being debated, a handful of Republican governors garnered headlines by rejecting various portions of the funding. One of the loudest critics of the legislation was Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX).

At the time, Perry said rejecting the money “was pretty simple for us. … We can take care of ourselves.”

The Texas state legislature eventually pushed Perry to accept the money...

Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget.

MAIN SOURCE

SOURCE QUOTED FROM MAIN SOURCE

Bottom line....Texas accepted Federal stimulus money to balance their budget. Without that assistance, they would find themselves no better off than the other 49 states.

The entire notion of secession is a bummer Cowboy acid trip. Giddy up.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And again . . .

How long did SC take before the first time secession was voted on before the civil war?


What is with you guys wanting everything now!?

Please forgive my ignorance here as I am not really much of a history buff but is South Carolina not a state?

reply to post by kinda kurious


That didn't stop the NASA folks from ruining the planetary mnemonics when they offed Pluto. Still, that's the best argument I've heard against them breaking off.

reply to post by Cuervo


Ha Ha. Yep, woke up one day and guess what there aren't really 9 planets! Pluto is now a kuiper belt object. WTF. Of course back then my idea of a "10" was a 4 with a 6-pack.

reply to post by snowspirit




Todd Palin is a "sucessionist party member" who wants to "take his AK oil and leave"

reply to post by kinda kurious


Oh noes. Texas received 6.4 billion in recovery money!

I can understand your point against Perry. But everyone in this thread (from Texas) has stated their thoughts on him. His is an idiot who double speaks all the time.

Hopefully the people will learn next time and vote for Medina

Chances are not likely though, as he is a master at saying the right things at the right time.

As for the money to balance the budget, it does not bother me. I consider it as part of the $40+ billion that TX fails to receive back from the feds, as I have already proven twice in this thread.

I haven't quite read all the way through the thread yet, but...

Let me let y'all in on a little secret. The folks in Washington DC are keeping a close eye on what is happening in Austin. And this is why.

Based on the 2010 census results, the state of Texas is going to gain 4 seats in the House (and 4 electoral votes). Both houses of the Texas Legislature are controlled by the Republicans. So take a guess as to how the redistricting for the new seats is going to occur. The chances are very high that the entire state will be gerrymandered to favor the Republicans.

This just happened a few years ago. 2003 TX Redistricting

I personally know my Congressman (a friend of the family) and he would not have run had Tom Delay not drawn the map to guarantee him a seat.

I would not be suprised if the President himself did not have some sort of "Austin Watch Task Force" to keep him informed.

So, if this "non-binding plebiscite" were to go through it would send a strong message saying,
"We have had enough of this poo."

reply to post by nenothtu


Everything I presented is factual. What's my source? I've been studying history in college for the past 3 years.
I don't need a link to a website, it's in your history books.

Just because it seemed extortionist to you and you weren't aware of that even taking place, it doesn't mean that it never happened.

The fact of the matter was the states that seceded didn't have representatives in the House or the Senate during the war and a requirement in order to become represented again in the Union was to take away any clauses in state Constitutions that allowed secession.

You also missed one of the points I made about the court case of TX vs White that took place 6 years after the war. The decision of the court said that TX's secession was NULL AND VOID. But the judge did allow room for secession either through (and I quote) "Revolution or consent of the States."

So in other words if TX has a Revolution and Wins then their secession is legal. Or if the legislatures of the other 49 states vote on allowing TX to secede then it will be legal.

I am not in favor of ending the union. However I am in favoring of allowing regions & areas to have autonomy over domestic affairs while stilling remaining an integral part of the United States. These special regions & areas would have control over all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and citizenship. The US President would remain as a mainly ceremonial head of state represented by a High Commissioner appointed by the US President, the day to day governing would be the responsibility of a popularly elected regional president as head of government. They would retain birthright US citizenship, access to Social Security and Medicare, etc.

Look up a constituent country in the European sense or a British crown dependency, that's basically what my idea is modeled after.

Let them secede.

Originally posted by manyworldsawait
Let them secede.

Agreed.

The federal union should be voluntary participation only.

reply to post by sliceNodice


I think that the feds might figure out real fast that texans are a pretty tough bunch.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh



Good riddance to them and Arizona..

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


My entire post you replied to still stands, including the part where I said "Now, I'm not questioning the factual nature of what you said here." This post does nothing to refute any of what I said in it.

It WAS extortionist, and paradoxical as well, in that the extortion was promoted in order to "readmit to the Union" states which were ALREADY in the Union, IF the war was fought to "preserve the Union", and IF secession was in fact illegal.

If secession was illegal, then the southern states were in fact never NOT a part of the Union, and so this "requirement" to change their constitution for "READMISSION" was extortionist, and an illegal mandate by the Federal government meddling in the internal affairs of states, to wit requiring them to change their constitutions, or be denied representation.

I wonder, had they been forced to deny representation [if the states had refused to change their constitutions), would they also have foregone the tax revenue from those states? Probably a silly question, IF your Northern California history books happen to inform you as to the nature of the governments seated at the time in all of the Military Districts of the occupied territories. I somehow doubt those particular governments would have gone against ANY orders from up the chain of command. They still executed insubordinates in those days in the military.

Not really surprising that the court found as it did in the case of Texas v, White, either, given the political realities of the day. If Georgia invaded and took over Northern California, and then installed their own government there which passed a law requiring grits for breakfast every morning there, you'd get mighty tired of grits after a while. I sincerely doubt an installed government would go against the orders from Georgia, and wouldn't much care what Northern Californians thought in the matter of grits for breakfast...

reply to post by nenothtu


You have to understand something.

I live in Northern California for certain collegiate studies.

I've lived in TX for 20 years of my life. My time spent studying history and government of TX was done in TX. I'm in California for Philosophical, Music, and some Political studies. I've seen to best of both worlds between right wing and left wing politics, rhetoric, and propaganda from the Television to the books at my college.

Point being, you are right that it was extortionist of the federal government to demand a change in state constitutions. The matter of taxes, look at Puerto Rico, the U.S. taxes Puerto Rico but PR is not a state. However, Lincoln did suspend the Constitution in order to "preserve the Union." So the matter of standards changed at that era due to a national crisis. Suspending the Constitution nullified the standards of states rights, so no wonder that the federal government demanded the states to change their constitutions. Change one standard it seems logical to ignore another. That was the basis of that time.

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0

Point being, you are right that it was extortionist of the federal government to demand a change in state constitutions.

We are in agreement there, then.

The matter of taxes, look at Puerto Rico, the U.S. taxes Puerto Rico but PR is not a state.

ironic, isn't it? A nation born to rallying cries of "no taxation without representation" is guilty of that themselves. Not surprising, to me, just ironic.

However, Lincoln did suspend the Constitution in order to "preserve the Union." So the matter of standards changed at that era due to a national crisis. Suspending the Constitution nullified the standards of states rights, so no wonder that the federal government demanded the states to change their constitutions. Change one standard it seems logical to ignore another. That was the basis of that time.

No, Lincoln violated the Constitution, but he didn't suspend it. He suspended Habeas Corpus twice in violation of Constitutional constraints, but he never suspended the Constitution itself. Discussion here.

During the Reconstruction Era, there was quite a bit of free-wheeling, seat of the pants Constitutional violation going on, and I personally believe that Reconstruction did more damage to the nation than the Civil War itself. The extortionist policies of the Federal Government in regards to the Southern States Constitutions is but one example of that situation. Of course, since Lincoln was killed in April 1865, Reconstruction policies were not his doing. They were mostly the doing of the Federal Congress, which at the time was controlled by Northern concerns who made good use of that control to achieve their own ends.

You know, during that time, a lot of "local" politicians in office were in all actuality what was called "carpet baggers", Northerners who came to the south specifically to make sure the Northern Industrialist agenda stuck there. Others were called "scalawags". Those were native born Southerners who pursued the political agenda of the Northern Industrialists on promises of personal gain if they were good boys. Southerners looking out for their own state's interests at that time were a rare commodity, and were generally either forced out of office or killed out right.

I do not doubt that a lot of shady political wranglings were accomplished uncontested at the time (and so were 'legal'), nor do I wonder why or how that happened. In the end, the results have haunted the entire country for a very long time, and nowadays most folks appear to not even understand WHY. I do not count you among those.

I admit I was wrong in terminology when I said suspended. It was in the sense of ignoring the constitution.

I also have to state that in my political viewpoint, statehood is consential under the constitution. In the sense that the constitution was enacted by the consent of the states, however the 10th amendment must just be jibber jabber in our time.

Think about the U.S. Revolution. Was it actually a revolution are a power struggle?

I agree with the later, but if you don't you should see my thread on the year of 1776.


See

I am also supportive of state independence movements if it is done properly. Not properly in the sense of federal law but by the defintion of what a revolution is.