What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
821 Comments
- yurdady1, on 04/21/2009, -14/+259idk what the hell some of you are watching... but he doesn't say anything about him "wanting" Texas to secede from the U.S. He makes very valid points about the DISCUSSION of states seceding and how it shouldn't be looked at as unpatriotic..
- pmuaddib, on 04/20/2009, -27/+220There is no way that Texas or any other state is going to secede. At best, it is a talking point. However, he does have some interesting points.
- SQLDigger, on 04/20/2009, -37/+195He is correct. Just because a partial government of the "United States" violated the Constitution and attacked its former citizens, then retroactively legalized its reprehensible actions, is no reason that we should not be able to think about, discuss, and even POSSIBLY enact secession today if the majority of a State or group of States desires. But it's not really surprising that a large percentage of the brainwashed, undereducated public school spawn think this line of thought to be extreme. The concept of limited government isn't taught in too many schools these days.
- Moonkeeper, on 04/21/2009, -8/+162During Thomas Jefferson's presidency, there was a group in New York called the Northern Federalists that managed to get some political clout. They believed New York should secede from the Union. Thomas Jefferson's response was that they should have the right to because the liberty of the people is more important then any military or economic advantage derived.
- JekJob, on 04/21/2009, -11/+102My problem with this is that they've only started discussing secession now, with Obama as president. Where was their outrage when Bush neither upheld the Constitution nor obeyed international law?
- agentsrecord, on 04/20/2009, -68/+159He's spot on. And if Texas wants to become sovereign... don't let the door hit you the ass.
- 10ofDiamonds, on 04/21/2009, -8/+94States threatening secession is a good thing, it keeps the federal government in check. If I am not mistaken Texas isnt the only state to have recently openly discussed this issue. I think it was someone from Vermont who considered it in context of the issue of Gay marrriage. California should bring it up as they have federal agents arresting citizens and overriding state law. Recently we've had alot of Federal govt. over stepping its bounds, and we have a duty to start talking about measures to correct this problem if the Federal govt. is unwilling to listen.
- TheTruth1, on 04/21/2009, -19/+86States Rights do not equal racism. Some of you make the logical fallacy of saying the following:
States Rights = Racism, Pon Paul Likes States Rights. Therefore Ron Paul must be a racist. This is one of the simpler logical fallacies to spot.
Now, I would like to add the following. The whole idea of States Rights is gleaned from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It reads (from Wikipedia):
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
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.
What this says is that powers not given to the United States (The federal government) are either powers held by the State, or powers held by the people. It has nothing at all to do with any racial context.
Another thing that is interesting to note is that the states do not explicitly have any right to secede. This was pretty well settled in the Civil War - MonkeyOverlord, on 04/21/2009, -17/+64Secession is something we're incredibly inconsistent about. America claims that it was right to secede from Britain for a list of reasons which are weak compared to what we face today under the federal government. King George might have been worse today, but what he did back then was weak compared to what the feds have been doing for 15-20 years in the name of the War on Drugs and national security.
Then there is the sticky point about how we support secession in places like Yugoslavia and the USSR, but not here. Hell, just about any nominally democratic society that wants to break apart overseas we accept. We love secession, so long as it isn't practiced here!
Lastly, we say that America is one nation, but it isn't. The west coast states and New England are no more "one nation" with the South than England, Scotland and Ireland are just because they share a common language and a history of being under one union. America is one republic, formed out of several English-speaking nations. If you say that New England and the South are the same, you might as well say that Australians and New Zealanders really are just British rednecks who speak a bastardized style of British English instead of having their own dialect and local culture. - 10ofDiamonds, on 04/21/2009, -8/+55people on digg are idiots.
- synapz, on 04/21/2009, -2/+45You mean when Texans don't have to pay absurd income taxes and suffer inflationary pressures from the Fed to support zombie corporations in the Northeast?
Okay! - drmangrum, on 04/21/2009, -5/+45No way huh? The English thought there was "no way" their empire would crumble. They thought there was "no way" the colonies would win. The Soviets thought there was "no way" their country would be shattered into separate states.
History is littered with "no way's." If the federal government continues to push people where they want to go, especially a people like Texans who are very conservative, very proud of their state, and independent. Texas is one of the few states that could be self-sustaining if it actually did secede. The only other state that I think could do that is California. People also seem to think that Texas would be alone, that they would receive no support. You could bet New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mexico would enter into immediate trade agreements. Then you have the like-minded states that simply need a leader to push them over the edge. I don't doubt for a second there would be a domino effect.
Losing Federal support means VERY little to a state like texas. All it means is their federal taxes get moved to their state taxes. Don't forget that 5 of the top 20 largest cities in the US are in Texas. - ricorgbldr, on 04/21/2009, -3/+38Supreme Court ruling
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[29][30]
The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, himself a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln and leading figure in the Union government during the American Civil War. Based on his previous position, many southerners questioned Chase's impartiality and believed he should have recused himself from the decision. While legally binding, the court's decision was extremely controversial and remains so to this day. Many former Confederate officials such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as well as legal theorists such as Lysander Spooner rejected the court's reasoning and defended the right of states to secede. - inactive, on 04/21/2009, -13/+48Great display of political hacker Dave! Let me guess, you're an Obama sheep? Ron Paul has been more a critic of the Republicans than the Democrats. He voted against the Iraq war, all the subsequent appropriations for it, countless wasteful spending bills etc. All the while, your precious Democrats were falling right in line. And just for the record, a lot of deregulation happened during the Clinton years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act%29 ... so quit it with the partisan ***** for once.
You do realize that Obama is okay with torture correct? His administration did decide that Bush's policies were in line with the Geneva Convention, did you miss that announcement in fantasy world? You do realize that as a US Senator, Obama voted for FISA and the Patriot Act which, in your words, cancels parts of the constitution? Now that we are on the topic of the constitution and you seem to be an avid Obamanoid, lets review Obama's "constitutional" voting record as a US senator:
Voted YES on HR 2642 to extend our unconstitutional war in Iraqi and Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause%29:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 2863 which appropriates $445.88 billion for the Department of Defense, including $51.3 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, again both unconstitutional wars:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 4939 which appropriates $95.05 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for military operations, hurricane relief and recovery efforts (of which less than a third, $20.21 billion, is true emergency relief):
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 5441 which appropriates an additional $300 million dollars in transit security for the unconstitutional Department of Homeland of Security.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 1591 which, among many things, appropriates an additional $95.53 billion for the unconstitutional war on terror.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 1585 S Amdt 2898 which sets a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraqi with the exception of a limited number of U.S. forces to be engaged in targeted counterterrorism (i.e. mercenaries and unconstitutionally deployed US military forces).
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on S 2205 which would allow the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security to grant any foreign person with automatic US citizenship, unconstitutional under the 14th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_ ...
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Voted YES on HR 6304 (more commonly known as FISA) which essentially allows any private person or entity in the US and abroad to be spied upon , using any means necessary, by certain federal agencies that have no accountability to the American people.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? ...
Yes, I am aware of Obama’s vote YES on HR 6304 which would strike telecom immunity from FISA; however, even I knew this amendment would be voted down and thus his vote here doesn’t really convince me that he is adhering to the constitutional vote. If he were truly interested in upholding the 1st amendment he would have voted NO on FISA all together instead of supposedly compromising.
I would contend that the entire FISA bill is nothing more than proof positive that our constitution is no longer the supreme law-of-the-land as our forefathers laid out within it. Considering Obama voted yes for it should provide you with some insight into his constitutional background. I’m not saying Obama doesn’t understand the constitution, far from it actually; this is what really worries me.
By all means, continue on with your head buried in the sand. - 10ofDiamonds, on 04/21/2009, -9/+44If you stand idly by while your country destroys the premises of it inception than you are a taitor. The talk or idea of secession is patriotism realised to it's fullest.
- faskippy, on 04/21/2009, -4/+38Some people can't see their hand in front of their face. Logical discussion is a good thing.
- inactive, on 04/21/2009, -4/+38succeed != secede
- LouisCipher777, on 04/21/2009, -14/+47If Texas seceded it would become the 12th largest economy in the world. The US needs Texas more than Texas needs the US.
- durgil, on 04/21/2009, -7/+39Every state has the right to succeed. Whether or not states have a right to secede or not may be up for debate.
- inactive, on 04/21/2009, -8/+39Where are states explicitly forbidden the right to secede? If you can't cite the source, then that means it is a power delegated to the states. Thus, succession is legal.
- blah247, on 04/21/2009, -8/+38Crap now we have to worry about Illegal Texan immigrants!
- swicepick, on 04/21/2009, -2/+32It's funny how marijuana legalization is the solution to all problems, no matter what the story posted on Digg.
- stevensj2, on 04/21/2009, -5/+35Sounds like America's problem, not Texas'.
If Texas wants to succeed and take their oil with them, that's their choice.
Perhaps this demonstrates that America's reliance on oil (especially foreign oil) creates a level of susceptibility and national security risks that you're uncomfortable with?
Take that up with the Federal Gov't and the administration(s) that continue that policy. It isn't Texas' responsibility to sacrifice their interests for the benefit of yours. - MakanGuru, on 04/21/2009, -6/+34so, the President of the Republic of Texas = Ron Paul?
- billricardi, on 04/21/2009, -13/+41Its being Dugg down because EVERY state has the right to succeed. The Civil War didn't change that, it was just a violent reaction to it. Shocker that false info gets Dugg down!
"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."
Learn your law. - dustyshadow, on 04/21/2009, -5/+33It's funny how the media says Texas seceding from the Union would be a good thing for the nation when Texas is the only state right now without a dying economy.
- pathouston22, on 04/21/2009, -14/+41Texas already has no state income tax. And funny how Texas has the best economy in the country. How about that, my fellow tax tax tax diggers.
- NoamChimpsky, on 04/21/2009, -2/+29One more time for Ajajadude: 12th largest economy in the world.
That's how they'd fund themselves. Right now, they're funding US. - zenerdiode, on 04/21/2009, -5/+31As a Californian, I'd really like to see both California and Texas secede. They're both strong enough economies to succeed independent of the U.S.. But more important, we'd get to see which political theory holds up better without the feds getting in the way. Full CARB regulations vs. do whatever the hell you want...Income tax vs no income tax...
- NoamChimpsky, on 04/21/2009, -3/+29The federal government doesn't magically produce that money [well, actually it magically prints it, but anyways]. The people, living in the States produce revenue that is then taxed by the government, taking it out of the state and redistributing it.
If Texas, or any other state said "***** You!" they wouldn't need to rely on government funding because they are the ones providing that revenue in the first place--they'd just keep it rather than letting the federal government blow it out an airlock.
Of course, they'd need their own currency, debt, and valuation, but compared to the dollar and the deficit, could it really be that bad? - Moonkeeper, on 04/21/2009, -8/+33You realize the irony of writing a comment coming out against something that you then say is not worth discussing?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 04/21/2009, -5/+30Though I agree with your point I make it a general rule to bury anyone who calls someone a dumbass and proceeds to use the wrong "There" several times throughout their comment. Once is understandable but 3 times?! Come on! It's their.
- sHockz, on 04/21/2009, -45/+69i vote "Yes" for secession
Ron Paul understands the constitution better than...well just about anyone in office right now.
Ron Paul for president of Texas! - drmangrum, on 04/21/2009, -4/+28@voodoo
You're assuming people would fight Texas. What you have to realize is the Civil War was largely Lincoln pulling the wool over the eyes of the Union soldiers. The federal government kept telling the soldiers is was about slavery ( and it wasn't ) when in actuality it was about preserving the Union.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it"
Lincoln, 1862
Do you honestly think a factory worker or farmer in the northern states gave a bent cat turd over the south staying in the Union? - Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2009, -0/+24It's either pot or Linux, usually. Together, they form Voltron, I think.
- roho76, on 04/21/2009, -16/+40Secession IS a good thing. It stops the Federal Government from running amok.
Come on people the country will still be here and there will still be life without the Iron Fist of the Federal Government. Governors from each state will continue to do business with other states. It's not the end of the world. Stop allowing yourselves to be fear mongered into making uninformed decisions. And most of all do yourself a favor and stop feeding off the tit of the Government.
The Constitution was a contract between the people and the government. They have already broken the contract through laws they were never allowed to pass. So in a way the Federal Government doesn't even exist anymore. We are just going along with a quasi governmental system. Kinda like Bizzaro or when Biff takes the Delorean into the alternate time line. They have broken all the rules. They are not allowed to pass gun laws. They are not allowed to bail out banks. They are not allowed to pass social programs. They are not allowed to collect taxes on anybody's wages except their own government workers income which is how "income" is defined in Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) and is how the income tax IS Constitutional. They are not allowed to tell me I can't smoke pot, or visit Cuba. And they are not allowed to spy on my internet/phone/mail/personal life.
They are however allowed to go after fraud and they have failed. In fact they have given the fraudsters more of our money. They are allowed to protect us from all enemies and they have failed. In fact they have caused us more harm than good due to our global greed and heavy handedness and this in turn has caused "blow back" from the people who our actions have harmed. They are supposed to protect us from monopolies and Corporate America and they have failed. In fact they have created an environment that harbors this type of activity.
Please people for the love of who/what ever you believe in. Stop making the Federal Government the end all be all savior of your life. Stand up and be responsible for your own self. - DankBuddz, on 04/21/2009, -4/+28Did you know that it was polled that 75% of Texans don't want to secede?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol ...
It won't happen. - scottknick, on 04/21/2009, -10/+33Why, that would be wrong, pat!
Texas is ranked 23 in per capita income, which means 22 states have better economies. The top economies are almost all in Blue states.
And if Texas didn't have all that fossil fuel income, I suspect they'd be down there with Mississippi. - TheTruth1, on 04/21/2009, -2/+25I agree with this argument, however, the supreme court does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
I personally think that a state should be able to peaceably secede from the union if it pleases. - inactive, on 04/21/2009, -18/+40Think about it: If Texas breaks away from the union then the Texan state could legalise pot and raise a serious amount of tax revenue.. think of the laws they could pass that they cant do within the union.
Also Texas could become a no income tax zone, and therefore encouraging business to set up in Texas.... - DangerCollie, on 04/21/2009, -5/+27Why is that such a bad thing? I don't consider myself a political radical but the idea of secession doesn't scare me in the in the least. What's wrong with splitting up?
If your marriage is totally dysfunctional are you not going to consider divorce? How would this be any different? - sylvanknave, on 04/21/2009, -2/+23"It's good to see that Republicans are finally showing their true colors."
I think your comment came out slightly different than you intended. RP should have been the true color of the Republican party, not the neoconservatives that got Bush into office. - DirtyBinLV, on 04/21/2009, -1/+22For some reason, I fell like the phrase "Ron Paul for President of Texas" should be followed by shooting two revolvers into the air, Yosemite Sam style.
- psion01, on 04/21/2009, -3/+24Excluding yourself, of course.
...
And me. - JekJob, on 04/21/2009, -6/+27Ok, but Bush abused his power by neither upholding the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. These are the people who defended Bush, and who now want to secede because Obama is "abusing" his power.
If this wasn't about parties, Texas would have seceded long ago. Come on, they're not fooling anybody. - inactive, on 04/21/2009, -12/+32Yeah, people crying about oil and gas prices now in the US. Good luck with that if Texas seceded.
- tekgnos, on 04/21/2009, -4/+24And Ron Paul is so irrelevant and brings up so few points that you have to comment at least 10 times on any article that mentions him?
- LordRedSnake, on 04/21/2009, -9/+29It's a shame, people are laughing this off and casting all of the negative undertones of the Civil War to it, automatically associating it with being pro-slavery and racist when it's nothing of the sort. Some of the biggest offenders in the media in this regard are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. You could bet that they wouldn't be trivializing it so greatly if California started talking about seceding in order to protect medical marijuana rights or gay marriage rights, but since this is over taxes and a Democratic administration's policies, it's automatically backwards and ridiculous.
- HAL90000, on 04/21/2009, -8/+27Did you even watch the video?
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -12/+30I love how morons are burying all of the legitimate pro-Texas points in this thread.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 835 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is