Yes. While Texas is literally burning, he came to the state to talk about alligators and moats.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
|
Yes. While Texas is literally burning, he came to the state to talk about alligators and moats.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You guys should really secede!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They can't... secession was never a Constitutional option. However ; the President has irresponsibly ignored the legitimate request of the state for a declaration of disaster .
This all sounds so familiar...
Not quite. President Bush was legally constrained from taking Federal measures until the Governor of Lousiana requested the aid. In this case Governor Perry has made the request.
Looks like he hasn't been ignored lately.Quote:
"Governor Perry's request is currently under review, and will continue our close coordination with the state as they work to protect their residents and communities," FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said.
She said Texas has already received 22 grants to help pay fire management expenses this fire season, including 16 in April alone.
Perry asked for a declaration of disaster . That the President hasn't done so yet is pure politics. This is the same garbage he used when hurricane Ike levelled Galveston. FEMA told Texas to use state funds and that the Feds would reimburse . That never happened .
Texas fits the criteria for the declaration so a denial is vindictive.
FEMA: Declaration Process Fact Sheet
And, the idiot probably doesn't even know we already have a moat with alligators in Texas.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So, a BIG federal government is cool WHEN you want one, or even two of its services... But, when the federal money is for somebody else, perhaps a poor child, then it's time for SECESSION...
Texas sucks.
excon
Executive declarations of 'states of emergencies' requiring Federal response are consistent with the Constitution. Article 1 Sec 9 paragraph 2 .
Oh don't give me the poor child line, you can use that one on someone else because we do our part for poor children without the feds help... and I didn't mention secession, NK did.
I'll let Ed Morrisey answer the resth:
But then Texas is a pretty Republican state so why should we get any of that money back that we've forked over for just such an occasion.Quote:
Critics might be tempted to point out that Texans like their 10th-Amendment independence, but Texans also fork over a lot of tax revenue that funds federal disaster relief, too. With over 2.2 million acres destroyed already — which equates to over 3400 square miles, or roughly seven times the size of Los Angeles, 50 times the size of DC, and three times the land area of Rhode Island — a federal declaration of disaster seems warranted, and the real question is why Barack Obama hasn’t acted.
There's that getout clause again, the constitution
I dispute any contention that the Constitution can be nullified by the actions of a single State;or that a State can unilaterally or as a group of States secede . If they attempt to leave ,call it what it is ; a revolution.Quote:
there's that getout clause again, the constitution
Yes Tom I have no doubt that for any part of the US to secede would be thought of as a revolution after all the last time anyone attempted it, it was what could be thought of as a bloody revolution and in fact some of participants thought of it as the second war of independence. But you should ask yourself. In a "democracy" why can't some of the people exercise their God given right of independence? Why must they be dominated by the majority? I think that it isn't as much of a democracy as it would like to think. I know there would be many considerations such as compensation for inferstructure, military forces, and so on but why couldn't it happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have a great quote from an under-rated autobiography... US Grant's. It addresses your comment about the right to rebel and replace the government . The Declaration of Independence deals with that possibility . The founders recognized the risk they took ,as the Libyan rebels do today. My point remains... there is no constitutional right for the States to secede .
Quote:
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.
Very much the I exist therefore I exist argument. Let me borrow from a movie script and an argument attributed to another civil war General
"my analogy of a gentlemen's club
Is fair enough. It's clear enough.
Colonel, think on it now.
Suppose that we all joined a club,
A gentlemen's club.
After a time, several of the members
Began to intrude themselves...
Into our private lives, our home lives.
Began telling us
What we could and couldn't do.
Well, then, wouldn't any one of us
Have the right to resign?
I mean, just resign.
That's what we did.
That's what I did and now these people
Are telling us we don't have that right.
From the movie Gettysburg...
Yea that was the position of the South . The fact is that with some new territories likely to enter the union as free states ;and the population of the North growing ;the Southern States feared for the continuation of their intollerable institutuion... slavery.
That is why they bowed out . Gentleman's agreement? If they were gentlemen at all it was bought with a bull whip.
All someone who believes that secession is legal and Constitutional need do is show me the clause that permits it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:52 PM. |