Or so it would seem…
I didn’t realize that I had another “name caller” appellation to go along with “denier”, but The Left seems to love name calling.
On Hannity on the Fox channel, he was interviewing a guy from a Texas organization that is pushing for a separate Texas Republic. I tried their web site, but it was swamped so ‘no joy’. ( I suspect a few hundred million people all hit it at once, and likely a Denial Of Service attack or three were launched by Obama supporters as well… it would fit the known behaviour patterns).
http://www.texasnationalist.com/ So maybe later it will be working…
The presenter said that they needed 25,000 signatures, but had gotten 80,000. So their petition is on it’s way to Obama. He did not expect it to achieve anything as it was more of a ‘Mother may I please’ and toothless if denied. So that’s one petition on it’s way. Would be interesting to know the history of such things. Had any other petitions ever been submitted before (other than The Confederacy days, that is… when Texas DID secede.
So I went on to duckduckgo and did a web search instead. (Having, earlier in the day seen a news report that the US Government had issued more requests for ‘usage’ information to Google than the next 3 or 4 countries combined, I’m happier using a search engine that doesn’t track me so much. That it is outside US subpoena reach is also a feature. No, not got anything to hide. Just don’t see any reason to put my interests in the hands of the Federal Government… and since I do a lot of interesting searches for things to make into articles, it would undoubtedly trip many key words. Heck, just the nuclear and Islam searches ought to cause a ‘hit’.) So I did a websearch. Lots of links showed up.
Turns out there’s a lot of interesting history to Texas and secession (real and hoped).
From the Wiki, I picked up some ideas where else to look. Also a bit of name calling about “tenthers”. That has a wiki too.
The Tenther movement is a political ideology and a social movement in the United States that espouses that many actions of the United States government are unconstitutional. Adherents invoke the concept that the states share sovereignty with the federal government and with the people by citing the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as the basis for their legal and ideological beliefs:
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.
Adherents believe that political authority enumerated in the United States Constitution as belonging to the Federal Government must be read very narrowly to exclude much of what the national government already does. They argue for the recognition of limited sovereignty of the States. Opponents use the term in order to draw parallels between adherents and 19th century states’ rights secessionists, as well as the movement to resist Federal Civil Rights legislation.
Some object to the name “Tenther” as it originated as a pejorative used by those opposed to the movement’s ideas, in an attempt to reference and draw parallels to conspiratorial movements such as Birthers and Truthers.
Seems to me that the 10th Amendment is pretty darned clear. It’s in the list of enumerated powers, or The Feds just can’t do it. Does belief in freedom of the press and religion make me a “Firster”? Though most likely I’m even more radical than they say. I believe in unlimited sovereignty of the States, that then create and deligate a limited sovereignty to the Federation. Just like the constitution says.
Further down, it talks about what ‘tenthers’ believe. As I believe those things, I guess that makes me a ‘tenther’.
Adherents oppose a broad range of federal government programs, including the War on Drugs, federal surveillance, and other limitations on privacy and civil and economic liberties, plus numerous New Deal legislation to Great Society legislation, such as Medicaid, Medicare, the VA health system and the G.I. Bill.
Tenther movement should not be confused with libertarianism, although the two often have similar positions. Whereas libertarians oppose programs such as the War on Drugs on ideological grounds, seeing them as unjustified government intrusion into lives of its citizens, tenthers hold that such programs may be perfectly acceptable but only when implemented by individual states. Libertarians are opposed to sodomy laws and believe that “the government has no business in the bedroom”. In contrast, it has been argued by tenthers that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws in all U.S. states where they remained, was an unconstitutional federal intrusion into what should have been a states’ rights area; from the tenther perspective, “there clearly is no right to sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution” and “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards”. Tenthers also oppose involvement of the Federal Government in enforcing the federal War on Drugs, particularly in states that have decriminalizing legislation such as California.
Not so sure I agree with them on the Libertarian divergence. I think the “war on drugs” is BOTH a 10th amendment issue AND a liberty issue. Similarly sodomy and various forms of ‘transfer payments’. There is NO authority for funding a national propaganda service in PBS or handing money to Big Bird. (Despite the fact that I like both, like having them, and think some way ought to be found to keep public broadcasting alive and well, most likely via local, private, donations. It was much more balanced back in the ’60s prior to Central Control of the money spigot. Bill Buckley was a favorite of mine on PBS.)
But it gets even more interesting. Back on that Texas wiki, it looks like a load of Texans are also “tenthers”
Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50
On February 17, 2009, House Concurrent Resolution 50 was introduced and on May 30, 2009, the resolution passed in the Texas House of Representatives with amendments. The resolution reads in part:
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
On April 9, 2009, Governor Perry affirmed his support for the resolution. Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said “We haven’t heard as much talk about Texas sovereignty and states’ rights in the last 30 years as we have in the last week.”
However, the Texas resolution is not binding on the Federal government. Among other things, the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v White established this principle, and remains the last legal word in the debate.
That “Texas v. White” is where The Supremes said the prior secession was null… so I don’t see where it applies at all to a discussion of 10th Amendment application. But political wiki can be like that…
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally 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”
Oddly, further down, in quoting from the decision, it DOES give conditions under which a State can withdraw:
“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
Unclear is just how many of the States are needed to grant ‘consent’. But if the War Between The States was not a revolution, what was?
A passing note goes to the fact that the decision also seems to assert that a Direct Democracy is not allowable as a State form of government. It MUST have a republic… Again quoting from the decision:
The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former
So wonder if that excludes socialist non-republics?… Central Committees and all…
At any rate, while that ruling seems to say “Can’t just leave”, it looks to me to be unrelated to “10 th Amendment” demands.
OK, so “revolution” is an OK exit, and if the other States say it’s OK. From what I remember of the map, more were “Red States” than not. (or at least more area). So looks to me like a vote of the Red States to let each other all go is all it would take. Though personally I think they ought to vote to kick out the blue states…
Oh, sidebar on red and blue. Yes, they are backwards. One election one of the TV news shows used those colors and, IMHO deliberately, used red for Republicans to avoid coloring the Democrats with their (more appropriate) socialist associated color. Then some other TV news shows picked up on it and it became a standard feature. Now we’re stuck with it. Deliberate lying? Or just the usual ‘backwards think’ of the loons of TV Liberal News? Hard to say…
One also has to wonder if the War Between the States was not a ‘revolution’, what is?!
It also looks like the vote count is still rising. The wiki has an even higher count listed:
Post 2012 Presidential Election
On November 9, 2012, an online petition was created on whitehouse.gov titled “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.” The petition states:
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
As of 12:35AM CST, 14 November 2012, the petition has garnered 93,111 signatures, far more than the 25,000 signatures required to illicit a response from the White House
Interesting times, I think…
Having rallies in Austin, too (though this was from last year):
Texas Nationalist group rallies for secession in Austin
, ASSOCIATED PRESS | March 5, 2011
AUSTIN — The Texas Nationalist Movement marked Texas Independence Day with a rally on Saturday at the Capitol urging Texans to save the state by seceding from the United States.
A small but enthusiastic group of Texans gathered on the steps of the Capitol, as an assortment of massive Texas flags blew above them in the chilly afternoon breeze.
Outrage was spread evenly toward Democrats and Republicans as leaders of the movement expressed their disgust for the growing national debt and the federal government’s treatment of Texas.
“Texas can take better care of itself than Washington,” said Lauren Savage, vice president of the movement. “We are here to raise interest in the Legislature of the possibility of secession to cure the ills of America.”
Members are demanding that state lawmakers introduce a bill that would allow Texans to vote on whether to declare independence.
Fed up with federal mandates, the burden of unsustainable taxes and disregarded votes, members say secession has been a long time coming.
“This is a cake that’s been baking for 85 years,” said Cary Wise, membership director of the Texas Nationalist Movement. “All this administration has done is light the candles.”
Maybe It’s time to pick up that Texas citizenship… At one time you could become an official resident of Texas by sending a letter stating the intent to move there to some department or other…
FWIW, there’s a long defense of why States do have the right to secession (due to the fact that the States had to write into their constitutions a statement they would not secede that would be pointless otherwise along with an appeal to some earlier law; so it might well be that the above Supreme court ruling isn’t the last word…)
It also makes clear why my Texas Uncle can’t stand the idea of voting Republican. Seems they were part of “reconstruction” in Texas and not very welcome…
Following the War Between the States, Texans wrote the Constitution of 1866, which they intended to permit a restoration of civilian government under President Andrew Johnson’s mild Reconstruction program. The new constitution actually nullified secession and did not declare that secession was unconstitutional. Andrew Johnson did accept it. Those of you aware of Reconstruction history know that such leniency (by Lincoln or Johnson) was unacceptable to the Radical Republicans, who seized control of Reconstruction, established military rule and impeached the president. Not only was there an impasse between Congress and the Executive Branch, but recall that at the time the Supreme Court was a constitutionally conservative institution, so Congress withdrew jurisdiction for Reconstruction from the Supreme Court!With the help of the Grangers, Texans eventually took back their State ten years later. President Grant refused to send federal troops to prop up a discredited and unpopular Republican state government in Texas. Voters ratified their new state constitution in 1876, which remains in effect today.
To act as if secession is settled legally is ridiculous. Absent an Amendment to the Constitution, all we have are acts of Congress respecting secession—which leads to the same situation we had in 1832 or 1860. Acts of Congress can and do change. Moreover, political power can be brought to bear: by two other branches of the national government; by every state in the union; and by popular opinion and public action.
It would also seem that Texas snuck by with a ‘nullify’ of the prior secession and NOT an actual ‘make it unconstitutional’… so they don’t even have to change their constitution to do it ;-)
God I love Texas some times!
So I’m reaching the point where I need to start making a list of the “names” I’m being called by the Loony Side Of Left. Denier. now “Tenther”. Some others I’m sure. So much vile bile, so little thought and substance… The reality is just that I follow the meanings of words very closely, do not let them drift on the wind or change with political whim, and like my science done cleanly and in a clear search for truth. NOT with an agenda.
Who knows, maybe someday they can call me Texan too ;-)
Half the family is from back that-a-way, so we’ve ‘got roots’ (or more accurately, the spouse does… can one be “Texan by marriage?” ;-)
Lets see… Utah, not keen on The Union I’d guess. Texas. Arizona too. Likely Nevada. Heck, we could likely reconstruct the whole of Deseret and add it to Texas. Toss in Oklahoma too most likely. Heck, I’m pretty sure Wyoming and Montana would be happy to join the party. Colorado likely not so much… And New Mexico has a large Government Dependent population… But I’d bet the Dakotas would be signing up too. All that oil to drill and produce. Hmmm….