- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:00 am to EKG
quote:
Nah, just a difference in opinion.
I mean, it really isn't. Let's say 16 million Texans participate in the election, and 8.1 million vote in favor, and 7.9 mil vote against secession. Let's imagine secession goes through. Do you think the 7.9 million people who voted against secession would magically disappear? The question of USG interference in the Texan politics is already answered because we know that such a referendum won't likely reach levels of other independence referendums where they occurred elsewhere. Even a 60-40 split would be insanely difficult for any new government to deal with, as the consequence for any political decision would be to go back to the union. Everything I've read from the Texas secessionist people has been infused with such naivety that it beggars belief. They don't understand the cutthroat nature of international politics at all.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:12 am to Indefatigable
quote:
We would also need to mandate patriotic and Christian education instead of teaching kids to hate the country. Not a theocracy mandated but even more overtly Christian in my opinion.
Paranoid Christian Nationalists are primarily rural, and it seems that they will be able to form their own little Taliban pockets in large swatches of the states, given the makeup of the Supreme Court. I think that will resolve most of the "cultural concerns". People who actually read and understand history and can balance the greatness of the country with some of the injustices of its past without freaking the frick out will just have to grouse about supporting religious stuff with their tax dollars and get over it.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:12 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
A massive assumption.
You really think in 2022 that the people of this country will want to kill the people of Texas for secession? You realize that about half the country is going to want to go with them, right?
quote:
Because according to the USG, unilateral secession isn't constitutional.
If that isn't a can of worms. Does the federal government really want to have a discussion about the unconstitutional actions it takes, supports, and advocates every day?
quote:
In this scenario, they are imagining another 6 million Texans voting against leaving? This is the naivety I was referring to earlier. Before they consider what the USG will do, shouldn't they consider what they themselves should do in a situation where there are very slim margins? Because, again, they aren't considering the consequences of self-government.
As if that is something new? State and federal representation is decided by very slim margins regularly. Why would this be any different?
quote:
What nations could effectively sanction the USG?
China? Saudi Arabia? No sense acting like China isn't our enemy. They've all but announced it in a press conference. They are more than happy to let us use their slaves to make our corporations and themselves rich, but they hate us, and it is obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ.
Saudi Arabia could cripple this country in a matter of months. Believe me, they have enough money to not sell us oil for 6 months or a year. We are pretty melty right now over $5 gas, what would it be like at $15?
quote:
And the USG is powerful enough to avoid 'delegitimization' completely.
Right, like we aren't most of the way there already. You are aware that the president* of this country was installed, rather than elected, right?
quote:
In those terms, it barely suffered anything from the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
You're comparing apples to cowboy boots.
quote:
Except those right enumerated directly in the Constitution. Is secession directly mentioned in the US Constitution?
Each state ratified the US Constitution. They didn't have to, and the prescription for breaking the ties that bind are right there in the Declaration of Independence.
quote:
Again, naivety.
Maybe some, but then again I'm not seeing too many in the military, the legislature, and the bureaucracy itching to put their own loved ones in harms way by starting the wholesale slaughter of former Americans.
People seem to think Bubba is going to stand out in a field waiting for an Apache to come obliterate him. Maybe some will. But many others are going to be identifying the family and loved ones of the people giving those orders and carrying them out, finding where they live, and bringing the hell of war to everyone. Equality, isn't it wonderful?
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:23 am to NOLAManBlog
The problem with talking at a state level is that the break isn't by state. The only reason the Christian right has an over-represented voice in our country if because of the anti-democratic Electoral College and Senate.
At a state government level, it's the cities vs. rural areas, which would make any sort of secession by state pretty unwieldy.
Going to be ugly, but the states and cities will work this shite out.
At a state government level, it's the cities vs. rural areas, which would make any sort of secession by state pretty unwieldy.
Going to be ugly, but the states and cities will work this shite out.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:25 am to troyt37
quote:
You realize that about half the country is going to want to go with them, right?
So 160 million or so would want to fight them? The proportions here are gigantic.
quote:
If that isn't a can of worms. Does the federal government really want to have a discussion about the unconstitutional actions it takes, supports, and advocates every day?
I mean, they already ruled on it in Texas v White.
quote:
As if that is something new? State and federal representation is decided by very slim margins regularly. Why would this be any different?
Because that population still exists after the vote. You think people who didn't vote for secession are going to just go along with the consequences?
quote:
China? Saudi Arabia? No sense acting like China isn't our enemy. They've all but announced it in a press conference. They are more than happy to let us use their slaves to make our corporations and themselves rich, but they hate us, and it is obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ.
But the USG effectively controls the financial system, not China or the KSA. What's more likely is the USG sanctioning Texas and the leaders of any secession movement, if it even gets that far. The USG has stamped out other independence movements so much so that no one remembers them. Why wouldn't they do the same here?
quote:
You are aware that the president* of this country was installed, rather than elected, right?
That means absolutely nothing with respect to international politics.
quote:
Each state ratified the US Constitution. They didn't have to, and the prescription for breaking the ties that bind are right there in the Declaration of Independence.
But the relevant case law would reference the Constitution, not the Declaration, correct?
quote:
Maybe some, but then again I'm not seeing too many in the military, the legislature, and the bureaucracy itching to put their own loved ones in harms way by starting the wholesale slaughter of former Americans.
People seem to think Bubba is going to stand out in a field waiting for an Apache to come obliterate him. Maybe some will. But many others are going to be identifying the family and loved ones of the people giving those orders and carrying them out, finding where they live, and bringing the hell of war to everyone. Equality, isn't it wonderful?
Well it would absolutely go both ways. Conflicts aren't neatly ordered things. I'm suggesting that most Americans don't want to deal with any of it at all. You have an aging, overweight population which can't sustain its population from generation to generation and also has a lot to lose. Texas is still subject to those demographic trends.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:33 am to oman
quote:
You really think in 2022 that the people of this country will want to kill the people of Texas for secession? You realize that about half the country is going to want to go with them, right?
You really think that secession is more than the pipe dream of some loons?
Secessionists want their guns, want to kill public schools and turn them into free religious schools, and want to hate on "non-Christian lifestyles". They've got the first, they are hard at work on the second, and they're close to making their government an instrument of the third.
They are doing pretty darn well in the present system.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 11:53 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
So 160 million or so would want to fight them? The proportions here are gigantic.
Maybe. I think the 160 million or so that would be with them would be a pretty tough nut to crack.
quote:
I mean, they already ruled on it in Texas v White.
You don't say? The federal government decided the federal government could do as it pleases, and the states can piss off? That's kind of why we are having this discussion, isn't it?
quote:
Because that population still exists after the vote. You think people who didn't vote for secession are going to just go along with the consequences?
Isn't that what happens in every election?
quote:
But the USG effectively controls the financial system, not China or the KSA.
That's what our government sells to it's people. In reality, the US people have been sold down the river to places like China. Did COVID not tell you anything? What were the repercussions for China, for making and infecting the world with COVID? None. Why? Because we have shuttered 85% of our manufacturing capacity in deference to the slave labor of China. We no longer manufacture the goods it takes to keep this country running. Let that sink in for a moment.
quote:
What's more likely is the USG sanctioning Texas and the leaders of any secession movement, if it even gets that far.
I would think that would be expected. While they are at it, they can sanction Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana off the top of my head. Sanctions go both ways.
quote:
That means absolutely nothing with respect to international politics.
Maybe. But it means a hell of a lot when you are talking about delegitimizing the government. Literally, the president isn't legitimate.
quote:
But the relevant case law would reference the Constitution, not the Declaration, correct?
Were the Founding Fathers bound by British case law after they declared independence from Britain?
quote:
Well it would absolutely go both ways. Conflicts aren't neatly ordered things. I'm suggesting that most Americans don't want to deal with any of it at all.
Which is precisely why most Americans wouldn't want to declare war on about 20 states for seceeding.
quote:
You have an aging, overweight population which can't sustain its population from generation to generation and also has a lot to lose. Texas is still subject to those demographic trends.
Which means absolutely nothing to people who are suffering the abuse of tyrants pushing for a marxist/socialist society, willing to destroy the very fabric of our society to stop make believe crises like global warming by crippling the economy, attacking the very foundations of our republic.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:06 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
I mean, they already ruled on it in Texas v White.
LINK ]Didn’t the Supreme Court declare secession unconstitutional? - TNM
quote:
The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, “So what?”
Dr. McClanahan’s attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by TEXIT detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.
The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that he disagreed “on all points raised and decided.” The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.
Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, “Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions.”
There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive “seal of approval” on the federal government’s policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.
To reinforce his belief that the United States was a “perpetual union,” he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the “perpetual union” allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.
To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an “indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,” Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.
To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.
In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.
There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase’s logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.
The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.
Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.
“Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance… but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.”
With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the “silver bullet” that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.
Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase’s determination is predicated on the claim that “perpetual union” is the “more perfect union” spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.
The federal government’s position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the “end all, be all” of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.
Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:07 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
relevant case law would reference the Constitution
LINK ]Is TEXIT unconstitutional? - TNM
quote:
There is no prohibition in the United States Constitution that forbids any state from exiting the union. The Constitution of the United States actually defines the specific acts States are forbidden from committing in Article 1, Section 10. Nowhere in the remainder of the Constitution is the issue of a State leaving the Union explicitly forbidden, nor is power ceded to the federal government to prohibit one from doing so. In this silence, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution rings loudly.
quote:
“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.”
Constitution of the United States, Tenth Amendment
This deafening constitutional silence, coupled with the definitive reservation of power by the States, leaves the decision to the people of a State and to those people alone. For this, we have to look to the Texas Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 not only expressly reserves all sovereignty not granted through the United States Constitution, but it also sets the conditions upon which Texas will remain in the union.
quote:
Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 1
In the very next section of our governing document, the power to determine how Texans govern themselves is clearly declared to reside in the people of Texas alone.
quote:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 2
This post was edited on 7/1/22 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:14 pm to troyt37
quote:
Maybe. I think the 160 million or so that would be with them would be a pretty tough nut to crack.
It goes both ways.
quote:
You don't say? The federal government decided the federal government could do as it pleases, and the states can piss off? That's kind of why we are having this discussion, isn't it?
You should read the opinion.
quote:
That's what our government sells to it's people.
But it is the truth. The US controls the financial system.
quote:
Isn't that what happens in every election?
The stakes with independence are entirely different and you know that.
quote:
I would think that would be expected. While they are at it, they can sanction Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana off the top of my head. Sanctions go both ways.
They'd likely make an example out of the first state to do it. Texas has the good fortune of being on the Gulf, but it can be sanctioned and blockaded regardless. That's what would happen. Sanctions would be utterly destructive for a landlocked state.
quote:
Were the Founding Fathers bound by British case law after they declared independence from Britain?
In that case, what is to stop Houston from deciding to stay in the Union? What is to stop the atomization of an entire political entity? Why would Texas remain Texas, but individual counties or cities couldn't decide whether to remain in the Union?
quote:
Which means absolutely nothing to people who are suffering the abuse of tyrants pushing for a marxist/socialist society, willing to destroy the very fabric of our society to stop make believe crises like global warming by crippling the economy, attacking the very foundations of our republic.
But it does mean things for actual meaningful resistance.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:28 pm to EKG
quote:
Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.
But these people are not ready for the reality of self-determination.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In a situation that is nothing like the current United States.
Didn’t say it is, just pointing out there has been peaceful separation.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:35 pm to Cajun Tiger 4
The right could do it peacefully. Not the left. The left loathes to admit that they want all of their policies on EVERYTHING in place TODAY and they don’t care what other think about it. BUT…
The best analogy/comparison I can give is SWB in BR. She can’t have her car left anti-police parish without the taxes of what is obviously a mostly right base in EBR. She’s suing for God’s sakes.
The left simply wants to run the country and the right to pay for it.
The best analogy/comparison I can give is SWB in BR. She can’t have her car left anti-police parish without the taxes of what is obviously a mostly right base in EBR. She’s suing for God’s sakes.
The left simply wants to run the country and the right to pay for it.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:41 pm to bayoudude
quote:
The divide is urban vs rural
correct.
I live in a rural county in Oklahoma. I was surprised to learn in 2016 is was Trump/Clinton 65/35.
So even in a deep red area of the country Hillary still got 35% of the vote.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:46 pm to oman
quote:
The problem with talking at a state level is that the break isn't by state. The only reason the Christian right has an over-represented voice in our country if because of the anti-democratic Electoral College and Senate.
It's "anti-democratic" because that was the intention, not to have a Democracy but a Representative Republic.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:47 pm to PiscesTiger
quote:
The left simply wants to run the country and the right to pay for it.
This is the best one line summation of modern politics that I've seen.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 12:47 pm to Cajun Tiger 4
Texas IS leaving this country, and any of you wanting to join us better have something to offer us if you want to be protected from America. Otherwise frick off.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 1:06 pm to VADawg
Appreciate it. It’s simply the truth though.
Posted on 7/1/22 at 2:23 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
But these people are not ready for the reality of self-determination.
Need to deal with the reality of reality first.
This post was edited on 7/1/22 at 2:25 pm
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News