|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: Texas HoR's Response to Perry |
 |
|
In response to the rhetoric Texas Governor Rick Perry has been spouting recently, the Texas State House of Representatives has taken action.
Some snippets from the article:
| Quote: |
The move, which came during House debate on a $178.4 billion proposal for the two-year period starting Sept. 1, immediately drew a reference to Perry�s recent comments about Texas� ability to secede from the union. The comments have drawn national attention and some lawmakers� ire.
�Two days after the governor threatens secession, the House zeroes out his budget,� said Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo, House Appropriations Committee vice chairman. |
| Quote: |
In the House, the Houston lawmakers who initiated the near-emptying of Perry�s budget said it wasn�t a slap at him. They said they just wanted to fund crucial programs.
�I need the money. I don�t care where I get it,� said Rep. John Davis, R-Houston, who offered the proposal to take $18.5 million from Perry�s office and spend it on mental health services that divert people from jails and emergency rooms. �These people need help.� |
| Quote: |
Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, said her move of $4 million from Perry�s office to veterans similarly wasn�t aimed at the governor: �I was trying to do something for veterans. That�s it.�
The move left Perry�s office with only about $900,000 to operate. �They�re just playing silly games,� said Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*I* really want to argue, but
I'm a veteran with questionable mental health!
Good for me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good for the Texas Legislature. I hope they make him crawl like the snake he is to get his money back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Texas secedes I wonder if they will reintroduce Jim Crow laws? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| If Texas secedes I wonder if they will reintroduce Jim Crow laws? |
Yes. But it wouldn't be aimed at African-Americans . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would be against YANKS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does ANYONE really follow the news?
There is another 7-page thread...PLUS this one...and BOTH are filled with Dave's ESL Posters thinking TEXAS can secede? It cannot secede.
AGAIN...TEXAS can't secede. It is ILLEGAL. It's a myth that Texans (and some non-Texans) perpetuate who don't really know the laws and agreement - including the Governor of Texas apparently and the posters who entertain the possibility on these threads.
They have the right to divide into separate states...but they DO NOT have the right to secede from the Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
AGAIN...TEXAS can't secede. It is ILLEGAL. |
Yeah, we know. And in Ya-Ta's defense, illegal stuff happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Paul, famous defender of the Constitution in the last election, weighs in on the secession debate: "So secession is a very much American principle."
Video clip here: http://thinkprogress.org/
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ron Paul, famous defender of the Constitution in the last election, weighs in on the secession debate: "So secession is a very much American principle."
Video clip here: http://thinkprogress.org/
|
Here's the actual link: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/20/ron-paul-secession/
Ron Paul is an embarrassment. America declared independence when it didn't have any representation. The State of Texas has plenty of representation. And insofar as its gerrymandered, its all Texas' own fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ron Paul says no one has considered it seriously since the Civil War. Prior to that, no one debated whether it was legal when New England considered seceding in the early 19th Century.
Wait until the federal government declares bankruptcy, and see if the issue doesn't arise again in several states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superacidjax
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
AGAIN...TEXAS can't secede. It is ILLEGAL. It's a myth that Texans (and some non-Texans) perpetuate who don't really know the laws and agreement - including the Governor of Texas apparently and the posters who entertain the possibility on these threads.
They have the right to divide into separate states...but they DO NOT have the right to secede from the Union. |
Under the Ordinance of Annexation of 1845, you're right, they do have the right to establish four separate states.
HOWEVER, under international law, the Ordinance itself is illegal because the annexation was not done by a treaty but by a simple majority vote of Congress. Since Texas was NOT a territory of the United States prior to annexation, but in fact a separate country, international law requires a ratified treaty for annexation. The Congressional vote to annex was illegal, because Texas, as an independent nation was not subject to US Congressional action.
Procedurally, Texas' annexation was defective.
Following the assumption the the Ordinance was legal, then no, Texas cannot leave the Union. However, the Ordinance is not legal (since it wasn't a ratified treaty) therefore the argument about dividing into 4 states is moot.
Texas can't secede, true, but that is because it was never legally annexed in the first place. It's been a de facto state since the Ordinance, but it is not a de jure state.
You claim that the right to secede is a myth supported by those ignorant of the "laws." You are right, but probably not how you intended. The myth is that Texas annexation was in accordance with the laws in the first place. and that the law allows for it to secede. In fact, the annexation itself wasn't legal and therefore all of the relevant "laws and agreements" about which you claim people's ignorance are not even valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ron Paul says no one has considered it seriously since the Civil War. Prior to that, no one debated whether it was legal when New England considered seceding in the early 19th Century.Wait until the federal government declares bankruptcy, and see if the issue doesn't arise again in several states. |
The idea that 'New England' considered seceding in 1814 is overblown. Some delegates met, but they were not representative of public thought. Certainly some of the public was talking about secession, but it was nowhere majority opinion. It doesn't matter much anyway. The mere fact that a few delegates met was enough to smear the Federalist party with the unpatriotic brush and led directly to the party's demise.
Another good example happened even before 1814. When the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were passed in the late 1790's in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, several state legislatures debated and passed harshly dissenting views.
Thanks to Gov. Perry's endorsement, secession has been brought into the mainstream for the first time since 1865, so you are probably right that the idea is here to stay for at least a time. It could become the litmus test for every politician with national ambitions--you can bet your booties that every Democratic strategist in the country has already started drawing up campaign plans and ad scenarios for 2010. There is some chance that it will lead to the destruction of the modern Republican Party like it did the Federalist Party. Republican legislators in the Texas House joined with Democrats in the response to the gov's speech. That's the right move: Drive secession back into the lunatic fringe where it belongs.
Conservative politicians pushed loyalty oaths back in the '50's as part of McCarthyism. It would be deliciously ironical if they have to take loyalty oaths themselves in the future. "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any party that is sympathetic to secession." If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind.  Michelle Bachmann recently called for an investigation of Congress to uncover members who are anti-American. I nominate her for the first one to take the new loyalty oath. You should always be careful what you wish for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| superacidjax wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
AGAIN...TEXAS can't secede. It is ILLEGAL. It's a myth that Texans (and some non-Texans) perpetuate who don't really know the laws and agreement - including the Governor of Texas apparently and the posters who entertain the possibility on these threads.
They have the right to divide into separate states...but they DO NOT have the right to secede from the Union. |
Under the Ordinance of Annexation of 1845, you're right, they do have the right to establish four separate states.
HOWEVER, under international law, the Ordinance itself is illegal because the annexation was not done by a treaty but by a simple majority vote of Congress. Since Texas was NOT a territory of the United States prior to annexation, but in fact a separate country, international law requires a ratified treaty for annexation. The Congressional vote to annex was illegal, because Texas, as an independent nation was not subject to US Congressional action.
Procedurally, Texas' annexation was defective.
Following the assumption the the Ordinance was legal, then no, Texas cannot leave the Union. However, the Ordinance is not legal (since it wasn't a ratified treaty) therefore the argument about dividing into 4 states is moot.
Texas can't secede, true, but that is because it was never legally annexed in the first place. It's been a de facto state since the Ordinance, but it is not a de jure state.
You claim that the right to secede is a myth supported by those ignorant of the "laws." You are right, but probably not how you intended. The myth is that Texas annexation was in accordance with the laws in the first place. and that the law allows for it to secede. In fact, the annexation itself wasn't legal and therefore all of the relevant "laws and agreements" about which you claim people's ignorance are not even valid. |
Which international law that existed before 1845 was violated, exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
