TexasCHLforum.com

When agreements between two parties are broken by one of the parties, the agreement is null and void.The fed.gov machine has trampled on the agreement with the states. We are no longer bound by the agreement.

Anygunanywhere

LSUTiger wrote:As a courtesy to the other members, a PM has been sent to you to discuss other matters.

I saw it, read it, and sent you a reply which I hope you will find satisfactory.

John75 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:You cannot advocate for succession without equally renouncing being an American. If you are prepared to do that, you may claim to be a Texas patriot, but you can no longer claim to be an American patriot. And by the way, you can't promote and defend the "Constitution of the United States" (the document's actual title) by advocating for succession from the nation on which it is founded.

I disagree. To me an American believes in the values that this country was founded on and the Constitution as it was written. It is those set of values that made this country great and defined what America is. It's not in a name or location. When I look at the socialists in this country, I don't see them as true Americans. If land boundaries or a name has to change so that the constitution can work again, then so be it.

I understand where you're coming from, but the problem is that they have such a distorted idea of what America is that they no longer see people like us as Americans either. And in the current political climate, they outnumber us. I submit the fact of the Obama presidency as exhibit A.

You guys have got to understand something about me here........as I pointed out to LSUTiger in my PM'ed reply to him, there is a often a very big disconnect between what I think ought to be and what I know to actually be. It's the difference between the perfection of ideals which I hold dear, and the situational realities in effect at any given time. Right now, the ideals I hold dear and the realities of the DC cesspool could not be further apart. I want to reiterate that the OP in this thread is about a post on a website which advocates for Texan secession. As I said previously, that idea has a certain romantic appeal, but one cannot seriously consider it without equally seriously considering all of the implications thereof. John75, you say that those are "American" values. I believe they are divine values and divinely inspired.......whether or not the men who wrote them down were themselves religious people.......and as such, they transcend being American values. The cause of human liberty knows no geographical boundaries, and it is simply an accident of history—and our great blessing—that God caused them to be enshrined in our American Constitution...........and not Romania's or Portugal's..........see what I mean? To put that in terms of Biblical history for the purposes of illustration, God could have chosen any Mesopotamian. He chose Abraham. When Abraham left Mesopotamia, divinely inpsired, it was to be the founder of the nation of Israel. He was no longer Mesopotamian, and he no longer followed the gods and beliefs of Mesopotamia. But the principles/beliefs he followed were as ancient as God.

So when anyone argues for Texan independence, one cannot divorce oneself from American political control without also divorcing oneself from the hold of the The Constitution of the United States over Texan public affairs. It's divine principles must then be enshrined in a new Constitution of Texas. That's just the truth of the situation. You cannot claim to be an independent nation (Texas) AND to be obligated by the constitution of a separate independent nation (the USA). At that point, those are no longer American values, they are Texan values..........in the same way that the founders adopted ancient principles in writing the current Constitution.

Does that make more sense? Anyway, I've got work to do. Gotta go.

(Edited to fix a broken "italics" tag)

Quick drive-by.......

A picture of the future of the United States of America: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... 8W20130311

The ability of young people to study and work anywhere in Europe as part of the EU's single market ideal was also supposed to deliver vastly improved opportunities for all.

But instead, as a result of the banking and debt crisis that has cast a shadow over Europe since 2008, those sunny prospects never materialized for millions of young people.

"Greece, Spain and Italy have perhaps the best educated generations they have ever had in their countries, their parents invested a lot of money in the education of their children, everything they did was right," said Schulz.

"And now they are ready to work the society says, 'No place for you'. We are creating a lost generation."

Asked how he would tackle the issue, the Socialist party leader said it was in part about cutting through bureaucracy and putting money to work directly where it was needed.

He gave the example of Greece and investment in solar energy. If traditional methods are followed, a decision is made in Brussels, money is mobilized somewhere else, an investment program is drawn up, the money is disbursed to the central government in Athens, then goes to several ministries, and finally ends up with a local or regional authorities to invest.

"By that time, we are much older," he said.

"In my mind, direct links between the European Union and regional and local authorities is more needed than ever."

I don't think we'll ever secede from the Union. The US will fall apart from its on bureaucratic inertia the same way the EU is falling apart, and for largely the same reasons—socialist policies which discourage capitalism, a growing culture of looters, and a state apparatus which cannot recognize that IT is the source of all the problems and lacks the courage to admit that they were wrong.

TAM, I get what you're saying now and we're on the same page. Just differences in semantics. For you they are divine principles and values, and for me they are the true and original American values. Those principles are what I believe in. We hold those values dearly but there are many that don't so I don't think divine is as accurate a label. It's hard for me to understand but some people would prefer to live with big government and less freedom. Laziness and fear is probably why. For them it's easy to be told what to do and how to live their life. And safer too because if they fail, they are taken care of by others.

I do think a break up of some sort is possible. Not just by Texas but it could be a number of states. There will be "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" will be the cities and states that have over-spent. They will expect assistance to fund their irresponsible policies.

It is noteworthy that a discussion quite similar to this one was taking place in - of all places - Texas, circa 1835-36.
Most Texians, and Tejanos during that period would have probably preferred not to rock the boat. If Santa Ana had not been a narcistic despot who considered himself to be above the law , we would probably be Spanish- speaking Catholics defending our Republic from filibusters from the U.S.

I believe a discussion over rather obvious, and stiking historical patterns involving the abuse of power falls within the realm of "political" topics. Sooner or later even rational people may disagree, but when elected office holders undertake to discount, and disregard the very rule of law that establishes the legitimacy of the power of their office they also forfeit any moral, or legal claim to authority under which to exercise those powers.

John75 wrote:TAM, I get what you're saying now and we're on the same page. Just differences in semantics. For you they are divine principles and values, and for me they are the true and original American values. Those principles are what I believe in. We hold those values dearly but there are many that don't so I don't think divine is as accurate a label. It's hard for me to understand but some people would prefer to live with big government and less freedom. Laziness and fear is probably why. For them it's easy to be told what to do and how to live their life. And safer too because if they fail, they are taken care of by others.

I do think a break up of some sort is possible. Not just by Texas but it could be a number of states. There will be "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" will be the cities and states that have over-spent. They will expect assistance to fund their irresponsible policies.

If such a thing were to happen, I think it would be the union breaking up into semiautonomous or entirely autonomous regions of like-minded states. For instance, the New England states have more in common with one another than they do with the rest of the country. Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma have more in common with one another than they do with the Pacific Northwest. Northern California, Washington, Oregon, and a large chunk of Idaho have more in common with one another than they do with New England......etc., etc., etc.

Within those autonomous regions, there would still be political disagreement (we still have Houston/Austin/DFW/San Antonio, despite the rest of the state being much more conservative), but there would be a lot of cultural similarities that would ameliorate the political differences.

But truthfully, the best solution by far is to restore constitutional government to the whole union.

It occurs to me that marital harmony is akin to political harmony. It is more often than not the simple recognition of the separation/divorce option , and the spectre of domestic destruction that invariably follows that holds most marital unions together.

If one member of the marital union increasingly becomes oppressive of the other in violation of a contract that expressly, and quite specificly defines individual boundaries of each - the subject of divorce will eventually be addressed.

A contract is executed through the mutually affirmed consent of the parties. That contract determines the legal rights, prerogatives, and remedies available - or not available - in the event of nonperformance or malfeasance on the part of the parties to the contractual agreement.

The U.S. Constitution forbids the MEMBER states from entering into separate alliances with one another such as the Confederate States of America, but it does not forbid the member states from secession. Secession amounts to separation by rescinding membership for the purpose of independence. Accounting for financial claims on behalf of, or against the state seceding would be a priority concern to be addressed through treaty. The only recourse to prevent secession by a state is by force of arms, and there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for the use of force to prevent secession - only to suppress rebellion WITHIN the union. Secession by definition is a condition WITHOUT the union.

The expectation implicit within the Constitution of these United States is that adherence to its provisions is absolutely essential to the preservation of the very union established by those provisions.

SherwoodForest wrote:It occurs to me that marital harmony is akin to political harmony. It is more often than not the simple recognition of the separation/divorce option , and the spectre of domestic destruction that invariably follows that holds most marital unions together.

If one member of the marital union increasingly becomes oppressive of the other in violation of a contract that expressly, and quite specificly defines individual boundaries of each - the subject of divorce will eventually be addressed.

A contract is executed through the mutually affirmed consent of the parties. That contract determines the legal rights, prerogatives, and remedies available - or not available - in the event of nonperformance or malfeasance on the part of the parties to the contractual agreement.

The U.S. Constitution forbids the states from entering into separate alliances with one another such as the Confederate States of America, but it does not forbid the states from secession. Secession amounts to separation for the purpose of independence. The only recourse to prevent secession by a state is by force of arms, and there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for the use of force to prevent secession - only to suppress rebellion WITHIN the union. Secession by definition is a condition WITHOUT the union.

The expectation implicit within the Constitution of these United States is that adherence to its provisions is absolutely essential to the preservation of the very union established by those provisions.

OK....well argued and stated and a nice analogy by the way. Nits to pick.........

"THESE United States" is a term which—not coincidentally—finally fell out of favor at the end of the Civil War. The nation has been referred to by most people within and without government as 'THE United States ever since, as well as before (see below). Words have meaning in the context of conversation and for communicative purposes, but they may not have the same meaning in the courtroom or Congress. Often the change in usage over time is reflective of social trends and nothing more. "Gay" no longer means "gay." Instead, it means "gay"........if you catch my drift. "High" and "stoned" no longer mean the same thing they did 235 years ago. But in the case of "these" versus "the," it reflects two completely different views of the meaning of the Union. The former implies a loosely bonded alliance of sovereign nation states for common purposes.....which was pretty close to the truth in 1776. The latter implies a top-down federation of provinces with no autonomy, which for better or for worse, is the de-facto current state of affairs in the United States of America. It is no longer these United States of America......if indeed it ever was, which can be legitimately questioned. If you look at our diplomatic efforts in foreign courts immediately post Revolutionary War, in both our own diplomatic communications to foreign governments, and those of foreign nations to our own, those communications referred to our nation as THE United States of America. Diplomacy being what it is, words are always chosen very carefully. There is always the risk of offending a whole other nation by not showing it a proper respect of naming conventions. Therefore, it is no accident that these communications refer to our nation as "The United States of America" as opposed to "These United States of America." I'm not saying I like it, but the fact is that the Federalists won that discussion almost from the outset. I am happy to talk about what is, and about what should be. But I'm not as much interested in talking about what isn't and then saying that it is.

The Constitution may allow a state the right to secede peacefully, but given a government that uses the Constitution for toilet paper every day and twice on Sundays, does anybody think for one minute that this government would not use violence to prevent a secession if it could ......or at least, attempt to use violence to prevent it?

I guess I have bit of that eternal optimist DNA in my bloodline- or is it all of that Scotch-Irish blood .............?

In 1962-64 I was stationed at Misawa Air Force Base on the Northern tip of Honshu, Japan. Enlisted personnel chummed up $10 per month out of our approximately $ 40 base pay into the " K.P. (kitchen police) fund" from which the Japanese employees in the chow halls were paid. 25 percent out of my pay was a bunch, and besides that some of the JN's working in the chow hall had some attitude issues that tended to get under our skin.

So a few of us got to discussing this situation, decided we would refuse to kick into the "K.P. Fund" at the next pay call. We rightly figured that there was no way under the status of forces agreement that the JN's would loose their jobs in the Chow halls, and more importantly we knew that there was something not quite Kosher about the deduction from our paychecks rather than DOD funding for that item.

The boycott caught on pretty fast, and you guessed it....... myself and other "rebels" were scheduled for K.P. every day for our next 2 breaks from duty. Strangely.....when we once again refused to chum up $10 for the "K.P. Fund" at the next pay call it wasn't long before it was announced that there would no longer be a $10 "K.P. Fund" collected. The Air Force had somehow found the funds to budget the salaries of the JN employees.

I hope this true anecdote illustrates that when something isn't Kosher - nothing changes until finally "somebody" is willing to stand up ( or SIT DOWN in the case of one Rosa Parks)

Reflecting upon "positive" vs "negative" reinforcement studies in behavioral science - When a dog barks excessively the "bark Collar" delivers a slight electrical jolt. Hmmmmmmm ....that wasn't fun, maybe I should NOT bark. This is why it is important that freedom loving people will occassionally be called upon to demonstrate to family members their intention that the code of conduct be respected. We understand that no one is perfect, and we all screw up from time to time, but it need not become a habit. When it becomes a habit -family intervention is warranted.

Sometimes family interventions manifest in the form of a verbal warning that if behavior isn't modified refusal to participate in the enablement of the deviant behavior will follow. Kind of like - a word to the wise.