Texas Governor Wants To Amend The Constitution So States Can Ignore The Federal Government

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Jan 9, 2016.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    Texas ya gotta love them. Lets cut off all their federal funding then. see how it goes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/texas-constitutional-amendment_569018cce4b0cad15e64c589

     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
  4. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #4
    they already have they sure don't belong in the us :rolleyes:
    --- Post Merged, Jan 9, 2016 ---
    well except for states are not more powerful then the government that our founding fathers setup.
     
  5. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #5
    At the very least I can see areas where these measures might be equally beneficial and detrimental depending on the specific issue.
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    2/3 majority among the states has been used for other things, but I don't see how this could even work. He refers to the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriages as federal regulation. This makes little sense, because the states already have a method of recourse for Supreme Court decisions in the form of constitutional amendments. He just doesn't like the mechanic, because it's very difficult to pass an amendment. A 2/3 majority can also override a veto of any bill, so they have recourse that way too. The members of both congressional houses are determined at the state level, so they have that.

    A lot of this just sounds like an arms race in terms of political leverage. His proposal contains a lot of emotional foreplay. Here are the actual suggestions.
     
  7. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.​

    Wait until the gun fetishists realize this means a seven-justice super-majority will be required to protect the 2nd Amendment from "democratically enacted" gun restriction laws.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Federal govt will not allow it
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  10. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    All things historical and current considered, the federal government might even be willing to pay the Lone Star State to leave.

    The Lone Star Nation, wedged between the USA and Mexico, would become the western hemisphere's equivalent of Uzbekistan, wedged between China and Russia and offering mostly a preview of hell as far as livelihood of the common man is concerned, with only the drugs trade, banditry and general badmashi (wrongdoing) as a way of putting food on the average table. Well, that is, unless one likes to pick cotton as a mandated volunteer at harvest time.

    Heck, the Lone Star Nation and Uzbekistan could become sister nations, having in common among other things a growing desertification problem and an apparently unquenchable fascination with guns.
     
  11. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #11
    The title should be "Texas Governor wants to cede from the Union"....

    ...because that's what it amounts to.
     
  12. jerwin, Jan 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #12
    There are lots of small insignificant states where no one lives. It would entrench certain power bases, at the expense of majority rule.

    While some minority interests in this country align with the boundaries of the states, many more interests do not.
     
  13. aziatiklover macrumors 68030

    aziatiklover

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Location:
    8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4
    #13
    Yeap and I feel like we the texans should have texas as our own country instead of a state.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    How'd that work out for the last states who felt that way?
     
  15. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15
    So cut off all the federal money Texas gets for emergencies and the poor and such?
     
  16. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    I suggest an amendment so individual citizens can ignore State and Federal Law especially for revenue collection. Then open a donation fund to provide funding for both the State and Federal levels. :rolleyes:

    The humorous thing about Texas, we have local nitwits who want to secede, without much thought to the loss of revenue through federal funding, government facilities, and military base closures, and be in a position where they would be more susceptible to invasion from the South, without a standing army. This is a State government who is barely scraping by as it is. Sure, the citizens of Texas would love to have the institution of a State Income Tax and quadrupling their tax rates.
     
  17. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #17
    I think Texas and whatever other state that wants to join them, would be an excellent idea. This would at least end some of the gridlock we have now. They have resources, a large coastline, and boarder with a trading nation.

    At some point, we have to get out of gridlock and going back and forth isn't solving anything. They have very different views on economics and property rights. With good trade agreement, they'll be able to setup a better economic system and this would at least prove that there is a better way.

    There really isn't many places on earth for an economy like the US had back before we became a mixed welfare/pretend capitalist nation.

    I can imagine it being like the late 90's with welfare to work program and reduced size of government.

    I also can't see why others would object to this.

    Let them build a plane and let's see how well it can fly.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 9, 2016 ---
    They won't be paying federal income taxes, and they can do a welfare to work like what was done in the 90's under Newt and Bill.
    It's not like the welfare programs start as a safety net and end up a hammock.

    IDK what to do about the NBA and NFL, we'll have to workout some kinda trade agreement :D
     
  18. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    Sounds fair to me. If Texas can ignore their allegiance to the United States, why should the citizens feel any allegiance to the State of Texas. It would be a perfect libertarian paradise, with each individual a state unto themselves.
     
  19. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #19
    We already tried it-- before there was the Constitution with a strong central government, we had the Articles of Confederation. It was generally considered inadequate at the time, due to the inability to apportion taxes and make states pay for their share of the war costs. Then, at various times, there were similar attempts from e.g. South Carolina during the John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson administrations, on to the Civil War, which only highlighted the problems of every state doing its own thing with regard to slavery &etc.

    How do you know that Texas won't get thrown out of the Union?

    The real red/blue divide isn't north/south, east/west, or any division based on states, it is urban/rural, with the battleground being suburbia and exurbia. Just look at any Red/Blue map by congressional district.
     
  20. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #20
    Back in the 1860's we proved that there is no peaceful way to do that and the Constitution doesn't provide a way for it to happen. It probably would be good for there to be a constitutional amendment to give states a process to leave the Union if they want, but unfortunately that isn't one of the ones he is proposing.
     
  21. Renzatic, Jan 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016

    Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #21
    No, he's basically saying "I don't agree with the way the constitution defines the roles between the states and the federal government, so to save America, we need to change one of the defining points of the constitution."
    --- Post Merged, Jan 9, 2016 ---
    Hey guys, remember that time when a bunch of people were pretty miserable, save for the select few people we called robber barons who practically owned the country? Remember how it failed spectacularly, and put a full quarter of the country out of work?

    Yeah, that sure was great! I can't wait to sell my soul to the company store!

    Also, how the hell are we "pretend capitalists"? Last time I checked, there were a crapton of private businesses running around, getting paid actual cash for goods and services provided. Are we pretending so hard, we forgot we were pretending, and started treating monopoly money as actual tender?
     
  22. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #22
    Seems like Texas is saying it does not agree with the way the federal govt is ignoring the constitution, rather than changing it..
     
  23. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #23
    Is this kind of like the idea of referring to the US as 50 unique countries, under a broader general umbrella? 50 countries who can establish laws more tailored to the citizens of that place, rather than the wide and diverse interests across the US as a whole?

    Ala... similar to the EU?
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    Sorta. It's more like the way the country was defined under the Articles of Confederation.
     
  25. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #25
    It would be interesting, why not let them try it out?
     

Share This Page