Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just for argument's sake, let's say that the federal government said, "OK, you're sovereign. We agree to your terms."

What would the results be?

I think the more interesting results would be if the federal government said, "No, you're not not sovereign." Would a state defy the federal government -- and to what extent? How would the feds respond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a publicity stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a bold statement, but the application of it is pretty vague. He supports states' rights, he supports the 10th Amendment . . . that's all well and fine. But I would like him to state specifically for which "efforts all across our country" he is expressing his "unwavering support."

EDIT: I found this elsewhere: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/. It gives a little more detail.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
Edited by Mean Green 93-98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bold statement, but the application of it is pretty vague. He supports states' rights, he supports the 10th Amendment . . . that's all well and fine. But I would like him to state specifically for which "efforts all across our country" he is expressing his "unwavering support."

EDIT: I found this elsewhere: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/. It gives a little more detail.

Good point.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

I found this to still be too vague. Would the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and all related amendments be considered federal legislation (I'm not a polisci major, so I definitely would not know). If this statement were enacted as written, states could choose to abolish equal rights amendments and the legislation that goes with them, for example. Also, if a state chooses not to follow a federal initiative, how can they expect to still receive all federal funding related to that initiative. Wouldn't it be the federal government's right to withhold funds if they choose (I guess on the other hand if states aren't receiving federal funding for something, state residents' federal income taxes should, in theory, decrease a little). Apologies for the mind ramble.

Edited by BeanCounterGrad'03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

I found this to still be too vague. Would the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and all related amendments be considered federal legislation (I'm not a polisci major, so I definitely would not know). If this statement were enacted as written, states could choose to abolish equal rights amendments and the legislation that goes with them, for example. Also, if a state chooses not to follow a federal initiative, how can they expect to still receive all federal funding related to that initiative. Wouldn't it be the federal government's right to withhold funds if they choose (I guess on the other hand if states aren't receiving federal funding for something, state residents' federal income taxes should, in theory, decrease a little). Apologies for the mind ramble.

In many cases the federal government has used Highway funding as leverage to get states to comply to a completely different subjects, like drinking age which is a state power, I believe this lays the groundwork for a lawsuit to to determine if this brand of leverage is legal or not. Which many have felt it was illegal, the money originates from tax payers that may or may not feel that a particular bill is good for their state. This is not a new problem and has been lingering around for decades, though it finally seems to be coming to a head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised by anything Perry does!

Since he'll likely be challenged in the Republican primary for the next governor's race by Kay Bailey Hutchison, I see most of what he'll be doing as trying to firm up his support by the Republican base. Maybe he's hoping they'll forget the proposed mandatory HPV vaccination and the Trans Texas Corridor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this to still be too vague. Would the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and all related amendments be considered federal legislation

No. They compose the Constitution and all states are bound by it. Legislation would be laws passed by Congress and signed by the Prez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he'll likely be challenged in the Republican primary for the next governor's race by Kay Bailey Hutchison, I see most of what he'll be doing as trying to firm up his support by the Republican base. Maybe he's hoping they'll forget the proposed mandatory HPV vaccination and the Trans Texas Corridor.

Just posturing for the public (he didn't have an aircraft carrier to land on, and a jump suit to wear) because, come primary time, it's very likely that he'll get his ass kicked by a woman.

Good ol' Gov. good-hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh believe me. I get a lot more than that for living in Frisco!

Oldguy < Just remember. the schools are good! the schools are good! the schools are good! the schools are good! the schools are good! the schools are good! > student

Don't forget the Snow Cone Lady! reason enough for us to stay in Frisco a while, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not mocking any sno cone lady, in fact, I could go for one. Im just saying NEVER accept a lemon flavored sno cone unless you make ir yourself.

I know you're not mocking her. I just love the opportunity to play on her iconic status in Frisco. She precedes the fancy stadiums, the mall, the IKEA, the big box chain feeding troughs, et al. She's just a simple woman in a makeshift wood shack who serves one helluva shaved ice. I suggest the strawberry shortcake. Strawberry and vanilla syrup with real cream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that makes it better how?!?!?!

Because you make sure it is lemon flavored, not "artifically" flavored :P

On the topic at hand. I dont think he was calling for Texas Independance. I think he was merely reminding Washington that they are not all powerful. I think it is important for all states to be ready or have a contingency plan if they believe the federal government becomes too big or oppressive. Its all a part of checks and balances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.