Perry: I oppose secession

[babylonsister]

Ha! Maybe KO's WTF moment got to him.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/17/perry-i-oppose-secession/

Perry: I oppose secession
@ 4:17 pm by Eric Zimmermann


Gov. Rick Perry (R-Tex.) penned an op-ed for the Austin American-Statesman today clarifying that he opposes secession.

"I have never advocated for secession and never will," Perry wrote.

At an April tea party protest, Perry made national headlines by hinting that Texans might become upset enough to leave the union:

We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.

A few days ago, Perry re-iterated those comments.

Perry wrote today that his political opponents are mischaracterizing his comments.

"I can't say I was surprised that critics recast my defense of federalism and fiscal discipline into advocacy for secession from the Union," Perry wrote. "I have never advocated for secession and never will."

[MagickMuffin]

1. Goodhair is the one always bringing up the 10th Amendment

Primary Season can't come fast enough to rid our state of this parasite.



PERRY: I didn’t say that. What I said was, ‘We live in a great country…and I saw no reason at all for us to be even talking about seceding, i but if Washington continues to force these programs on the states, if Washington continues to disregard the tenth amendment, who knows what happens.’

CAVUTO: So are you saying then, Gov Perry, if that is the case and Washington continues on this front…that you would consider that option?

PERRY: Here’s what I’m saying…I love the concept of the tea parties and people using that first amendment right and I hope that Washington starts paying attention to the tenth amendment.

[SlipperySlope]

2. At what point when justified?

Surely at some point there is.

[hollywoodfree]

5. Tenth Amendment

What Perry and the other states are doing regarding the 10th is sobering; I’m convinced their positioning for a Supreme Court fight in which they are almost certain to win! I have always valued the Bill of rights and have often argued the importance of the Fourth through ninth amendments, but I never paid that much attention to the 10th. I would be a hypocrite if I dismissed the amendment which if you remember your text book days was identified to be the amendment that got the constitution past. It means that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it are the responsibilities of the States or to the people. This is so obvious and evident; it’s hardly worth debating (No loopholes). Regarding Health care, the administration or congress should pursue a constitutional amendment if it wishes to have national health care or better said health care throughout the federation… We are not a European country but a federation of sovereign states. Otherwise if congress passes a bill and the president signs it, the Supreme Court will eventually determine that it is unconstitutional and throw it out!

[bonzotex]

8. unmmmmm....No

What Perry is saying and other States that have passed alleged "state sovereignty" laws is moronic. This is more similar to sugar-high kids yelling around a monopoly board, trying to decide what the rules should be without ever reading the actual rules.

The "Tenther" movement is just as whacked as the "birthers". If you believe the smoke and noise of these folks you do need some sobering up.

[hollywoodfree]

9. unmmmmm....Yes

Regardless of your reply to what Perry and the other States are saying suggest that your research is based on 3-minute media TV sound bites. Stating that alleged "state sovereignty" laws are moronic reads like a quote from Germany’s newly appointed regime in 1931…

Sugar-high kids yelling around a monopoly board, is a fairly good description of the groups, media circus and the Jerry-Springer style town halls. As you wrote “trying to decide what the rules should be without ever reading the actual rules,” your right, it should be your first step. So I suggest you read the Bill-of-rights. That’s the first set of articles of the constitution!

The intent of the described state-sovereignty bills being passed in other states is not to prevent residents from accepting the federal government-provided health care plan, but to shield their residents and employers from the penalties of not meeting minimal standards set by the federal level of coverage. Because of this, within months of the presidents signature, there will be a show down at the supreme court!

I could care less about the "Tenther" movement or as you put it; the whacked "birthers". But these groups will not be representing the states during a Federal Supreme court hearing. Attempt to look at this objectively; if no amendment exist, the Supreme Court will find these federal laws unconstitutional! That’s the facts and my principal point!

[bonzotex]

10. OK, I'll play...

Welcome to DU. It's very wingnutty to assume people don't understand the Bill of Rights around here.

You said:
"Stating that alleged "state sovereignty" laws are moronic reads like a quote from Germany’s newly appointed regime in 1931" That make as much sense as, "reads like a quote from Cavaliers as they left London with the King at the beginning of the English Civil War."

In other words, it makes no real sense. It is to claim one historical period somewhere else, kind-sorta dealt with a some sort of situation that was similar in an obtuse way, so...then we get ...HITLER!

Try a better comparison and try to actually illustrate whatever it is you are trying to say.

I've read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, than you very much and one or two other books... some with big words, even. You wrote about the 10th, "This is so obvious and evident; it’s hardly worth debating (No loopholes)." Actually, that is complete BS. That can only sound true to someone who has read the Constitution but then ignores the 220 yrs of case law and legislation that has actually put the Constitution into practice. It's not the freaking Bible - forever pure and unmodified in some magical way.

The 10th amendment has been tested and bested over and over in actual court. Wanna read up on it? Here's a decent list of significant cases.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t065.htm

The Constitution, including the 10th amendment have been interpreted pretty flexibly as far as Federal vs State's rights. The so-called Necessary and Proper Clause in Article One, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause) has trumped the 10th
amendment over and over. So has the Commerce clause. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)

The Lawyers in the Congress, despite their flaws, are kind of aware of this stuff. They actually go to a lot of trouble to write laws that pass Constitutional muster. State legislatures, and Governors, not so much. Dumbass, pandering faux populists like Rick Perry? - never. The Supremes spend the vast majority of their time rectifying unconstitutional State Laws rather than Federal. Right wing State legislatures often write laws deliberately to create Supreme Court challenges and the usually get shot down in short order.

Assuming the incomplete and still un-detailed Health Care Bill is finished and voted on and signed into law, Just how exactly do you think some State will get the whole thing overturned in the Supreme Court? How are they almost certain to win that fight? Bear in mind that Supreme Court decisions don't usually invalidate giant multi layered bills like the Health Care Bill will be. At best they might snipe off a small portion or individual mandate inside the bill.

What are you afraid of? Why should it be done with a Constitutional Amendment?

[Melissa G]

12. mmm.. I like you and the person you are welcoming is from

California. It says so in her profile.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoPasaran]

15. Don't Californicate the Texas Forum!

[Melissa G]

18. ROFL

:rofl: High five! NoPasaran :rofl:

[bonzotex]

16. thanks Melissa

I saw that too, but I don't discriminate. If somebody from Cali wants to talk Texas politics, I say bring it on. In this case though, I fear I'm just feeding a troll and will have to cease and desist shortly.

[kwvining]

13. Buy a book, will ya

The Tenth Amendment was essentially gutted by the 14th Amendment. It was the Tenth Amendment that was one of the root causes of the Civil War. We certainly did not see Social Security or Medicare destroyed by "10th Amendment" challanges, did we? What makes you think there is anything different about health care reform?

[TxRider]

19. Sadly the tenth is history

Congress has found it's way round the tenth for basically anything it wants to do...

It wasn't written well enough to stand up to legal games inflicted to run around it's intent.

[hobbit709]

3. He was fer it before he was agin it.

He is such a weasel.

[Paladin]

4. There's A Photo Of Perry Down In The DU Gun Dungeon.......

.....shooting an assault rifle (it's in the thread about the AR-15 going mainstream). So, we deservedly trash Perry in all the DU forums except down in Guns, where he's annoited a new gun militants' pinup boy. How's that grab ya'?

[sonias]

6. Like pornography

pornography –noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

A picture of little Ricky with an an assault rifle would have no artistic merit for me. :puke:

Now a picture of Rick Perry, Ted Nugent, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in a circular firing squad with assault rifles - well that would be a true work of art! :evilgrin:


Sonia

[Paladin]

7. Agreed. Well Said (n/t)

[onestepforward]

17. LOL! n/t

[AllenVanAllen]

11. Perry is no different than most republicans

the reasoning for their boneheaded ideas changes with the political wind. The selective memory they use when talking about their stance on issues is astounding. He needs to be voted the hell out of office.

[unlegendary]

20. up, down, somewhere in between?

Perry does disservice to the name Perry.. I think a great explorer actually used scientific principles..
Anyway, one minute he wants secession and the next he opposes it. He's for it if it'll get him some political votes and in fact if he thought it could get him instated as king of Texas he would be all for it. If he thought it would get him booted out of office he's against it. Typical puke thought..whatever gets votes and by extension, money.