Texas Independence Referendum Act filed in Texas House

44,661 Views | 574 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by TexasScientist
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
Yes, and with you fear = courage.

You've got governmentspeak down.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
Yes, and with you fear = courage.

You've got governmentspeak down.
Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

whiterock said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Booray said:

The Venn diagram would show a large overlap of people who believe Texit could happen with those who believed martial law would be imposed on January 6 to stop the pedophiles.


And then there's the preponderance of people in favor of having a vote on secession as nothing more than a way to scream Foxtrot Uniform to the cultural revolution coastal elites are so preoccupied with.

This is a pretty simple dynamic at play and you're working way too hard to ignore it.


I'm not ignoring it. It is exactly what I am referring to when I say this is a colossal waste of time.
Sense when did political expression of nonsense, a First Amendment right, become a waste of time?

More to the point, progressives can blather one meaningless virtue posture after another, but others can't?

You don't strike me as a devotee of Marcuse, so why the repressive tolerance approach to the secession bill?
There are plenty of things the far left does that irritate me. As of yet, however, I have not seen a legislative effort to dismember the country. When that happens, I will vocally opposed it, I promise.
What you fail to understand is that by the time there's legislative effort to dismember the country, you won't be able to vocally oppose it.

You have to stop it NOW. For whatever reason, limousine neoliberals like yourself don't have a clue what your dealing with and you arrogantly think you can stop these radicals by giving them an inch.

You're not doing enough by ignoring them or pretending they're a small weak presence. In fact, waiting for them to be a major problem is exactly how they're going to be a major problem. Your ass won't do a damn thing to stop them.
Russell Gym
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fear mongering in this thread is amusing.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
Yes, and with you fear = courage.

You've got governmentspeak down.
Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life.
Right. You should engage in it less.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
Yes, and with you fear = courage.

You've got governmentspeak down.
Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life.
Right. You should engage in it less.
So please tell me, Mr. Libertarian, just what exactly do you think I fear? (This should be good).
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
The reality is Progressives = Regressives. They are the same thing. You actually know this but would never admit it.
Yes, and with you fear = courage.

You've got governmentspeak down.
Fear does not prevent death. It prevents life.
Right. You should engage in it less.
And you should give virtue signaling a rest, quash.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
Tyranny is on BOTH ends of the spectrum, and classical liberalism is in the middle.

At this point in time, It is conservatives who are holding the fort for classical liberalism upon which the country was founded. Liberals have left the building.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/has-american-liberalism-abandoned
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

quash said:

whiterock said:

Item 11 is quite a bit more restrictive than the Declaration of Independence.
You wonder where self-determination fits.
Apparently, it doesn't fit.
"Inside the heart of every progressive is a tyrant screaming to get out."
Progressives want a tyranny of the majority, regressives want a tyrant. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
Tyranny is on BOTH ends of the spectrum, and classical liberalism is in the middle.

At this point in time, It is conservatives who are holding the fort for classical liberalism upon which the country was founded. Liberals have left the building.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/has-american-liberalism-abandoned

Matt should look around. I thought you read New Discourses?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Texasjeremy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EVENTS SCHEDULED SO FAR FOR THE UPCOMING WEEK (WILL UPDATE AS MORE ARE ANNOUNCED)

MONDAY (4/12)
CORPUS CHRISTI - GUEST SPEAKER (TNM PREIDENT DANIEL MILLER)
11:30AM-1:30PM
707 N. Shoreline Blvd. - Holiday Inn Marina

WEDNESDAY (4/14)
HOUSTON - WEEKLY MEETING (DISTRICT 17)
8AM-9:30AM
10821 S. Post Oak Rd. - Annie's Hamburgers

THURSDAY (4/15)
ALVARADO - TNM INFORMATION MEETING
6PM-8PM
201 N. Parkway Dr. - Pavilion of Massey's BBQ

SATURDAY (4/17)
ARANSAS PASS - TNM INFORMATION BOOTH
9AM-5PM
700 W. Wheeler Ave. - Aransas Pass Civic Center

CARTHAGE - TNM FLAG WAVE
10AM-11:30AM
4609 NW Loop - Walmart

CLEBURNE - TNM FLAG WAVE
11AM-2PM
2 N. Main St. - Johnson County Courthouse

CORSICANA - TNM FLAG WAVE
11AM-2PM
1977 W. 7th Ave - Harbor Freight

CROSBY - TNM INFORMATION BOOTH
9AM-5PM
14890 FM 2100 - Crosby American Legion Hall

ENNIS - FLAG WAVE
9AM-11AM
700 E. Ennis Ave. - Walmart

LONGVIEW - TNM FLAG WAVE
1PM-3PM
314 W. Loop 281 - Corner of Loop 281 & McCann Road

TYLER - TNM FLAG WAVE
1PM-3PM
4301 S. Broadway Ave - On the Border

SUNDAY (4/18)
ARANSAS PASS - TNM INFORMATION BOOTH
9AM-4PM
700 W. Wheeler Ave. - Aransas Pass Civic Center

MONDAY (4/19)
CONROE - GUEST SPEAKER (TNM PRESIDENT DANIEL MILLER)
6:30PM-8:30PM
315 Enclave Dr. - Citizen's Grill

TUESDAY (4/20)
CLEVELAND - GUEST SPEAKER (TNM PRESIDENT DANIEL MILLER)
5PM-9PM
18 CR 396 - VFW Post 1839

HOUSTON - TNM PLANNING MEETING
8AM-9AM
19730 TX-249 - Minuti Coffee
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where is this in the lege: committee, scheduled for a floor vote?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Texasjeremy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://tnm.me/news/political/lavaca-county-judge-blasts-legislators-who-wont-support-texit-vote/?goal=0_244a299551-adf6a891c8-321222798&mc_cid=adf6a891c8&mc_eid=48f1016e01

Lavaca County Judge Blasts Legislators Who Won't Support TEXIT Vote

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Where is this in the lege: committee, scheduled for a floor vote?
HB 1359 is still in committee.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

quash said:

Where is this in the lege: committee, scheduled for a floor vote?
HB 1359 is still in committee.
It hasn't had a hearing & isn't scheduled for one.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1359

HB1359 sleeps with the fishes
Texasjeremy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://tnm.me/news/political/actual-academic-destroys-newspaper-hit-piece-on-texit/?goal=0_244a299551-0b5eeb53f5-321222798&mc_cid=0b5eeb53f5&mc_eid=48f1016e01

Fort Worth Star-Telegram food blogger and self-proclaimed political commentator Bud Kennedy recently took a swipe at the growing movement for TEXIT. One academic decided to swipe back.

Historian and author, Dr. Brion McClanahan dedicated an entire podcast to dissecting and systematically destroying Bud Kennedy's column. In doing so, he makes a strong defense of Texas Independence.

The power of McClanahan's show elevates the conversation about secession above the current political noise and rhetoric. McClanahan reviews an op-ed article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram to point out the lack of historical knowledge and the lack of intellectual understanding of constitutionalism that drives the liberals' attack on Texas Independence.

The op-ed article is titled, "Remember the Alamo! but forget secession," and McClanahan reminds all of us that "Remember the Alamo" was the cry of a secession movement as Texas won its independence from Mexico. As indicated by the title, the op-ed article offers no substantive arguments and instead sticks to the pattern of trivializing the Texas Independence movement and denigrating its followers, accompanied by a healthy dose of fear-mongering.

Texas can't secede that's illegal!

The article claims that secession is illegal. This is a common jab by TEXIT opponents, who point to the Civil War, and McClanahan disagrees. Any state can secede, regardless of what happened from 1861 to 1865. The founders worried about secession because they thought it was perfectly legal and a real possibility.

The Articles of Confederation may have created a "perpetual union," but McClanahan points out that every contract is perpetual unless you assign a time frame. Without an end date, the contract lasts as long as all parties agree. Within five years of ratifying the Constitution, New England was talking about leaving these were men of the founding generation who acknowledged that leaving was legal.

McClanahan then discusses the legalities of Texas Independence with the same constitutional defense the Texas Nationalist Movement has researched and promoted for decades. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution outlines specifically what the States cannot do secession did not make the list. If the founders wanted to make sure states could not secede, they would have added that language to the document.

TNM's articles on constitutionality, as well as the Texas v. White Supreme Court case, can be found here: Can Texas Leave the Union?

You're peddling rebellion!

A main point McClanahan makes in response to the claim of "rebellion" is that Americans no longer have a full understanding of independence or self-determination. This nation is intended to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The Texas Constitution deems all political power to be inherent in the people and empowers Texans to alter or abolish their government as they see fit. It is the narrative of the modern, power-hungry, political elite to brand people as rebellious for defending a republican form of government. The Texas Nationalist Movement, through the endorsement and courage of Rep. Kyle Biedermann, is calling for a public referendum giving the people a voice, a public debate, and a vote.

What McClanahan drives home, and what TEXIT supporters understand, is that secession is the final check in a system built on checks and balances. This is the final threat by the States to stand up to unconstitutional federal power.

You're Anti-American.

Many people join the TEXIT movement because of this passion for a constitutional government and the belief that the United States government is broken. McClanahan gives credence to the idea that people can love America yet be in favor of secession. The op-ed article mocks Rep. Kyle Biedermann for saying he loves America.

A compelling moment in the podcast is a reflection on Texas history: William Barrett Travis, in his famous letter calling for reinforcements for the Alamo, wrote that this is for the American character the character of Independence. Texas Independence is tied to the character of America.

Texans love America, and many want to leave to preserve the good of America. The founders, when leaving Britain, wanted to preserve the values of Britain by leaving the crown that was abusing their liberties.

The best line in the entire podcast "If you can't leave, you're not free."

"Bubbas going bug-eyed wild."

As a running theme in the op-ed article, people who support TEXIT are characterized as lunatics and "flag-waving, chest-beating" Bubbas. What else is new? When they cannot defeat the argument, they attack the person.

McClanahan takes this head-on and defends Rep. Biedermann for owning an Ace Hardware store. Somehow, owning a business that provides jobs and supports the community, while simultaneously serving the people as a Representative, is something that needs defending.

If we secede, we will lose everything!

McClanahan dubs liberals as the writers of doom. Supporters of TEXIT are used to seeing the fear tactics. If Texas secedes they will lose everything, the article raves jobs, airlines, pensions, property.

Why would Texas citizens lose pensions? If you retire with a federal pension and move to a different country, you do not lose your federal pension. What about the postal service someone thinks Texas would not come up with its own postal service? Airlines would not continue to fly to Texas, even though they fly to every other country in the world?

And the major horror Texas would have to take on "its share" of the national debt. But how much does Texas actually owe? TEXIT supporters know the out-of-control federal debt is the best reason for a national divorce the sooner the better.

McClanahan embraces the concept of open-ended solutions and negotiations. He emphasizes the importance of having full-bodied discussions about TEXIT the feasibility and the benefits instead of dismissing and mocking the independence movement.

Thoughtful commentary from The Brion McClanahan Show and others is needed to continue to elevate the discussion of Texas Independence past the political rhetoric. We need to reinvigorate a curiosity for our history until Texas once again lifts its head and stands among the nations.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This bill has joined the choir eternal.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texasjeremy said:

https://tnm.me/news/political/actual-academic-destroys-newspaper-hit-piece-on-texit/?goal=0_244a299551-0b5eeb53f5-321222798&mc_cid=0b5eeb53f5&mc_eid=48f1016e01

Fort Worth Star-Telegram food blogger and self-proclaimed political commentator Bud Kennedy recently took a swipe at the growing movement for TEXIT. One academic decided to swipe back.

Historian and author, Dr. Brion McClanahan dedicated an entire podcast to dissecting and systematically destroying Bud Kennedy's column. In doing so, he makes a strong defense of Texas Independence.

The power of McClanahan's show elevates the conversation about secession above the current political noise and rhetoric. McClanahan reviews an op-ed article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram to point out the lack of historical knowledge and the lack of intellectual understanding of constitutionalism that drives the liberals' attack on Texas Independence.

The op-ed article is titled, "Remember the Alamo! but forget secession," and McClanahan reminds all of us that "Remember the Alamo" was the cry of a secession movement as Texas won its independence from Mexico. As indicated by the title, the op-ed article offers no substantive arguments and instead sticks to the pattern of trivializing the Texas Independence movement and denigrating its followers, accompanied by a healthy dose of fear-mongering.

Texas can't secede that's illegal!

The article claims that secession is illegal. This is a common jab by TEXIT opponents, who point to the Civil War, and McClanahan disagrees. Any state can secede, regardless of what happened from 1861 to 1865. The founders worried about secession because they thought it was perfectly legal and a real possibility.

The Articles of Confederation may have created a "perpetual union," but McClanahan points out that every contract is perpetual unless you assign a time frame. Without an end date, the contract lasts as long as all parties agree. Within five years of ratifying the Constitution, New England was talking about leaving these were men of the founding generation who acknowledged that leaving was legal.

McClanahan then discusses the legalities of Texas Independence with the same constitutional defense the Texas Nationalist Movement has researched and promoted for decades. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution outlines specifically what the States cannot do secession did not make the list. If the founders wanted to make sure states could not secede, they would have added that language to the document.

TNM's articles on constitutionality, as well as the Texas v. White Supreme Court case, can be found here: Can Texas Leave the Union?

You're peddling rebellion!

A main point McClanahan makes in response to the claim of "rebellion" is that Americans no longer have a full understanding of independence or self-determination. This nation is intended to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The Texas Constitution deems all political power to be inherent in the people and empowers Texans to alter or abolish their government as they see fit. It is the narrative of the modern, power-hungry, political elite to brand people as rebellious for defending a republican form of government. The Texas Nationalist Movement, through the endorsement and courage of Rep. Kyle Biedermann, is calling for a public referendum giving the people a voice, a public debate, and a vote.

What McClanahan drives home, and what TEXIT supporters understand, is that secession is the final check in a system built on checks and balances. This is the final threat by the States to stand up to unconstitutional federal power.

You're Anti-American.

Many people join the TEXIT movement because of this passion for a constitutional government and the belief that the United States government is broken. McClanahan gives credence to the idea that people can love America yet be in favor of secession. The op-ed article mocks Rep. Kyle Biedermann for saying he loves America.

A compelling moment in the podcast is a reflection on Texas history: William Barrett Travis, in his famous letter calling for reinforcements for the Alamo, wrote that this is for the American character the character of Independence. Texas Independence is tied to the character of America.

Texans love America, and many want to leave to preserve the good of America. The founders, when leaving Britain, wanted to preserve the values of Britain by leaving the crown that was abusing their liberties.

The best line in the entire podcast "If you can't leave, you're not free."

"Bubbas going bug-eyed wild."

As a running theme in the op-ed article, people who support TEXIT are characterized as lunatics and "flag-waving, chest-beating" Bubbas. What else is new? When they cannot defeat the argument, they attack the person.

McClanahan takes this head-on and defends Rep. Biedermann for owning an Ace Hardware store. Somehow, owning a business that provides jobs and supports the community, while simultaneously serving the people as a Representative, is something that needs defending.

If we secede, we will lose everything!

McClanahan dubs liberals as the writers of doom. Supporters of TEXIT are used to seeing the fear tactics. If Texas secedes they will lose everything, the article raves jobs, airlines, pensions, property.

Why would Texas citizens lose pensions? If you retire with a federal pension and move to a different country, you do not lose your federal pension. What about the postal service someone thinks Texas would not come up with its own postal service? Airlines would not continue to fly to Texas, even though they fly to every other country in the world?

And the major horror Texas would have to take on "its share" of the national debt. But how much does Texas actually owe? TEXIT supporters know the out-of-control federal debt is the best reason for a national divorce the sooner the better.

McClanahan embraces the concept of open-ended solutions and negotiations. He emphasizes the importance of having full-bodied discussions about TEXIT the feasibility and the benefits instead of dismissing and mocking the independence movement.

Thoughtful commentary from The Brion McClanahan Show and others is needed to continue to elevate the discussion of Texas Independence past the political rhetoric. We need to reinvigorate a curiosity for our history until Texas once again lifts its head and stands among the nations.
You can be a zealot all you want, but this has already been settled, regardless of how you argue for it. In addition, it has no real traction other than in the minds of extremists. HB 1359 was dead on arrival. The only way to legally amend our form of government is through constitutional amendments, or through a constitutional convention. Those are the only two ways.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
Because the Texas legislature has no legal jurisdiction or authority to enact secession legislation. BTW, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
Because the Texas legislature has no legal jurisdiction or authority to enact secession legislation. BTW, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
So states that have made marijuana legal, in direct conflict with federal law, would be the equivalent of Texas making secession legal?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
Because the Texas legislature has no legal jurisdiction or authority to enact secession legislation. BTW, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
So states that have made marijuana legal would the equivalent of Texas making secession legal?
No, they have the authority to change state law. They can't change federal law, or the federal constitution. Secession is a federal issue that has been resolved. Pass an amendment to the constitution or call a constitutional convention if you want the ability to leave or dissolve the union.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.

The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.

The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.

There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.

Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.

Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.

The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.

The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.

There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.

Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.

Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Which state has authority to change federal law?
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
Because the Texas legislature has no legal jurisdiction or authority to enact secession legislation. BTW, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
So states that have made marijuana legal would the equivalent of Texas making secession legal?
No, they have the authority to change state law. They can't change federal law, or the federal constitution. Secession is a federal issue that has been resolved. Pass an amendment to the constitution or call a constitutional convention if you want the ability to leave or dissolve the union.
So, I guess it would be okay if the Texas passed any law that was in direct conflict with federal law; as long as it didn't involve secession?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

TexasScientist said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

How many times in how many years in how many states have bills been submitted to state house's regarding the legalization of marijuana? After each failure, people's knowledge and conditions changed which, in turn, changed their views. Does this mean that the people that first introduced those failed bills were wrong while, years later the authors of the passed bills were right? I don't think so. I think it means that some set the bar for standards and expectations at different levels than others.

You are most likely correct that the bill was dead on arrival but, if the nation continues in its current path, each subsequent bill will have a bit more life until it gets out of committee.

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas Edison

(I used weed as an analogy only as I am personally against it for anything other than medical use)
Marijuana laws are in the purview of the legislature. Secession is not.
Is this because secession is illegal ....like marijuana is in Texas?
Because the Texas legislature has no legal jurisdiction or authority to enact secession legislation. BTW, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
So states that have made marijuana legal would the equivalent of Texas making secession legal?
No, they have the authority to change state law. They can't change federal law, or the federal constitution. Secession is a federal issue that has been resolved. Pass an amendment to the constitution or call a constitutional convention if you want the ability to leave or dissolve the union.
So, I guess it would be okay if the Texas passed any law that was in direct conflict with federal law; as long as it didn't involve secession?
It would be null, to the extent it conflicted with federal law. The Fed can enforce marijuana laws anytime it chooses. Jess Sessions indicated that he intended to do that when he first took the AG's office.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A House bill that is still in the House has little or no chance of passing, unless it is a priority of the Speaker. HB 1359 isn't a priority
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

A House bill that is still in the House has little or no chance of passing, unless it is a priority of the Speaker. HB 1359 isn't a priority
It never was a priority, for many obvious reasons.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When did medical marijuana bills start moving up the list of priorities?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HB 1359 is the secession bill.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

When did medical marijuana bills start moving up the list of priorities?


When Americans got tired of the Drug War losses. If you culture warriors want to try criminalizing some of your positions...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.

The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.

The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.

There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.

Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.

Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Which state has authority to change federal law?
Pretty much any.


Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.