Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Habeas Heck -- Or A Routine Ruling | Main | All She Wants To Do Is Tax »

Apr 14 2009, 5:05 pm by Chris Good

Gov. Perry Asserts Texan Sovereignty

Gov. Rick Perry (R), who could face a tough challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) in 2010, endorses a state resolution affirming Texas sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. "I'm here today to offer my unwavering support to...millions of Texans just like yourself that are tired of Washington, D.C. trying to come down here and tell us how to run Texas."

:: Comments (19) :: Share This

Comments (19)

will

THANK YOU, Gov. Perry!!

Would you like to have my vote as the next President?

We need more BACKBONES and Gonads in America....

soldierman38

It must be getting close to election time. Hey Gov., I wish you were always so responsive to what Texans wanted! Nonetheless, I am glad to see you doing something for Texans for a change.

Blu

damn straight Governor! Federal Gov & this current presidential administration thinks they can tell us how to run Texas ! Hell no, we the people of Texas will uphold the rule of law and our constitution, cuz we vote our laws into existance.

God bless Governor Perry
God bless Texas and
God bless America !

The Republic of Stupidity

Nice... I see all three of you have chosen this week to go your meds at the same time.

More backbones and gonads?

You're certainly NOT going to find them in the GOP.

recook0769 (Replying to: The Republic of Stupidity)

The Republic of Stupidity got his name from his own condition which displays itself in his lack of common sense and lack of education. Attacking others is a cover for this condition and is the common response of liberals. Left-wing attacks are getting old. Your ignorance should be remedied. This response is in response to your attacks that occur throughout this thread. Since you attack others for their spelling, considered yourself attacked in return. Above, you said, "...chosen the week to GO your meds..." Before throwing stones, make sure you don't live in a glass house, Stupid. Sorry, just shortening your post name.

mk3872

Yikes! I do business with a LOT of customers & partners in Texas.

As a "northener", I wonder if is is still safe for me to travel to Texas?

Am I able to travel there as a non-Texan? Will a passport or visa be required first from now on?

Maybe I will have to tell my customers in Texas that I will not be able to provide support or service for them any longer now that they no longer wish to be a part of the Union?

wayne (Replying to: mk3872)

You are extremely uninformed. This has nothing to do with seceding, it is about State rights and State Sovereignty. Texas is not the first to purpose this if fact they are the last of a long list this year. Over two dozen stats are taking this issue up in there sate legislature. In both Idaho and North Dakota it has passed both houses. Get more informed before you post asinine comments.

The Republic of Stupidity (Replying to: wayne)

"You are extremely uninformed."???

Over two dozen STATS are taking this issue up in THERE SATE legislatureS.

Nice... will you call mk3872 a MORAN next?


recook0769 (Replying to: The Republic of Stupidity)

Referring you to my previous post.

mk3872 (Replying to: wayne)

So, Wayne, because other states have introduced similar legislation, then I am not supposed to be affraid to visit a state where the governor just went on TV to proclaim Texas' independence and sovereignty?

I mean, what happens if I am there on business without a passport or proper Texas citizenship papers to prove that I am American enough to be in Texas? Will I be able to talk to my family back in Pennsylvania?

I assume that living north of the Mason-Dixon line is an obviously bad thing for Texans. But I am white and my grandparents are from western European countries, so that does make me American enough to come to Texas, right?

Thanks for your help in this matter!

recook0769 (Replying to: mk3872)

MK3872,

Your ignorance is astounding. State Sovereignty is a part of this country's foundation. Leave it to a self-proclaimed Yankee to not know this. The fact that you are from the cradle of American Democracy makes your ignorance inexcuseable. So, to remedy this, refer yourself to the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't feel like famiiarizing yourself with the entire document, just refer to the appropriate Tenth Ammendment where you will find the relevant information.

You back? So, you see, Texas is not seceding from the Union. It is simply saying, "According the Constitution, you are out of order. Get back in your place, we're in charge here. Not you."

mousethief

Texas here.

Perry is not popular here - he won reelection because because the vote split four ways last time around. Perry is looking for a vehicle for reelection in 2010 and to gain favor with the GOP primary voters for a 2012 run.

Texas is not going to secede but it's hard to go wrong banging the drum down here. There are billboards claiming that black helicopters are the UN invading Texas on major highways. And some folks would love to see a second civil war.

And you can introduce damn near anything in state legislatures. That means exactly nothing. It's the tone that matters here and Perry isn't standing up for anything except the primary voters and his own interests.

Hellstromm

So, when the Federal government offers assistance, with restrictions on how that assistance money can be utilized, the Governor of Texas thinks to pull soveriegnity because he wants to spend the "handouts" any way he pleases?

Yeah, good job guys. Let's encourage reckless spending. Let's allow unrestricted, unrestrained, private-interest access to Federal funds. Why not? After all, the Federal government is just a piggybank for the States, right? The stimulus package provided to Texas isn't really a stimulus package, it's just a donation to the great and powerful nation of Texas, right? I mean, it's not like Texas doesn't already receive, in return, .88 cents out of every taxed dollar (twice, and more, than any other State), so if you use that as a basis for argument, I suppose you can rationalize the piggybank analogy.

As to the person who says it's not a call for secession, maybe you need to read up on Governor Perry's post-speech comments, and on the calls for secession in the audience during Governor Perry's speech.

In the end, the best a person can do is realize the difference between sincerity and campaign bluster. Governor Perry isn't sincere with his comments, he's just catering to a particular audience in the hopes of garnering their votes against Republican rival U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

texmex


From a fellow Texan -
There is a reason why Texan's refer to Gov Perry as "Gov Good Hair" !! It's all he's got -- and that's not sayin' much. He's scared because he knows Kay Bailey is gonna whoop some butt in 2010.
To Will, if you're looking to Perry for "Backbone and Gonads", you'd be better off electing Barry Manilow -- or "Barely Man Enough" as we like to call him. The man has neither.
Remember, the majority of our Founding Fathers were federalists -- that doesn't mean we pull out when the going gets tough.

RestoreFederalism

This sort of talk by Texas Governor Perry is actually quite rational. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution took away the state governments' voice in the federal government. Without that essential check on democracy, excessive spending and taxing (and growth of scope) by Washington cannot be stopped, even with better politicians and better laws. What Governor Perry seems to acknowledge is that the problem is structural, not legislative. With the 17th Amendment, there was no other alternative than what we have now: a federal government that treats the states like dependent children, and a presumed (but faulty) paternalistic relationship requiring national intervention. Return the voice of the states to the national government by repealing the 17th Amendment and we will fix the structural problem that must be addressed first. Learn more at http://www.restorefederalism.org.

Hellstromm

Hello RestoreFederalism,

It is unfortunate that you do not know what you're talking about and, in your ignorance, spout your ignorance with such authority. At least, I'm hoping it is ignorance. Because if it is not ignorance, than it is intentionally misleading the readers.

The 17th amendment merely transferred Senatorial choice from from that of the Governor to that of the State citizens. I.e., from the State's legislature to popular election by the people of each State. This amendment allows the citizens of a State to decide, separately and via a democratic voting process, who will represent them to the Nation, and who will govern their State.

As to the notion of States having a dependency on the Federal government, such existed "before" the 17th amendment. But, to be fair (and honest), States and the Federal government have a co-dependency. Each provides to the other and, in this mutual exchange of needs, both make concessions.

Hellstromm
hellstromm@gmail.com

RestoreFederalism (Replying to: Hellstromm)

The foundational concepts of federalism (our national government as a collection of sovereign states), limited government (clarified by the 10th Amendment), separation of powers, one-person-one-vote, are all ideas with very precise definitions. Granted, the classic definitions of these terms may be at odds with whatever they're teaching on Public Television these days. Consider The Federalist Papers your dictionary. I humbly suggest that you consult it before you erroneosly conclude that it is other posters who are "ignorant".

http://www.restorefederalism.org

Hellstromm

To further address your comments regarding the 17th Amendment:

What you are proposing is the "magic bullet." A single action that may cause more harm than you infer it will resolve. I wish to indicate that you do not show "how" it will resolve anything, only that it will, by somehow imposing magical results.

Your first argument is that corruption is always wrong. Yes, of course it is. But, as you also indicated at your site, corruption by one person is far easier than corruption by a thousand separate interest groups. The solution is not to revert "back" to that one person (who has full authority to dismiss without explanation and thus full corruptive ability without a means for control or consequence), but instead to address the influence of corruptive elements. Obama recently authorized a first-step, by restricting (and in some cases, full outlawing) lobbyist actions.

Your second argument posed on your site, merely demonstrates there is no great need to do away with the 17th amendment, because the parties are being similarly served, regardless of the means by which they are seated.

Your third argument, the notion of "one-person one-vote," goes out the window when you consider we vote electorally (thus many voters are disenfranchised). But, if I am to address your arguments as they stand, I wish to note we vote for the President, and that the House and Senate are two separate voting establishments of Congress.

But I think it is far more important to realze that even if we increase the number to 4, it is still not, "one-person, one-vote."

Representatives act as consolidated proxies for the votes of their respective regions (State divisions). Senators act as consolidated proxies for the votes of their respective State citizenry. The President acts as a consolidated proxy for the votes of the entire Nation.

It is the citizenry, whether regional, State, or National, that ultimately determines, and should determine, the direction of this Country. It is the citizens' interests, and not respective Federal or State government interests, that should govern any Constitutional change.

recook0769

To the point. The Federal government HAS stepped away from the core foundation upon which this country was established. We now have a novice in the White House that has stated that the nation needs to be rebuilt on a new foundation. This nation was established on the foundation that Liberty, Justice, and person Freedom was an inalienable right, granted to us all by our Creator at birth. Men gave their blood for these rights. Sounds like a good foundation to me, but apparently not good enough for Mr. Obama.

Let us continue:
He continues to talk about taking this opportunity to reestablish the foundations upon which our economy is built. Again, talking about foundations. America's economy is based upon capitalism. America has had the most robust economy in the world for nearly a century. Nations from around the world have attempted to emulate us in this regard. We are in a recession. That's it. If you don't tamper with a recessive economy, IT FIXES ITSELF!!! Tampering is what causes the problem to persist or grow. Read your history on the New Deal and all the tampering. Now, how long did THAT one last?

Now, with the stimulus and bailouts and all the money FLYING out of Washington, the government is trying to attach strings. Trying to force new programs and expand existing EXPENSIVE programs on the states. When the governors said, "NO THANK YOU" to the money and these programs, there was talk of FORCING the money and programs on the states. The federal government is out of control. Period. More states need to look at the Tenth Ammendment and consider passing resolutions. The states need to stand up and demand that the federal government recognize that it is only granted the powers listed in the Constitution that anything else NOT listed is NOT granted. Period.

Texas is different. It may no longer have the RIGHT to secede, but it certainly has the ability to do so and actually prosper afterwards. So, my hat off to Governor Perry for saying a word that brought a tear to my eye (because my father was not alive to hear it for himself). And my hat off for placing the qualifier in there (that Texans MAY become fed up) as well. Oh, and don't think that most of us don't realize that there is an election next year and you will be hard-pressed to keep the governorship should Kay Bailey decide to challenge you for the position.