Democratic Gov. Purdue - Scary !

Since Texas is the ONLY State that was an independent country before it joined the Union, and in the process of joining the Union made a deal with the Union that would allow it to succeed, then it is possible it could. But, it won't, and Perry's comments about it were not said in a serious way.

Since Texas is the ONLY State that was an independent country before it joined the Union, and in the process of joining the Union made a deal with the Union that would allow it to succeed, then it is possible it could. Originally Posted by Jdriller

Well, ....... that is an "old wives' tale" .... aka .... Reader's Digest Law.

Actually, when Texas was on the losing side of the Civil War, she, along with other "rebel" states signed on to the Union consistent with the original agreements when she "married" the union before attempting to "divorce" the union. I believe you will not find an official document reflecting any "agreement" or "reservation of right to separate" ....

or ... "prenuptial" that authorizes any legal separation.

Don’t forget the Republic of West Florida! Following the American Revolution, the United States and Spain wrangled diplomatically over the status of West Florida between the Mississippi and Perdido Rivers. Meanwhile, American settlers homesteaded in the area and soon grew to resent Spanish rule. Similarly, pro-British settlers, former Tories who had remained after the American Revolution, also resented Spanish rule. This discontent led to a rebellion on September 23, 1810 and the establishment – for exactly 90 days – of the Republic of West Florida.

The Bear Flag Republic, AKA California, declared its independence from Mexico on June 14, 1846 and was subsequently occupied and claimed by the U.S. on June 23, 1846. It was a separate, independent republic for less than a month.

She started the statement with
“From my perspective, as one citizen, one taxpayer, one person…”. She sets up the “joke” (I would say hyperbole myself) by stating the same frustrations that the majority of Americans have expressed with congress. After talking about the bickering, etc, she goes on to say “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.” She then talks about agreements in Raleigh crossing party lines to work together to solve N. C.’s problems.

So if you really think she was serious, rest easy. Because if she considered doing it she would be familiar with the following.

From http://electionlawissues.org/PDF's/Chapter%20Seven%20-%20Proofed2.pdf

Other states allow one or more members of the State Board of Elections, or its equivalent, to suspend or postpone elections in the face of emergency. For example, New York grants this
power to the State Board of Elections as a body,112 while North Carolina vests the decision making authority with the State Board of Elections’ Executive Director.

It would take a conspiracy worthy of Alex Jones. Or a crazy person.


As to which is more damaging seceding or suspension, I think the answer is obvious. Seceding requires tens of thousands of state residents, their legislature, the congress, etc. to decide they no longer want to be part of the United States. Suspending the election requires 1 person. While multiple scenarios could result from election suspension, and none of them good, seceding is by far worse. It indicates a much larger problem.

"Article IV, Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;

nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,

without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

I don't see leaving the Union, with or without Congressional consent! Originally Posted by LexusLover

yeah but....if we really wanted to we could. Who would stop us?

What is wrong with leaving the Union? When the government becomes unresponsive to the will of the people, or antagonistic toward their liberty, it is our duty to protest, and secede if reforms are not addressed. I believe that is a paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence.

Before the "Civil War" each and every state entered the Union voluntarily. Prior to the "Civil War" a number of states peacefully and voluntarily opted out of the Union by secession. A power mad Republican then caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands by demanding the states return, which they eventually did, involuntarily and at the point of a gun.

Sounds a lot like Russia invading Czechoslovakia.

Sure insulate them from the consequences of their votes.
If we followed that cockamamie idea,
sheik hussein wouldn't need a second term to doom
the fate of the Republic.
The Founding Fathers were wise in their decisions.
You didn't think of anything they haven't and
subsequently rejected. If anything Senators
have terms a wee bit too long. If term limits
are good enough for potus then congress
should have them too.

The flaw in the system is that they started
letting non-business, non- landholding
ill educated nobodies vote also.
One man one vote is not an American ideal.
People with no personal stake in the future
of this nation have no right directing said
future. Those who make no money should
have no say in how it is spent. Originally Posted by anaximander

Yes, it would insulate them a bit more, and I think that's a good thing. The stalemate that we have now is caused, in small part admittedly, by the fact that our elected representatives are constantly campaigning and are therefore afraid to alienate those who finance the political process. They are too responsive to those that they are beholden to and thus have no courage to do what needs to be done.

As you might guess from my posts on this board, I donate very modest amounts (as big gives go) to national races. Usually no more than $25,000 to $35,000 per election cycle. I'll start getting requests for fund raising for the November 2014 election cycle in January of 2013, in the weeks before the new Congress begins. There is no part of calendar when fundraising isn't a major part of the concerns of our members of Congress. (It's not as bad on the Senate side, and as a result of this and one other factor, the Senate is not as polarized.)

yeah but....if we really wanted to we could. Who would stop us? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

This is a good time. "They" are already fighting 2 "other" wars!

This is a good time. "They" are already fighting 2 "other" wars! Originally Posted by LexusLover

2 wars?

Iraq
Afghanistan
Libya
Corporate jet owners

And don't leave out the "Class War"..............

Bizzaarooo thought process.....we have a constitution that you admit allows succession and prohibts election suspensions; yet you opine that a legal constitutional act (succession) is more damaging than one which is both illegal and un-constitutional (election suspensions)......

You actually favor the rule of one person over the consenual vote of mulitudes? This is very scary thinking; the kind that gives way to dictators, facists, and otherwise crazy rulers who become mass murders. But you are obviously not alone; Gov. Purdue being your most recent ally. I suspect Obama agrees with you. But Purdue has the good sense to back away from her stupid comment...

Will you do the same?

As to which is more damaging seceding or suspension, I think the answer is obvious. Seceding requires tens of thousands of state residents, their legislature, the congress, etc. to decide they no longer want to be part of the United States. Suspending the election requires 1 person. While multiple scenarios could result from election suspension, and none of them good, seceding is by far worse. It indicates a much larger problem. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Gee, TTH, the stalemate is because our representatives are trying to determine what the people want and do it? That sounds terrible! God forbid the people regain any power!

Bizzaarooo thought process.....we have a constitution that you admit allows succession and prohibts election suspensions; yet you opine that a legal constitutional act (succession) is more damaging than one which is both illegal and un-constitutional (election suspensions)......

You actually favor the rule of one person over the consenual vote of mulitudes? This is very scary thinking; the kind that gives way to dictators, facists, and otherwise crazy rulers who become mass murders. But you are obviously not alone; Gov. Purdue being your most recent ally. I suspect Obama agrees with you. But Purdue has the good sense to back away from her stupid comment...

Will you do the same? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You need to reread. You’re having problems with your comprehension again. I didn’t say a thing about the Constitution guaranteeing elections. A suspended election must be rescheduled. The legislature can impeach and remove the governor. The point is the damage is easily repairable. As far as:
You actually favor the rule of one person over the consenual vote of mulitudes? This is very scary thinking; the kind that gives way to dictators, facists, and otherwise crazy rulers who become mass murders. But you are obviously not alone; Gov. Purdue being your most recent ally. I suspect Obama agrees with you. But Purdue has the good sense to back away from her stupid comment...Perdue.

I didn’t say or imply any of this. No wonder you are flat ass wrong so much of the time.

Were you ever going to answer my questions below or were you just going to leave it you lying through your teeth…again?

Just asking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
TTH: Your right about one thing; the Greenberg poll shows that the Democratic attack against Republicans with medi-scare is working........so we can expect to see more "Republicans are throwing Granny off the cliff" non-sense.

The Democrats will lie, cheat and steal to win in 2012; We have already seen several prominent Democrats call for suspension of elections and other democratic prinicpals so they can maintain power. The Democrats are truly a corrupt bunch of cronies.
You say they will lie, cheat, and steal.
You must be able to prove what you've said.
Or are you lying just like you say they do?

Several prominent democrats have called for suspension of elections?
Who?
Where?
Why?
What other democratic principals?

Is asking for links too much?

Gee, TTH, the stalemate is because our representatives are trying to determine what the people want and do it? That sounds terrible! God forbid the people regain any power! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is not a detect democracy. Some of the time the right thing to do is nit what your constituents want you to do. That's why we theoretically elect our representatives to be men and women of sound judgement, not just cowardly poll readers.

True. Texas did enter the Union after first being a Republic. But that was the first time.

The second time it re-entered the Union as part of a conquered Nation, The Conferderate States. That second time made the first null and void.