Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Texas gov. back resolutoin affirming sovereignty

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+14 more 
posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Texas gov. back resolution affirming sovereignty

governor.state.tx.us...


“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."


Would someone explain all this to me?

How significant is this?

Is it just a political move?

Any Texans out there, know what is happening?

Mod Edit: Removed all caps.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.


Bill text
www.capitol.state.tx.us...



CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people";
and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the
Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated
as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union
of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal
government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.


HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

well this is where I am supposed to say something, but I really don't know, what.

Did they forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress?

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I have been watching and never saw any action on it after it went to the State Affairs committee. I found this you tube as of April 9th discussing HCR 50, the Texas Sovereignty resolution. It is pretty powerful, imo. Definitely should send a message. There is a second part to the link below. I will post once I listen.

Youtube link

Governor Perry is also supporting the tax tea party in Texas.

youtube link

Had to edit to ad second link. Couldn't get enough verbage to allow a new post.

youtube Perry's endorsement

WoHoo. I am so proud to be a Texan. Governor Perry's language was strong and definitive. Can't wait to see where this goes from here. I would love to go back to being a republic and this just may be the start of a movement. Notice in the first video they were talking with Oklahoma prior to submitting the sovereignty resolution and Oklahoma was originally part of the Texas Republic.




[edit on 14-4-2009 by liveandlearn]

[edit on 14-4-2009 by liveandlearn]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
A lot was happening around 1840.




wiki/Council_House_Fight - 1840

The Texans demanded to know where the other captives were. The Penateka spokesman, Chief Muguara, responded that the other prisoners were held by differing bands of Comanche. He assured the Texans that he felt the other captives would be able to be ransomed, but it would be in exchange for a great deal of supplies, including ammunition and blankets. He then finished his speech with the comment "how do you like that answer?"[9] The Texan militia entered the courtroom and positioned themselves at intervals on the walls.[11] When the Comanches would not, or could not, promise to return all captives immediately, the Texas officials said that chiefs would be held hostage until the white captives were released.[1]

The interpreter warned the Texan officials that if he delivered that message the Comanches would attempt to escape by fighting. He was instructed to relay the warning and left the room as soon as he finished translating. After learning that they were being held hostage the Comanches attempted to fight their way out of the room using arrows and knives. The Texan soldiers opened fire at point-blank range, killing both Indians and whites. The Comanche women and children waiting outdoors began firing their arrows after hearing the commotion inside. At least one Texan spectator was killed. When a small number of warriors managed to leave the council house, all of the Comanche began to flee. The soldiers who followed again opened fire, killing and wounding both Comanche and Texans.[11]

[...]

The Comanche were shocked and disgusted by the actions of the Texans. In his book Los Comanches, historian Stanley Noyes notes that a " violation of a council represented an almost unthinkable degree of perfidy. The council was sacred not only to the [Comanche] People but to all Native Americans".[18] In response to the unforgivable insult, the captives the Texans sought were killed, and then Buffalo Hump launched the Great Raid of 1840, leading hundreds of Comanche warriors on raids against many Texan villages. At least 25 settlers were killed in the Great Raid, with others taken prisoner. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods were taken; one city was burned to the ground and another damaged.[20] The Texan militia responded, leading to the Battle of Plum Creek, but were unable to stop the raids.


It's fine for them to get fed up with the US authority but if they don't have another council and acknowledge the Comancheria, Texas will never really have the soul it was meant to have. It's interesting that this area was split into corners of several states. Divide and conquer?

After all this time, what we've proven is that both whites and indians can be as brutal as the other. Now where do we go from here? More bombastic posturing and racism? As I recall, there was a Comanche warrior who was half-Irish. Now why were there powerful Irish families homesteading in Texas and why did they have some claim which the Comanche did not? Seems like Texas is a melting pot microcosm of the US itself?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The "whereas" is what they are sighting

the "resolved" is what the govenor has passed and made LAW in Texas

Delivering it to the president and the house etc is a required by law notification.

They have been sent notice that this "has" been passed as law in Texas.
(If this is a true article word for word Texas is leaving the union until such a time as the government get's back to following the constitution of the United States. period.)



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


;and
WHEREAS smallpeeps needs to take it easy on the grass
.

What the Texas government is doing is backing the views and demands of its constituents. I live in Houston and I tell you the Fed needs to keep its damn nose out of our lives and our business. The damn "human-debris" from Katrina is still here, the Fed put it here and wont clean it up! I want the crime rate to go back down to pre-katrina levels, before FEMA relocated a giant swath of poor petty criminals here. The Federal Gov'ts efforts may be partly well intended but they seem to be incapable of doing any good with anything, that why the constitution limits their power, when those limits are ignored then real problems begin to arise. Centralization of powers destroys all empires. The founders of U.S.A. realized this and dreamed to create a republic that limited centralization and gave the bulk of the power and sovereignty to smaller regional goverments (the states). That is the efficient way to run a country of this size. A law the works for Sunshine Willows 23-M of San Francisco, CA might not work for Billy "Skidboot" BoDean 34-M of Beaumont, TX. S+F, LONG LIVE TEXAS!



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


Actually this would be considered a non-binding resolution my friend, its designed to send a message to the Federal Government and make Texas citizens feel like their state government is on their side. Its sad however, the president is going to wad this piece of paper up and get nothing but net with it in his basketball hoop garbage can.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichM
WHEREAS smallpeeps needs to take it easy on the grass


Ha ha, nah, I wrote that in an unenlightened state of mind. Don't assume anything chumly, you know what happens when you do that. But your assumption presumably places me in a category where I am considered delusional and harmless which is fine by me.


But seriously though, does future-Texas-president Chuck Norris think fighting Mexican drug cartels will be easier or harder than fighting the US military? I am curious to hear some Texan meanderings on how they see the future shaping up.

I am 100% serious about the solution resting with the Native population of America. You still thinking you got some moral high ground over them? What's the basis of that premise? Do you see Texas as being some kind of super-state like Israel or something some day? Could be interesting.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
No no my friend not delusional, just a little "Groovy"
. I have a large amounth of faith in U.S. military being that similar legislation has been passed through in many other states across the nation, not just in the south. I believe it was actually New Hamshire that started this trend. U.S. Military (myself included) took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We can count on our field level officers of all branches of the military to do the right thing when the time comes.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
i think alot of people have mistakin souvereignty for succeeding, to suceed form the union is to pull out, but too claim souvereignty is take the power of the state and it citizens back from the goverment.

when the sovereignty is then over stepped that is when succection takes place. way to go TEXAS!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RichM
 


I agree with you 100% on this. I live in Houston as well, further out NW, and we are completely overrun with this human debris. But that is a discussion for another thread.
I for one am glad that our Govnr RP is standing up for those that voted him in.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
It is both 100% posturing and 100% serious. This is far from an act of secession or something of that magnitude, but it is moving towards nullification.

It's essential to see what led up to the First Civil War. It wasn't just slavery, friends. It was more about the laws that were being passed about, but not limited to, slavery. South Carolina and others believed that they had the authority to nullify unjust laws passed by Congress.

This is both a political and historical law from Texas. If nothing happens in the United States and we just go along to get along, this will mean nothing in the future. However, if things begin to fall apart, history books will look on this as the first volley of the second nullification conflict.

Edit: Just on the spelling- "resolution"

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Iago18]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
It's all an act to draw out Consitutionalists. Perry is no more a Constitutionalist than President Obama himself, not to mention one of the (if not the) worst Governors (in regards to spending budget) that this state has ever had.

Go to State declared tea parties? To get yourself blacklisted.

So tell me do you really think he is on our side?

[edit on 4/14/2009 by FadeToBlack]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It is very interesting to see this turn of events unfolding. Have any of you ever watched the series Jericho? Very, very good series.

Love the Independent Republic of Texas fighter pilot's words of "Whatever you are carrying better be worth it, I think I just declared war on the Allied States of America!"

Para.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Its good to see that HCR 50 is gaining momentum. It currently has 69 supporters so if your in Texas please write you reps to support this... Im working on Miklos but he seems to be stubborn, guess I won't be voting for him next time around...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by crawgator406
 



Well, Texas is the only state in the Union that has the "legal" right to secede. President Sam Houston died before he ever signed the annexation papers of Texas. Texas has been and is known as the Republic State of Texas. There is a reason for that.



[edit on 14-4-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
While I am very happy to see Rick Perry say this and support this, I am a bit cautious of his motives. I am not sure if he just fluffing up Texans with mere words but he did go to A&M which if you have ever visited college station is does not get more conservative than that place so maybe he does actually mean and is taking some pride in his state.

None the less. There are actually two bills in the State, 50 from the representatives, and SCR 39 from the Senate.

I am hard pressed to believe there are any politicians willing to stand for the will of the people these days but these two bills and now RP's press release does bring a smile to my face and makes me glad I live in Texas.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Couple of questions here. Kind of piggybacking on some previous ones, sorry guys/gals.
1. What about New Hampshire? I thought they fired the first salvo in secession with Maine and Vermont? Or is it a different situation...
2. How long would it take to go from sovereignty to full out secession? Which leads me to...
3. COULD this be like Jericho? I mean that to be the beginning of sections of the country ruled by separate capital cities?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Governor Perry was on Kudlow stating that Texan's love the Union and are apart of the Union, BUT this over reach of the Federal Government must stop. The reverse is clear, Texas will leave the union unless President Obama returns to Constitutional limits to Federal power; which has a snow ball's chance in hell of happening.

This is very serious and is most likely the beginning of the Second American Revolution as this is a clear Texan "line in the sand", and Texans are not known to dialog a problem to death; more for the correct application of gun control, those Texacans.

[edit on 4/14/2009 by SGTChas]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
By definition a states declaration of sovereignty has broken the normal ties to the Union; thus allowing any such state to move to abridge all federal laws or regulations it deems unconstitutional. This is exactly what happened when Northern Legislators passed taxes on South Carolina’s cotton trade with England; when South Carolina declared state sovereignty and refused the tax, Union Ships were sent to either collect the tax or burn it on the docks of Charleston.

To our undying Southern shame, students from the Citadel fired on Fort Sumter FIRST to be able to defend Charelston from the coming Union ships, destroying any right to claim a righteous war of self-defense as had been the right of the colonist who took the first volley from the British on the Lexington Green. Let us pray we do not make that mistake again.

[edit on 4/14/2009 by SGTChas]






top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join