Speaking of secession 18

The great divide between those who want socialism and those who want freedom is unbridgeable. The federal government is imposing socialism, the American people are determined to resist it. What remedies do the people have?

A year ago, Governor Rick Perry mentioned the possibility that Texas might secede from the union, but added that he “saw no reason why it should”.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax “tea party” Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states’ rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, “Secede!”

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt. …

Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “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.”

Washington has continued to “thumb its nose” at the people. Now 13 [update, 18] states, including Texas, are suing the federal government over issues raised by the health care legislation it pushed through against the will of the majority of Americans. And there is talk of 37 states doing so.

Is secession again in the air?

The Tea Party movement is named to revive the memory of revolutionary secession.

Walter Williams, not for the first time, raises the topic of secession, considers the idea favorably, and comes close to advocating it – though he stops just short of doing so.

Ten years ago I asked the following question in a column titled “It’s Time To Part Company”:

“If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?”

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. 

The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush.

The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating.

Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • Pingback: The Atheist Conservative: » Disgraceful government and the duty to disobey

  • Pingback: Is the U.S. Too Big to Fail? | FrontPage Magazine

  • BellyMonster

    Take this quote from our constitution…

    “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

    This to me appears to suggest revolution in place of separation. Although I respect and admire the words above, I personally would very much like to see a peaceful secession and I think that now is the time for it. I fear that if we don't find a way to peacefully part ways pretty much immediately then the issue will degenerate into violence. I personally don't have an arsenal, but I am well-armed. I hope I never have to fire a weapon at another living creature but don't think I won't if forced to, and I WILL fight this “law” that I must engage in a private business transaction (health insurance) by threat of fines and/or incarceration to the death if need be. This is one law that I will not obey, nor will I go to jail for disobeying it (hence the death part).

    Our government is becoming an institution of rulers rather than representatives and its members are becoming complacent in their perceived “power”…Nancy Pelosi being one of the worst (and evil) this nation has ever seen. Both republicans and democrats are guilty of this, but this woman is a unique and terrifying beast who must be stopped if this nation is to remain united.

    I love this country but I am not alone in the intensity of my resolve to die rather than lose my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Much legislation has been passed by both parties that in my estimation violates these rights, and such legislation is increasing under this administration's attempt at despotist rule. I am willing to part ways peacefully, but is the federal government willing to do the same?

    • gilrolling

      But the quote you stated wit,h is not our Constitution but our Declaration of Independence.

      • BellyMonster

        You are right…My mistake. However this fact does not invalidate my comments, concerns, or my final question. If a state or a number of states do attempt a peaceful secession, would the Obama, Reid, Pelosi dictatorship allow it to be peaceful?

        • gilrolling

          My personal opinion is attempts of minority of states in secession will always be followed by the use of force by the federal. Historical opinion has always viewed the the states by contract are as in the Constitution binding to the states in perpetuity whereas everything else in the Constitution as a living document, subject to change by the federal at will using the courts. It is absurd but none the less I think that's their view
          My view of the Constitution is it is all perpetual with the exception of the states coming together in convention to change it and/or abolish it and reconstitute it or just go their separate ways. individually I think the fed will would use force to keep them in the fold.
          This is like united we stand divided we fall thinking on my part, the States for the most part don't need the fed but it absolutely needs the states, all of them.
          The Constitution does not provide the federal government the means to alter or abolish all or any part of its union with the states, but does retain that power to the states in convention and or the people.
          If the federal wants to change the constitution it has to get the states to do it by calling a convention of states or at min. permission by the State's to specific amendments.
          All that said; I find nothing that makes the calling of a convention of the states the sole authority of Congress, meaning any State may call for such a convention apart from federal authority. It therefore begs the question of or when two thirds of the states to be in accord in order to abolish and/or re-institute our from of government.

  • gilrolling

    We American citizen of today no longer retain the intelligence of our ancestors but we have their blue print for achieving national greatness as laid out by the Americas founding fathers. It must therefore become our guide and the path before us.
    With minimal effort, without the equivalent intelligence of our forefathers I have taken with audacity the right to edit the Declaration of Independence and propose, that when the people are no longer willing to suffer the suffrages of our federal government, they may consider this edited modern version subject to better minds than mine as a starting point as did our forefathers.
    GAP
    The Declaration of Independence revisited and revised
    In Congress, July 4, 2013
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these 50 States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal authority of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and the people’s thereof. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    The Federal government has forbidden the States to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till its Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, it’s utterly neglects to attend to them.
    It has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of the States, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    It has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with its measures.
    It has overruled Representative Houses of the States repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness it’s invasions on the rights of the people.
    It has refused for a long time, after such rulings to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    It has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; and to pass others to encourage their illegal migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations
    for the accumulation of unassailable power over the people.
    It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing It’s Assent to Laws for establishing proper control over the Constitutional authority of both the legislative and Judiciary powers.
    It has made Judges independent of the constraints of the current Constitution on its will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    It has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of mercenary thugs to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
    It has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies of thugs and foreign powers without the Consent of our legislatures.
    It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the all civil power below itself.
    It has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving it’s Assent to their Acts of these pretended world bodies:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed thugs and agencies among us:
    For protecting them, by mock punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off and/or regulating without good reason our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing multitudes of Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury using the application of double jeopardy:
    For transporting our Military beyond Seas to then be charged and tried for pretended offences
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing or rendering useless our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, by declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    It has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of its Protection and threatening War against us.
    It has refused us the free use of our seas, destroyed academia, failed to protect our Coasts, placed insurgents in our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    It is at this time transporting large Armies of domestic and foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    It has constrained our fellow Citizens from self defense to be taken Captive on the high Seas and to be easy prey to its thugs doing its bidding and bear Arms against their own Countrymen, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    It has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our largest cities as fodder in it’s quest to bring us all under its yoke of oppression, and undistinguished in it’s destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A governing body, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be such, of a free people.
    Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our elite brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here and the original foundations that have served us so well for so long..

    We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
    We, therefore, the citizens of our respective States of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    This is not a suggestion for secession by the States, but absolute and total dissolution of the federal government and the bureaucracy that supports it, with the States taking proportionate control or dissolving all properties and agencies contained within each. The formation of a new constitution, reconstituted to it original State with appropriate amendments without usurping any part of the original to extend its authority in perpetuity in like manner. This would show righteous respect for what came before, and build on it as was original intent, not change!
    The States, via the people created the federal government and by all right have the authority to dissolve and reconstitute it. So it was written and so it is!
    GAP

    • C. Gee

      This is a tour de force. The idea of dissolution of the United States into 50 states raises fascinating questions, not least of which is what checks and balances there will be on the governmental power of any given state. Theoretically, there would be no reason for any state to be of limited power. The Bill of Rights need not be enshrined in any state constitution. We might indeed be left with 50 Despotisms. The American idea (from many, one) will be shattered. But in many ways the success of the American national idea – so many millions living under a unified jurisdiction of many jurisdiction in peace and prosperity – encouraged the belief in the possibility and desirability of world jurisdiction. Better balkanization than a total totalitarian imperium ?

      • gilrolling

        The idea is that the dissolution of the federal government by a convention of the states and the re-adoption of the old original Constitution including the bill of rights be a simultaneous act of the convention. In essence would amount to a nuclear bomb that removes all humans while leaving all non-living things untouched.
        The convention of States as a body would then using the newly adopted original Constitution decide the disposition of all assets and the hiring or re-staffing of people to manage the remaining assets and/or structures under the authority of the Constitutional convention. Including the rules and mandates each department must operate under followed by national elections in accordance with the new/old Constitution.
        All this would be done like today's Court system shuts down large corporations, restructures and reopens them under new management almost in the blink of an eye.
        This was how it was done from scratch in the beginning, and with modern technology would not be as large a challenge as the original convention including the use of the military and other enforcement bodies already in place.
        A convention of States so assembled would not nor could not give advantage to the avarice of any other.
        GAP

        • C. Gee

          A “start-again” constitutional conference might have ceremonial value (if you could get the opposition to attend). The accretions of history and the differences of opinion which distorted the constitution cannot be wiped away. There would be no way to prevent the same drift from originalism occurring again. Words will always be interpreted – there is no magic legal formula that will mean the same to everyone or that cannot be glossed to mean its own opposite. The word “constitution” can be interpreted to mean “social contract”.
          What we have learned over the past centuries is that a constitutional Republic is hard to keep. Old Ben was right.

      • gilrolling

        It is one thing to disagree with the opposition, but their participation in a national convention of States becomes mute at the point of a pending revolution just like the loyalist had no choice but to side w/the convention or remain silent in there opposition and suffer the fate determined on the battle fields.
        History has not created the need for changing anything in the original Constitution any more than a consistent state of condition is reason to rearrange your living room. The differences of opinion were worked out and agreed too during its creation. Thus the nuanced parsing of words was and is not an option there after, only the plain understanding of the words contain within at the time of that agreement in perpetuity.
        The effect thru human nature in interpretation of words to misrepresent the context or caused to be viewed as different or opposite is the art of legal deceit not legality it may have effect on the ignorant but not normally intelligent people. The Constitution cannot be interrupted as a social contract subject to change after the fact, only as basic law that must be respected and adhered to. The magic formula lies within as the founders presented it “no usurpation by change of the original contract” this point was made clear by none other than George Washington, old Ben was right! And so was Jefferson-
        “If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson
        GAP

    • Bill

      The original D of I was a step in the right direction. Yours is a further step in the right direction. I notice you included “property” in the rights, and “laws of nature.”

      It keeps bugging me though, about how our constitution gets its authority or ever got its authority. 19th century jurist Lysander Spooner wrote an essay about the very subject: “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.” I could not come up with counterarguments to his claims that we do not have to abide by any document that we did not sign. Thus I'm more a voluntaryist than a small government conservative.

      • gilrolling

        In terms of of individual liberty the founders crafted the The constitution as an instrument of security and limited authority for us as individuals but they understood the human nature of man much better than we do today. So the federal government was also given the authority to control the extremes of that human nature, but other wise left us with individual liberty.
        Ever since we have been arguing about what they meant by individual liberty about what it is.
        I have written a book in my retirement Titled=I AM SOVEREIGN it is waiting publication through Author House. you may find something in the following excerpt from my book to clear up what is bugging you about not only the authority of the federal government but of State government and the individual
        let me know what you think!

        SOVEREIGNTY
        To be sovereign, or too have sovereignty is a most misunderstood principal by modern ordinary or average people that has been a recognized declaration of mankind through out human history, in reality and truth it declares boundaries within which an individual or group claims and declares absolute right and authority over everyone and everything, including life itself and this status is and has been held as inviolate by all mankind and can only be canceled, changed or destroyed by the deployment of insurgency, subterfuge and/or force.
        Every society, tribe, collective or nation declares sovereignty as its absolute right, and considering the extremes and suffrages of different cultures rightly so, because it has boundaries! Once sovereignty is established, it must be constantly defended against all who would undermine or challenge it by subterfuge insurgency or force. All human conflicts are about the rights of sovereignty, offensive, defensive, individual or collective!
        Within the boundaries of any and all sovereign authorities the Charters, Proclamations, Constitutions and Laws etc. are all subject to change at anytime by those who hold the power and authority of administration, be it a king or queen, parliament, tyrant, despot, Congress, President etc, and all inhabitants are subjects, slaves, citizens, chattel etc. under that authority. Whenever a change in power occurs, the liberties rights and conditions of the “individual people” within may fluctuate from one extreme suffrage to another as a new generation of elites imposes itself upon the whole with their despotic vigor. The only recourse that the people have in the face of these extremes is “Armed Revolution”, but their nature will resort to that only when the overall view of their suffrages becomes insufferable will they do so. (Reference, Declaration of Independence) America is fast again approaching this insufferable summit.
        “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” –John Adams, letter to H. Niles, 13 February 1818
        This had been the way of the entire world controlled by human nature and the term sovereignty was at its heart until we Americans awoke to our own Sovereignty of both mind and body.
        When our forefathers realized that in spite of, not because of British law, our experiences, successes and growth in the early development of America were the result of “Individual Sovereignty” as our prime motivating factor and needed to be formalized into our specific laws. Sovereignty in America begins with the individual and expands upward through governance not the reverse as human nature would have it.
        Nothing and I do mean nothing, is considered or viewed as of a greater violation both to the subjective or objective mind-sets of human beings than violations of their sovereign existence. It ranks right up there with torture, rape and murder as violations of our individual sovereignty. This means individual sovereignty once acquired and understood will most certainly respond with human natures anger, rage and maximum wrath in opposition to any and all attempts to diminish or take it from us. Individual sovereignty in America represents and remains the prime object of our existence as human beings and I might say, as Americans.
        “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, 14 December 1787
        Our American Constitution established the literal primary Sovereign Authority was “THE PEOPLE” as individuals among all other people. The second Sovereign Authority was of the State among all other states, lastly the federal authority of the Republic sovereign among all other nations of the world, where assuring the States of their territorial integrity and sovereignty and our individual sovereignty was to be its primary mandate.
        This was the triad of sovereign authority and powers making up the governance of America. Laced up straightly within the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution intended for perpetuity, thus no level of American government has sovereign right or authority to claim sovereignty and/or franchise of permission over the individual sovereignty of its sovereign citizens under our Constitution, except during extreme emergencies or hazard to the people as a whole or the Republic, and then only temporarily to its resolution.
        The federal has no cultural sovereign authority over the states the states have no cultural sovereign authority over the people not specifically surrendered in the Constitution. From the time we as a society lost that understanding and intent we opened, “Pandora's box” and an insurgency of human nature started a crusade of corruption on the country as a whole.
        By violating the boundaries of any of our sovereign authorities we destroy the literal text, meaning and intent of our Constitution not only to ourselves but the world, which for two hundred and twenty two + years has stood in awe of us as a Nation and as a Sovereign people. The absolute and true American Dream defined, was and still is Individual Sovereignty.
        No level of American government, not federal, state, city or town holds cultural sovereignty over the people. We are our own sovereigns individually under the Constitution. Americas system of governance; where its triad of sovereign authorities was intended to eliminate once and for all the despotic elements of human nature from it.

        • Bill

          Well yes, very interesting reading! I like what you say that the revolution was won in the minds of Americans before the war really got underway.

          I have a lot to say about this myself. I'm intrigued that you have written a book on sovereignty and I look forward to buying your book. I have twice composed a response to your response, but drifted off, since I have a lot to say. So I decided to keep it short here this third time! Thanks!

  • NoCountryForYoungMen

    A lot of people considering this think that the federal government would occupy the resistant states by military force if necessary. It seems the balance has shifted towards the central government having powers numerous and indefinite instead of the other way around. The union is perpetual and indissoluble, but then this was decided during the American civil war. This war is what changed 'these united states' to 'the United States of America'

    Any such parting of ways would require the Democrats and Republicans to become so radicalized to be unable to cooperate at all. I can't see a single state declaring independence alone, so you would probably see the red states of america and the blue states of america… and depending on who actually runs this country… most likely another civil war, or rather nation wide martial law and the use of the US army on US soil. A massive devolution of power back to state governments would be the best solution in such a situation but the potential of states declaring independence all at once and going their separate ways after the crunch is possible.

    I think all us atheists/agnostics should move to Hawaii and declare an independent republic ^^… but with sea level rise maybe that is not such a good idea.

  • http://jdlong.wordpress.com Alamo City Pundit

    An excellent article, but the comments of Governor GoodHair aside (frankly, he's an idiot), the state of Texas is currently undergoing the throes of a minor revolution right now. Petitions are being circulated to recall the Legislature to nullify the Obamacare bill under the 10th Amendment. Should the legislature fail to do so, the petitioners have the right to nullify the legislature itself and call a new constitutional convention, which could result in (dare we say it) . . . . yes, secession.

    Again.

    And see how well that worked out last time; although the Obama Regime is so short in the testicular department, we might get away with it this time.

    See my post at: http://wp.me/pnPpS-1XB

    Nice little blog you got here, by the way!

    ~Johnny~

    • Jillian Becker

      Thanks, Alamo City Pundit. And we like your blog too. (Love your photo!)

      We'll watch for your news. What Texas is thinking is important.

  • bobbyvon

    If a state is considering parting ways with the federal government then stop talking and do something. Don't take any federal funding. Don't send a representative to congress. Cut ties first and if that works then proceed. But if they aren't going to even start anything then it is just rhetoric.