Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OMG! Perry used the S-word!!
Washington Examiner ^ | September 11, 2011 | Mark Tapscott

Posted on 09/11/2011 5:50:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: Blue Ink

Translation: The idea that a state could secede of its own will - equivalent to all other states voting to expel another state from the Union - is inconceivable, in particular in America, where the issue isn’t as contentious as it is elsewhere.


101 posted on 09/11/2011 12:53:26 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink
I can’t understand this sentence. Can someone translate?

I would, if I cared, but I don't, so I won't.

102 posted on 09/11/2011 1:16:10 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I think I saw a wanted poster with your picture on it in Neiman Marcus just the other day. You better stay out of Texas. :D

Heh! I remember having this conversation on a few occasions....
Unknown woman: "Are YOU Randall?"
Me: "Yeah. Why?"
Unknown woman: "Well, someone wrote something kinda flattering about you in the women's restroom."
Me:*facepalm*
103 posted on 09/11/2011 2:34:51 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (Look for the union label, then buy elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

He could always say he didn’t like what obama is doing to the country and meant that he would support seccession to protect Texans from having their state’s rights stolen.


104 posted on 09/11/2011 2:37:56 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink
I can’t understand this sentence. Can someone translate?

The quote is from an 1833 letter to Alexander Rives. At the time the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina was going on, with talk in the state that they may leave the Union altogether.

105 posted on 09/11/2011 3:07:48 PM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

A bunch of dumb colonist once thought that rights came from God and not from other men. They were so dumb they thought this was self evident. Silly guys.


106 posted on 09/11/2011 3:20:09 PM PDT by Proud_texan (Scare people enough and they'll do anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
Any state that gives up their right of secession does a disservice to the republic of our founders. The Constitution is (still) silent on the issue.

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."

               President Davis

107 posted on 09/11/2011 3:20:14 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
In the 90’s I paid some Constitutional lawyers a lot of money to tell me if there was ANY path where Texas could secede.

Get your money back you were had.

108 posted on 09/11/2011 3:22:59 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Yes the Constitution does have a provision but the is NO path for it, it would take years maybe decades to establish one.

I am sure King George III would agree with you.

109 posted on 09/11/2011 3:26:23 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

The only thing wrong with the Tx. v White decision is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession and doesn’t back up the decision. Other than that it is a good decision.


110 posted on 09/11/2011 3:32:22 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
"And here I was, clicking on your post, thinking that the Governor was talking about used food..."

LOL! That was my first thought, too. Then I thought, "sin?" Glad to see we were both wrong, but we really should get our minds out of the bathroom...

111 posted on 09/11/2011 4:19:09 PM PDT by redhead (Never Forget. Never Forget. NEVER FORGET!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
A bunch of dumb colonist once thought that rights came from God and not from other men. They were so dumb they thought this was self evident. Silly guys.

I was going on the assumption that Perry was talking about peaceful succession and not armed revolution.

112 posted on 09/11/2011 4:27:57 PM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Texan

“I doubt any such polls existed except maybe as a joke.”

For what it’s worth...
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/29/texas-poll-obama-47-perry-45/


113 posted on 09/11/2011 7:30:52 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

You ought to read one of his books, either “On My Honor,” his book about the Boy Scouts, or “Fed Up!” the book about the overreaching of the federal government and what we can and should do about it.


114 posted on 09/11/2011 8:12:58 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://WingRight.orgI've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.Patrol the border 2 control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
Then most Texans, including the author of this article, are pretty dumb. There isn't a Constitutional expert in the country who would agree that Texas somehow has rights denied other states. And that includes leaving without the consent of the other states.

Where in the Constitution is the requirement that other states have to approve the secession of another state? It isn't there. Republican congressmen tried several times to make such an approval a requirement in 1860 and 1861, but it was voted down.

Consider what several states said when ratifying the Constitution. Here, for example, is what New York's ratification document said [Link, my bold below]:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. ...

... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

115 posted on 09/11/2011 9:03:08 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$; SoJoCo; South40; Condor51; org.whodat; cripplecreek; TADSLOS; BobL; raybbr; ...

WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL
(this makes the Perrydactyls wild--no mention of Ron Paul driving Perry's numbers down)

116 posted on 09/12/2011 2:18:46 AM PDT by Liz (The rule of law must prevail. We can’t govern ourselves by our personal point of view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

I have no idea what your background is so please don’t take this as any sort of slam at you, but my statement still stands. Please point me to a single Constitutional expert in this country who is on record as saying that Texas has rights under the Constitution denied to the other states. Or any main-stream Constitutional scholar who says that any state can leave the Union at will.


117 posted on 09/12/2011 4:23:08 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Liz; sickoflibs
WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL
this makes the Perrydactyls wild

'Heck', what DOESN'T make them go wild?


'Perrydactyl'
© 2011, FReeper 'sickoflibs'

I wonder if they realize they're doing more harm to Perry than good?

With their childish, sophomoric insults and viscous name calling and repetitive ad hominem attacks of fellow FReepers, they're turning OFF open minded CONSERVATIVES(1) who *May* - and/or prolly *Would* - vote for Perry if he does happen to win enough primary elections and get the nomination.(Yes Virginia, there are elections. /s)

I swear to god they are WORSE than the Rudybots were. At least those ex FReepers would admit Rooty was not perfect. But not the Texas Perrydactyls, nope. At any time I expect a Thread Posted: Today, 1:00p.m. EDT. 'Gov. Perry To Walk On Water!' And they'd BELIEVE it!

Ergo, if anyone needs to 'give it a rest' as is their usual retort, me thinks they need to follow their own advice.

(1) Many Conservatives lurk FR without signing up. They should know that.

118 posted on 09/12/2011 4:53:08 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out consevatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

“Sorry” if the gentle Condor51 was offended.


119 posted on 09/12/2011 4:55:08 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
*** “Sorry” if the gentle Condor51 was offended. ***

'Gentle' I am not. Nor am I easily offended.

However, I try not to argue with ladies. It's just not the gentlemanly thing to do. I also open doors for them and give them my seat if they're standing.

120 posted on 09/12/2011 6:00:04 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out consevatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson