Earlier today, Bridget Johnson reported on the numerous secession petitions that have popped up on the White House’s “We The People” web site since Barack Obama’s re-election last week. Well, the Texas petition has crossed the 25,000 signature threshold requiring “White House staff action.”
The Texas petition states:
Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
We do live in interesting times. As president, Barack Obama has treated Texas as an ATM when he needs campaign cash, and a hostile power the rest of the time. The blue state model of which he is champion is failing in California, so naturally he is pushing more of that. Texans voted strongly for Mitt Romney last week and a majority are quite frustrated with the treatment our state has received over the past four years.
The White House’s petition site lists three steps for the user-generated petitions it hosts. Step 1 is to “Browse open petitions to find a petition related to your issue, and add your signature.” Step 2 says “If your issue is not currently represented by an active petition, start a new petition.” Step 3 is the kicker: “If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.” It’s obviously not legally binding. The petitions were a gimmick that the Obama White House launched to make people feel like they had a direct line to the government. The reality is that they’re little more than a gussied up online forum.
Now that 25,000 have signed the Texas petition, what will the Obama government’s response be? We don’t have a Ft. Sumter to fire on and the Alamo is a museum in the middle of downtown San Antonio.
For anyone considering signing any White House petition, I would advise against it. The one place to which there probably is a direct line is the Internal Revenue Service.
26K+ investigations? Sure, make it 100K+ and keep them real busy. Make it a quarter million, and you’ve got a news story.
“For anyone considering signing any White House petition, I would advise against it. The one place to which there probably is a direct line is the Internal Revenue Service.”
I dunno. If someone puts one up that allows San Diego to seceed from CA (or to get LA and San Fran to seceed from CA), then I don’t think I can’t sign it.
Rather amazing given that Texas has historically remained in the nations top states receiving federal subsidies across ALL private sectors econmomies and state and local governments.
As of 2006 there were a total of 1,696 kinds of federal subsidies with many more today. One would be hard pressed to find a federal subsidy that the State of Texas doesn’t receive at some level. Only maybe three or four are mandated in some way upon the states. Otherwise, it is the private industry/business and the state that must make application to the federal government for subsidy. A more simple way to state it — a subsidy must be requested!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0611-41.pdf
CATO is a far left think tank. When you look at the dollar amounts, instead of the numbers of programs, you see a different story.
Cato is an organization very proud of federal subsidies and I figured they might be the most accurate in terms of numbers. There are many sources all of which are seemingly in line with each other.
How much of those “subsidies” will Texas cover by not spending money on Federal facilities and more importantly, not sending natural resources tax money to D.C.?
A 2010 Wyoming Governor candidate figured with Money we send to D.C., we could replace all the money D.C. sends back, plus take care of our seniors that would lose social security and medicare. And have money left over. I suspect Texas will be just fine.
Forget WY as they are in no way demographically and economically comparable.
I think maybe you might be looking at federal subsidy from a very shallow point of reference. Maybe start with the house you live in when you purchased it, the water you get when you turn on the faucet, where the ‘stuff’ goes when you flush the toilet, the federal backed loans hour housing developer used to build your house and put in the streets and utilities hookups, the municpal streets you drive on, all your community small biz who used federal backed loans for startup, the downtown ‘beatification’ everybody enjoys, the electricity and gass systems servicing your community, the local airport authority, the rail systems that help supply your local stores in one equation of logistics and one down the line. We haven’t even touched on the State and the private sector industries subsidies.
This mess should have never come to happen but it was a long time ago and no state and municipality today can sustain itself without federal aid. Most states and municipalities are still barely hanging on today even with the federal assistance programs.
Yeah, but keep in mind where the Federal Government gets the money for those subsidies, and then factor in how much of it disappears into bureaucrat pockets as those subsidies trickle down to the state and local level.
It wouldn’t surprise me, regardless of what state we look at (especially in a state like New York, where there tends to be a net negative flow of cash from their state, to others), that subsidies would come out to be a wash.
If anyone is interested….
Regarding specifically the question of Texan secession, there actually was a case brought before the Supreme Court that touched on this issue (Texas vs. White).
It had to do with financial transactions, but to get to the heart of the issue they had to address secession itself since the transactions took place within the environment of secession.
The court was stacked against Texas 3 ways from Sunday, and the court was even led by a guy named Salmon Chase who just happened to have been in Lincoln’s cabinet during the war and was a strong pro-union politician (I’m sure that didn’t prejudice his opinion… /s), and coming only a few years after the bloodbath of the Civil War (1868) it’s not like they were going to have an Emily Latilla moment and say “Never mind…”, but they still had to put themselves into a pretzel to arrive at the pre-ordained conclusion they wanted which was that Texas never legally or constitutionally seceded.
In referencing the right of secession by a state within the verdict however, there is this one little tidbit that is interesting:
“There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
So, there are apparently two ways the supreme court precedent would agree that Texas could secede.
They could either do it violently through force of arms, and as long as they succeeded then it would be legitimate – or it could be with the consent of the States (which is kind of ridiculous considering that the Confederate States had to be allowed to “rejoin” the union – if they had never actually left how could they “rejoin”???)
Obviously the effort via force of arms during the Civil War failed during the mid-19th century – but how about by consent of the states now?
The procedure for joining the union is that the would be state has to petition congress. Then draft a constitution. Then congress has to approve adding the state by a simple majority vote, and then the president signs the bill that congress passes bringing the territory into the union as a state.
If you turn this on it’s head, then the reverse would be – to stay within Salmon Chase’s verdict – the state governments would express an official intent to secede and would petition congress to leave the union, the congress would have to vote a simple majority to allow it, and the president would have to agree to sign it.
I would assume that if it is treated like any other act of congress, that if the president chooses not to sign it or vetoes it, then congress can take another vote and override him – basically overriding a veto.
At that point, it’s logical that the state is on it’s own and no longer a part of the United States. It also means that the president has no leverage to order federal law enforcement or federal military forces to bring the state back into the union as it was a congressionally approved action. The military would have to be picking which branch of government had authority over the matter. The president is commander-in-chief, but congress reflects (sometimes) the will the people.
If the states really did want to secede, the smart way to do it would for all of the states that want to secede to join together as a voting block within congress, bring in enough other states via horse trading to pass a bill allowing for secession by that list of states, addressing issues such as federal properties/military assets/financial issues/etc. in the process, and then sending that bill to the president for his signature.
If he doesn’t sign it or vetoes it, then that voting block needs to make sure they have enough votes to override his veto and pass the bill into law anyway.
As it stands, the states on that petition list total 183 votes in the House of Representatives. There are a total of 435 representatives. This means they only need 35 more votes in the House of Representatives to pull this off.
Granted, these petitions are all started by individual citizens and not state legislatures – but if they were really serious about it….
Oops. That should have been a stand alone comment and not a response….
“but how about by consent of the states now?”
Hey — how about voting California off the island?
@ Abbie Normal -
Ya know, at first I was laughing over that idea too, but then I got to thinking.
California has also added itself to the list, and I believe there are (as of today) 39 states that have citizens petitioning to peacefully secede.
If the representatives in the House of Representatives of all of those states actually voted as a block, and if the senators of all 39 states also voted as a block, the president would have zero argument for forcing those states to remain within the union.
While each state would have to measure their own reasons for seceding, perhaps the wise latina socialists in that state could be persuaded to vote as such if they believed they had a chance to restore that state to Mexico – or perhaps start assembling their version of their mythical Aztlan?
Hey, it could happen…lol….
Amazing we are the worlds 15th largest economy and therefore contribute greatly to the the all knowing and all benoveolent feral govment thus get our mere pittance back minus of course the mafia fee.
So may I assume that you are in favor of the president granting this petititon and forwarding it to congress for action and approval since Texans are so obviously (in your opinion) lazy and a drain on the national treasure?
Imagine if we could just get rid of all of those freeloaders not carrying their own weight – why, I bet it would be most of that lazy ol’ South!
It may be time for me to look into Texan real estate….unless of course more of these petitions are successful since NC is also currently petitioning to secede.
Just a personal obsrvation. Seems to me that entertaining (A) states secession is asking for a death wish. Now if there were some continuity in a number of adjoining states to form a good sized region and economy then maybe. Otherwise, a single state that is enjoying some economic success becomes a destination point for a huge transient population. How do you control the point alone? If you’re old enough to reference California then you will understand my point. How well off is Californina and its many muncipalities doing today? One may think that the abundance of natural resources would equate to some great position of power. It wouldn’t! The state of Texas ranked as the worlds 15th largest economy relies in large part on U.S. markets and economic institutions.
Then try blueprinting the political, economic, social, defense and financial institutions and infrastructure necessary for a free standing nation to function in a global economy.
Keep up with current events, pal.
Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Both Carolinas and Florida.
Who would be fooling who about Mississippi and Alabama?
Heck, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon are all petitioning,(maybe God knows why, and then again, ,aybe he doesn’t)
West Virginia won’t stay,(which, depending on how Virginia goes, might bring up the interesting possibility of West Virginia joining the New Confederacy while Virginia stays Union).
That’s a big chunk of territory by anyone’s measure.
LOL! I’m on the sucession bandwagon all the time as a matter of frustration relief but theres that little matter of the constitution and practicality. Untill victors in another all out civil war just ain’t gonna happen pal.
Theres are more simple solutions to sucesssion. The states mount a warfront of sorts for the return of the literal intent of the 10th amendment and a literal reading of the intent of the commerce clause and of course the states, municipalities and private sector economies rejecting ALL government subsidies. If the will of a majority of the people cannot pass these tests then forget all the bantering of sucession.
The majority of the people in ALL states are willing socialized and just get grumpy from time to time at the cost of their will. Take note of the majority polls across America that are in favor of taxing the ‘haves’ more and receiving themselves more from those tax increases. How many people you know who are fighting for the end of employer mandated welfare benefits for employees? How many people do you know who want to give up social security? How many people do you know who want to give up their medicare? How many states and people do you know who want to give up educational welfare? How many companies you know of who want to give up their R&D welfare to include the energy magnates? How many people do you know who want to give up FDIC welfare for their bank accounts? Whew! I haven’t even got started yet!
I’m on the side of your frustrations just not your solutions to them.
Sigh…that would be secession, not succession.
At any rate, if the list you gave were correctly implemented with all of the ramifications that entailed, in my opinion there would be no need to secede at that point.
“. How many people you know who are fighting for the end of employer mandated welfare benefits for employees? How many people do you know who want to give up social security? How many people do you know who want to give up their medicare? How many states and people do you know who want to give up educational welfare? How many companies you know of who want to give up their R&D welfare to include the energy magnates? How many people do you know who want to give up FDIC welfare for their bank accounts? Whew! I haven’t even got started yet!”
I would give all of that up, becuase I wouldn’t be “giving up” anything at all.
Once more in these pages, let me relate my home-baked “Bum Theory of Social Spending”
If I give a bum a $20 bill, I’m out $20 and the bum has a double sawbuck.
If I give a guy a $20 bill towards a charity, I should reasonably expect that he would keep half the booty. So I’m out twenty, the guy I gave the cash to is up ten, and the bum gets 10 dollars.
Now people who can coax 20 dollar bills from complete strangers, for any reason, have what is called a “marketable skill”, and it isn’t cost-effective to have them dispensing largesse to bums, so the charity “face” will partner himself with a bum collector.
So that $20 I gave to the guy, he keeps $10, and then gives $10 to the bum collector, who keeps half of what HE gets, and then because one bum is not a “collection” but rather a “pet”, he gives the half that remains to at least two bums.
The upshot is that I’m out twenty, two bums get $2.50 cents apiece, and two dirtbags between us get $15.00.
To my mind, that’s really all you need to know about “social spending”.
With a secession, there’s a chance that I could give that bum a crisp $10 bill, saving myself 10 dollars, and increasing the bum’s take by 7 and a half bucks.
What’s the downside?
We make a bloated Federal bureaucracy and its dependent class unemployed? (Or not, since they will be Somebody Else’s Problem).
Works for me…
I don’t believe any of the former USSR states underwent a “death wish”, and they manifestly were facing a much more dangerous situation since they were dealing with a central government that was more than willing to commit open genocide in the recent past while bordering on some very nasty neighbors at the same time the USSR was imploding.
On the contrary, I would say that an independent Republic of Texas should be able to enjoy the same trading practices that all the rest of US trading partners enjoy – especially since they would not be an aggressive neighbor engaged in cross border mischief, would speak the same language, have a common legal heritage regarding contract law, and have products and services we would want (manufacturing, tourism, oil, shipping, etc.).
So, I guess it depends on what one considers a “death wish”.
**Sigh** You picked some real winners to showcase. Not one of them can sustain themselves much beyond a 3rd world nation. The western world pours hundreds of millions into most of them and most clammer to join NATO for militray defense.
That aside, Texas or any other state would not have even the independent financial infrastructure needed to become a independent player. Europe formed the EU trying to save themselves in a global economy. Most nations other than China has not risen to any great status in the global economy. Take a close look at all of them and see how they’re doing on all fronts to include their domestic socio-economic success.
It always makes for great discussion but simply is not practical beyond shallow thinking.
You have to consider where they started at – the old USSR was never that much better than a third world country to start with. That, plus they had to go from a command and control centralized economy under socialism to capitalism from scratch.
I’d say they did pretty well for a while, even though Russia is very busy trying to reassemble the old USSR even if they don’t actually call it that. Like I said, they have some very nasty neighbors to contend with.
Surely you would not suggest that the US would militarily invade a newly independent Texas. :-O
Part of the local lore I picked up while living in Texas ( Diamond Lil’s in Houston)
was that Texas NEVER completed the process for becoming a state and legally it was still a territory. Statehood was considered a polite fiction.
If enough States want secession there will be serious problems. The Regular army isn’t big enough to do the job. That means a draft. What will the anti-war crowd that fears fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan say about fighting in Texas or Alabama? What will wall street do? Unlike 1860, the secession States actually have both Military assets and the money to get more. Both sides will have nukes, which will either keep things from getting wild and wooly or make them worse.
Not only is the Regular Army too small to bring Texas and other mid American states to heel, but 90% of the elite fighting troops in our military would join the Mid American Republic
National Defense wouldn’t be an issue, Texas is a strong firearms ownership state…. Just about every household would be able to back up the National Guard with an already trained Civilian Militia. I’d be a proponent that Texas would be able to “nationalize” all federal facilities and property…. then, we’d have our own space program!
More interesting would be that with the current state of our favorable business and tax climate, would be how many companies would seek to go “off shore” to Texas.
Just one thing from me – with all due respect to our hosts – can we making deporting most of our attorneys, rattlesnakes, and mosquitos a condition of succession?
“Just one thing from me – with all due respect to our hosts – can we making deporting most of our attorneys, rattlesnakes, and mosquitos a condition of succession?”
Sorry, you have to keep your own politicians…lol.
(And…ah…I think you meant to say secession. But yeah, we get your point.)
Good luck, Texas.
Hang on a few and y’all will have company.
The biggest stumbling block to secession is…Texas. I don’t see other states joining it because we’d just be trading “left-wing arrogant know-it-alls” for “right-wing arrogant know-it-alls”. Good luck and all that.
“…swear to defend the Constitution of the United Sates against all enemies both foreign and domestic…”
When the CIC and the executive branches are perceived as an enemies of the Constitution what happens?
The White House will ignore the petition, or scoff at it as the just desserts that whites and/or conservatives deserve. And pethaps they should at this stage, at least publicly. And I would urge Texans to do nothing more than talk of the foundations and principles of representative government, and what government should be, and not be.
I myself have grave doubts as to the ruling class in Texas–my guess is that a lot of “good ole boy” cronyism goes on in the hinterland, and that needs to be addressed. There is also the issue of guaranteeing the basic natural law rights of all factions in a republic, not just those of a majority.
Having said that, if Texas does make a play of it, my guess would be that it has my sword. Thank God for Texas.
I would also remind folks that, in my opinion, where the Confederacy lost the war was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter. Absent such a firing, there would have been a standoff akin to that between Mexico and Texas 1836-46. Perhaps a U.S.-C.S.A. border war would have erupted a few years after 1861–most likely–and perhaps it would have evolved into something basically like the 1861-65 war. But, the fact is that the South fired first, was in the wrong therefore (beyond being wrong on its cause, that is), united the North enough to enable Lincoln to prosecute the war, and lost accordingly.
The great turning point of the Civil War was Antietam or Vicksburg. The great turning point of American history in the 19th century was the firing on Fort Sumter, for it framed the conflict. This is a good lesson to heed, regardless if we can rejoice in the defeat of the slaveocracy.
Make them fire first.
I would also say this–if Barack Obama can claim a mandate to transform the nation based upon a 52.9% majority in 2008 and 50.6% in 2012, including a time period where he lost in 2010 the branch closest to the people, the House, and where the people reaffirmed that decision in 2012, then I think if that is what we are going call a mandate to fundamentally transform things, then a 57% majority in Texas with all branches of government firmly and consistently going one way is a mandate for Texans to fundamentally change things too, if they desire.
I would normally disagree on either percentage being sufficient, but I believe the side with the smaller majority is acting first, so I won’t quibble.
26,000 people not paying income tax would certainly raise an eyebrow.
260,000 or perhaps 2,600,000 would be quite something else indeed. Better expand Guantanamo, SCOAMF.
While I agree that this petition website run by the White House is nothing more than a glorified forum of sorts, and I suspect that the response from the Bamster will be either a simple one word “No” or a tortured lesson in logic as to why it can’t happen, I do hold that this action can have a legitimate purpose.
It is a way of publicly announcing intentions in a way that now cannot be ignored – much in the same way the Dclaration of Independence and Martin Luther’s letter cannot be ignored.
If done correctly, it allows for the opportunity to lay out in cold dispassionate terms in a very public forum the issues dividing a certain state/people and the federal government, announces the extents to which the people have gone to redress those greivances, and arrives at the public conclusion that the only option left is to go their own ways – and to do so via individuals or legislatures that are clearly entitled to speak on behalf of the people.
IMO, the petittions I’ve read online so far don’t approach that level……yet.
Starting to see this pick up steam among my shooting sports cronies on Facebook – this might make a fun News Cycle. At the very least, it makes Carney’s press conferences a bit awkward.
Wait – that means we can close our borders! Let’s hurry up before my good for nothing brother in law and his semi criminal and mooching kids move back from California!…..
Sorry, this shouldn’t be for personal gain should it?
I understand that the petitions were promoted by various individuals, not the states concerned. There is even one from New York. That sort of stuff, along with demands that President Obama be impeached (not even the Republican Congress is likely to pass a bill of impeachment and were it to do so the Democrat Senate would laugh at it and not come close to convicting) is a distraction from how either to pull the Republican Party together as a conservative entity or else to find an alternative. Can we afford to waste time on that sort of thing?
The useful thing is not the petition themselves, but in getting people to understand the universe of the historically possible, as well as the difficulties that are often associated with attempting to obtain those possibilities.
In 1763 the idea of one day not being English was ludicrous. And yet 1775 happened.
On the other hand, in 1861 to conquer the South the North had to invade and control more territory than anyone in the West had since the Romans. The very idea seemed preposterous. By two years later the war had been essentially lost in the West, and the odds are the South never really had a chance to win at all–from day one.
Nothing is ever certain. What is needed now is for people to start reflecting deeply and truly on what the government of the United States is supposed to be about, and what the United States is supposed to be about. I support these petition writers and signers because they are not letting tactical electoral decisions limit what they think is doable in this world of man. Good, because it isn’t. David Axelrod and MSM water-carrying are of absolutely no use against a citizenry taking it to a different level. Something more would be required, of a boots-on-the-ground nature. Said requirement might easily be met–but getting Candy Crowley to run interference for you is not going to cut it, and Joe Biden might find someone interrupting him. Forcefully.
We are years away from such things–but we need to start the conversation. Myself, I’ve seen the Left in action enough. If Texas goes one day and wishes for newcomers who might not see everything eye to eye, but aren’t going to try to “improve the breed” (well, at least not by stealth), I’m there.
Looking at some newspaper reports this morning–as expected, this entire business given the short shrift. Just ignorant “clingers”. And in some respects, the charge is true. There has also been the charge of “white people can’t get along with anyone else”. Which is not true, for the counter-question is why can’t others not incessantly make demands on the public fisc? Lack of any innate ability to prosper on their own?
Having said all the above, I do understand the short shrift given, even if I know full well it all to often applies to the right. Right now this might ge nothing more than large scale venting.
What is needed now, more than anything, is intellectual heft. Things such as asking upon what great natural law principle can someone move where they wish and demand what they wish–at someone else’s expense? We must read deeply. I do not ever expect to gain the first consideration from journalists–they have dismissed us already, all the while agonizing and sympathizing over the incredibly “profound” (i.e., stereotyped) concerns brought forth by the Occupier movement. But, I wish to be able to justify my actions and motivations to posterity, and earn their respect, even if I cannot have Jim Galloway’s.
I would like to also humbly point out that if it had been a similiar number of those more societally favored signing a petition over a grievance they had, it would most likely be seen as the epitome of the American spirit and something to which “attention must be paid”.
The Michigan petition to secede is up to 12,900 as of this morning. Yep, I signed it, and I signed the one to recount the national vote, too. I know it’s just a sham from the WH, but I went ahead and got an account so I could sign it anyway. I figure they already know who I am from Facebook. So put me in a camp. I’m scared.
Actually what I’m REALLY scared about is the spineless GOP refusal to demand an investigation and recount, in the face of all the voter fraud that is being reported. Allen West is the only republican I know who has any balls (aside from Sarah Palin, and she didn’t run this fall). obama stole this election, and we know it, and NOBODY is doing a thing about it. If our votes can be stolen and manipulated, and nobody seems to care, this country is done.
These seccesion petitions are The People, in some quantity speaking out in an available, easily reachable forum.
Barry has thoughtfully opened the door for this activity and Americans of many stripes are more than happy to use what is publicized, and available to them.
They’re giving him a message, even though in His Insular Little Utopia he ain’t going to give this stuff 30 seconds of His ever-so-valuable time.
We’re ‘the enemy’, ‘bitter clingers’, and ‘Teabaggers’, remember? You and I are essentially invisible and amount to nothing.
His administation armed his police force with Bean Bag rounds and called it ‘good enough’ . Brian Terry died over that and the family didn’t get an apology until it came to light they Had Not received one. This was {to me at least} evidence that ‘some deaths’ would be tolerated for Progressivism’s Advance.The beginnings of A Dialectic, of sorts
Now, we see Benhazi/Stevens/The Benghazi Three. Four more have perished, and the obfuscation and lying in real-time accelerate.
When it suits ‘Them’ they are proving, by their actions, that they WILL sacrifice anyone for their goals. They allowed ‘Their Own’ to be Murdered, and threw up walls to shield their malfeasanse.
You, The Citizen, are not even in Their[self-appointed] League. Essentially, you count for nothing,… Nada,… Zip.
They thought the TEA Party was Extreme? Look for Edition 2.0 to commence in short order. They are doing this to themselves [Via: Unintended Consequences] and we should be happy beyond measure this kind of Beginning is occurring.
A Million here and A Million there, and pretty soon you got something……..
#################################################################################
#################################################################################
Anceiant Atlantis,Anceiant egept,3 1/2.missing agreeed indviduals two females dad and grand parents in expired theshold syestem.