FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Askold on January 09, 2016, 02:39:14 pm
-
Didn't we already have a thread for this? I seem to remember so but can't find it anymore. Anyway...
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-convention-to-amend-cons/npz2G/
“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. “The irony is the threat to our republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes in part from our very own leader.”
I would like to think that he is talking about something other than gay marriage and the (feeble attempt at) tougher gun laws, but somehow I get the feeling that those are what he has an issue with.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Abbott-calls-for-state-nullification-of-U-S-6745684.php
His plan would do a lot of things but the main point of interest is here:
Abbott's plan would allow a two-thirds majority of states to override a federal law or regulation and prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law or "creating federal law."
It would bar Congress from regulating activity that occurs just within one state; limit the federal government to powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution; and give state officials additional power to sue when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Even some Republicans open to the idea of a constitutional convention have pointed out that there is risk to the long-shot idea in that it could result in changes far beyond what those calling for it desire.
Basically, when the Federal government gets the bright idea to set up a law that some state opposes (like giving equal rights to certain people or any kind of gun regulation) then the state could choose not to uphold the law. Even though the law is a federal law.
...And as you can see from the quote people are already noticing that this kind of thing could have "unintended consequences" but I doubt any red blooded, God fearing, Texan will think that far when they get a chance to hurt the federal government and blame Obama.
-
Really, it's long past time the United States acknowledged our guilt for an old crime, and just gave Texas back to Mexico. Even if it's more about feeling ashamed of Texans, than shame over stealing Texas from Mexico in the first place.
-
Even some Republicans open to the idea of a constitutional convention have pointed out that there is risk to the long-shot idea in that it could result in changes far beyond what those calling for it desire.
Yeah, no shit.
The moment a state uses that power to do an end-run around the Citizens United v. FEC ruling and enforce their own campaign finance laws, Republicans will scream bloody murder.
-
It is incredible how effectively American conservatives have been able to imagine their own self-interest in keeping lower, less democratic wings of government powerful into a supposed principle.
There is no political issue more abstract and dull than "state's rights".
Obviously nobody actually believes in government rights. The actual principle is that black people should not have rights.
-
And Fred hits it out of the ballpark. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone in the country who jabbers about "state's rights" who really cares about the concept. It's all really "I hate blacks" or "I hate gays " or something like that, and they're just trying to dress it up in a more positive language.
-
I would argue that in this day and age of instant communication and near-instant transport, state governments are obsolete.
-
Yup. Nine times out of ten, "state's rights" just means "I should be allowed to oppress."
-
And Fred hits it out of the ballpark. I have yet to meet or hear from anyone in the country who jabbers about "state's rights" who really cares about the concept. It's all really "I hate blacks" or "I hate gays " or something like that, and they're just trying to dress it up in a more positive language.
It's the sort of thing that political scientists write interminable series of articles about, like the number of voters who can fit on the head of a pin. Except if you reckon you can dominate smaller, more local government with the loci of local power you already control (churches, big wigs, aldermen and whatnot). Then state government is the best, federal government is Stalin, and local government should be subordinate to state government. Cause you can't be too local, you know?
-
Yup. Nine times out of ten, "state's rights" just means "I should be allowed to oppress."
But Texas joined USA because of "State's rights" (and definitely not because Mexico finally realized that enslaving other human beings is a horrible thing to do and outlawing slavery.) ...And later Texas seceded from USA because of "State's rights" (and definitely not because USA finally realized that enslaving other human beings is a horrible thing to do and outlawing slavery.)
...You know, if Texas had had some balls and gone for independence rather than trying to join another big country they could have kept the slavery a lot longer. But I suppose they realized even then that despite talking the talk they can't walk the walk.
-
Other than oil, what actual resources does Texas even have? Without it, I feel like they'd just be another shit southern state like Alabama or New Mexico.
-
They've got big agriculture and of course, major beef and leather production. It's far from being all desert-y looking scrub land there. There's a substantial pine forestry biz for lumber. And tourism. Especially on the long coastal beaches of the Gulf. Texas could do quite well as an independent nation, except that those who want it that way are idiots who would run it into the ground; Redneck Republic. Giant trailer park with oil refineries.
-
Still, it makes you wonder what Texas would have become if it didn't have those massive oil reserves, since it likely boosted its economy far beyond what it could have otherwise achieved. A Texas without its Tea, hm.
-
Without oil, and run by their typical rich redneck pols, it would die down into the trailer park scenario. The presence of big oil money hides their governance flaws very well.
With competent people in place, their (things I didn't mention prior) massive aerospace/defense industry, substantial auto manufacturing plants, major seaports & general rail and truck shipping hubs, and impressive tech & communications industries could be beefed up even more to compensate for that missing oil revenue stream pretty well. It's all a pipe dream, though. I can't imagine Texas being governed competently, efficiently, and fairly enough to thrive up to it's true potential any time in the next 75 years, whether it remained a state in the union or not.
-
Without oil, and run by their typical rich redneck pols, it would die down into the trailer park scenario. The presence of big oil money hides their governance flaws very well.
With competent people in place, their (things I didn't mention prior) massive aerospace/defense industry, substantial auto manufacturing plants, major seaports & general rail and truck shipping hubs, and impressive tech & communications industries could be beefed up even more to compensate for that missing oil revenue stream pretty well. It's all a pipe dream, though. I can't imagine Texas being governed competently, efficiently, and fairly enough to thrive up to it's true potential any time in the next 75 years, whether it remained a state in the union or not.
Somehow sounds a lot like Alberta... although in many respects the Maritimes reliance on the fishery is/was quite similar.
Putting all your eggs in one basket for the win. ::)
-
Without oil, and run by their typical rich redneck pols, it would die down into the trailer park scenario. The presence of big oil money hides their governance flaws very well.
With competent people in place, their (things I didn't mention prior) massive aerospace/defense industry, substantial auto manufacturing plants, major seaports & general rail and truck shipping hubs, and impressive tech & communications industries could be beefed up even more to compensate for that missing oil revenue stream pretty well. It's all a pipe dream, though. I can't imagine Texas being governed competently, efficiently, and fairly enough to thrive up to it's true potential any time in the next 75 years, whether it remained a state in the union or not.
Somehow sounds a lot like Alberta... although in many respects the Maritimes reliance on the fishery is/was quite similar.
Putting all your eggs in one basket for the win. ::)
And as soon as you get a different basket, you threaten to throw it to the ground and run a tractor over it.
-
It's a universal problem, really. Just about any nation with a lot of land has enough natural resources to thrive if they do things carefully.
Afghanistan could be as wealthy as the Emirates if they joined the 21st century in education, worked to employ modern socioeconomic policies, and used that to learn how to survey and mine with modern efficiency. Back a few decades, the Soviets were really not there for any meaningful mission other than to try to dominate the place long enough to find strategic metal deposits, political intrigue and propaganda aside. Although the mountains and caves do make the place a natural fortress, if the Afghan fighters were not so effective at hillbilly guerilla warfare, Russia would have committed to full scale invasion and annexation.
Geologists have used satellite and seismic data along with seeing the tell tale landscape formations there to estimate that Afghanistan could easily hold some of the richest metal ore deposits in the world.
-
Afghanistan could be as wealthy as the Emirates if they joined the 21st century in education, worked to employ modern socioeconomic policies, and used that to learn how to survey and mine with modern efficiency.
There's also the small problem of foreign empires bombing the shit out of them on a regular basis. That's something the United States (and Texas for that matter) never had to worry about.
-
Which I pointed out very clearly early on using the Soviets as the example, correct?
-
Alcohol + idiots + guns is a bad mix...
I wonder how this will affect the anti-Obama rally?
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/anti-obama-march-organizer-fatally-shoots-right-wing-militant-buddy-in-drunken-dispute-over-gun/
-
Well, they can display Smith's Darwin Award amongst the Don't Tread on Me flags...You never know, but a cross country band wagon thing like that typically fizzles out, or are just small and kinda sad when they reach their destination. Takes a lot of time, brains, planning and a lot of donations to pull off a grand march on Washington. Think One Million Black Men march on Washington, which had numbers in the high hundreds of thousands gathered on the Mall. That took over a year of organizing from the get-go.
-
I didn't know where else to put this story so I decided to resurrect this thread. And it's not like we have had too many good news or funny stories so lets take a moment to appreciate the madness in this man's fear of "gay NASA space colonies." https://www.inverse.com/article/16263-texas-congressman-warns-against-gay-space-colonies-to-prevent-the-apocalypse?utm_content=inf_4_3448_2&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=jabra&utm_campaign=CMfacebook&tse_id=INF_976c86f0448511e6b82b0b827aa028d6
-
Oh hey it's Asparagus Man!