TexasCHLforum.com

OldSchool wrote:What are the odds of a(nother) sham vote?

I'm not sure. The story is the headline on Drudge this morning and there obviously was a lot of pressure on Perry to include the bill in the special session. That it has made it this far means that it is very visible to a large enough group of people. I'm not sure that sham votes are going to work for those folks.

That said, the man who confronted Perry at a book signing, according to Drudge, is an 9/11 Truther. That gives this matter a weird combination of supporters since the local Tea Parties have been all over it, too.

Scott in Houston wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: For a historical perspective, however, the slide against States rights has gone on for a very long time. In spite of commonly held beliefs, the Civil War was about States rights and slavery just happened to be one of the issues under that topic. We all know how that turned out.

Love the rest of your post, but have to jump on this. Your statement shows what I believe is a southern myth about states rights.
It was first and foremost about slavery. States rights just happened to go along for the ride. (the other way around from your comment)

If it was truly *only* or *first and foremost* about states rights, then why couldn't a state in the Confederate States elect to ban slavery? They couldn't. Under the Confederate Constitution, slavery was required/mandated. No states rights there... They were all about ensuring the continuation of slavery. The whole process began even before Lincoln came into office just because they feared his anti-slavery point of view. Taxation and other states rights issues jumped on board after it began and was spawned by slavery.

I believe the real myth is the belief that the war was primarily about states rights. I think that belief of this myth is spawned from the fact that it's hard for us from the South to believe our ancestors would actually support and fight over such an evil practice, but the sad truth is, they did.

I want to drag out some of my Civil War research. I'm pretty sure that I read something pretty close to what I posted. It may, indeed, be a myth.

As far as any Confederate State not being able to outlaw slavery, I don't dispute your comments. But, as you pointed out, that was part of that Constitution. There was no question but that slavery was a rallying cry for the South because many did believe that its abolition would kill their economy. As today, the political leaders of the time where not going to permit opposition among the Confederate States for such a crucial matter.

Over the years, the US has done many deplorable things, slavery foremost among them. Our treatment of the Native Americans and those of Japanese decent during WWII are more examples. I can only hope that we've learned for these breaches of human decency.

baldeagle wrote:I never thought I'd see the day when Remember the Alamo became a question instead of a battle cry.

That is a really sad statement.


For a historical perspective, however, the slide against States rights has gone on for a very long time. In spite of commonly held beliefs, the Civil War was about States rights and slavery just happened to be one of the issues under that topic. We all know how that turned out.

The largest problem = the largest problem. The sheer size and growth of the Federal bureaucracy in the past 75 years makes it all but impossible for any single State to resist, no matter how well intentioned. The current administration would like nothing better than trying to cut Texas down to size by suspending all flights for defying their edicts. Our government has eroded from the rule of law to the rule of political might.

The sad part is there is no champion of States rights in the political arena. This past Texas legislative session shows that ideology trumps political party and the problem is even worse within Federal politics. Both parties are happy to swap control back and forth with the election cycles but neither cares a wit about achieving a balance of power between the Federal government and the powers that the States were originally supposed to have according to the US Constitutions.

I once saw a cartoon where a small mouse was issuing his single digit gesture of defiance as a bald eagle with full wingspan and talons exposed swoops in on him. Unfortunately, that cartoon is fatalistically true on this issue.

Now, for the record, was the Texas statute going to be in conflict with Federal LAW or Federal POLICY? There is a difference. I haven't followed what TSA has been doing to determine if the specifics of its actions were spelled out by the Congress or whether TSA was making up and acting upon its own procedures. If it is procedure, it is driven from the Executive branch and, as far as I understand, they enforce law but they cannot make it.

Of course, the same could be said about the Judiciary and you see how well we are doing with that.