Succession movements

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
Several states have introduced bills in the last few years saying that if the Federal Government passes certain limitations on state and individual rights that it would put into question the sovereignty and freedom of said state. I know there is a big Independence movement in Texas, and there have been calls to separate from the country. There have also been bills introduced in Arizona and Montana saying that if the Federal Government meets certain requirements and infringes on state or individual rights, these bills would be passed and the states would succeed from the Union.

What do you think of this? If you do a Google search I'm sure you can find various bills introduced into the various states house of reps. It's no secret, it's just no one has reported it.

Discuss...
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#2
did you mean secession - the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity, or succession - the ascension to power by one politician or monarch after another, usually in a clearly defined order

??
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
Jeanie if you don't have something meaningful to add to this please move on and stop trying to pick a fight. It's immature.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#5
so if I disagree with you politically I can't point out that you used the wrong word?
You are knowingly trying to pick a fight over the mis-spelling of a word. It doesn't add to the topic at hand. You know exactly what I meant by this thread and you're just trying to be immature and poke fun.
 

PollyAnne

Registered Member
#6
The thread title had me scratching my head as well.:headscratch:

Now that it's been cleared up, I'll reply in a moment.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#7
With all the bailouts lately, the nanny state we've become, the erosion of personal liberties and rights, I would lean towards seceding from the nation. I live in Texas, and yeah, there is quite a bit of an independence movement here.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#8
Some states tried that once, because the federal government tried to take away the individual right to own slaves. Didn't work out too well for them.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#9
I remember seeing a poll from NH that said 13% of the population supports it. That's significant. I would think TX would have similar numbers. I can sympathize with the idea, its like CO said, the nanny state is just out of control. For example, Alaska has a desire to develop oil. All the federal land has to go through Congress for approval, which is understandable. The problem is nobody has listened to the desires of the state and instead listen to nut jobs that claim exploring will destroy various wildlife. Getting oil from state lands is easier, but still requires way too much intervention on the federal level. When did the idea "Live and let live" die? If it doesn't affect the rest of the country, who cares?

This is what happens as the scope of government grows. People in one part of the country start thinking they can tell people in the other part what to do. Its no wonder the movements are so strong.
 

Corona

Registered Member
#10
Yeah everyone is with the movement until it actually comes time to vote for it. Threatening to seceed: possibly effective political technique. Actually seceeding: not such a hot idea.