Texas, Five Other States Considering Secession

[Diogenes]

It's also not prosecutable by the state of Texas, being a civil claim.

-Sam

Its right to transact business in Texas can be revoked.

[Sam]

Its right to transact business in Texas can be revoked.

On what basis?

You've managed to argue yourself into the position that the State, without legal predicate, can launch an investigation into a journalistic organization because that organization described legal actions it took to produce a result on a private company's web site, embarrassing that company's owner. And it can do so for the purpose of revoking that organization's business license without even first having an existing judicial ruling against the organization.

The State, in other words, can pester the enemies of its wealthy business partners, acting as the lackeys-in-waiting of modern-day Henry the Seconds who wail "Who will rid us of these troublesome priests?!"

Small government!

-Sam

[Diogenes]

On what basis?

You've managed to argue yourself into the position that the State, without legal predicate, can launch an investigation into a journalistic organization because that organization described legal actions it took to produce a result on a private company's web site, embarrassing that company's owner. And it can do so for the purpose of revoking that organization's business license without even first having an existing judicial ruling against the organization.

The State has the right, privilege, and obligation to ensure 501c3 organizations operate within the confines for 501c3 activities.

Deliberate manipulation of an algorithm with the intent to cause economic harm is not journalism.

Administrative practices do not fall within the confines of the judicial system. Musk could simply register a complaint and the State can investigate.

Small government!

-Sam

Find where I have advocated for such.

[Starlight]

It's ironic that the left keeps trying to categorize the right as "authoritarian" and "anti-democracy" when in fact, one of our core principals is LESS government is better. We support limited government, while the left supports more government control.

Sparko, it's one of the basic principles of politics 101 that conservatives tend to want more government control than liberals.

Consider the basic differences between liberalism and conservatism as they exist currently in the US:
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on whether women can have abortions, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can enter the country, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what substances someone can smoke / take, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can get married to each other (same sex marriage), liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what changes people can medically make to their bodies (transgenderism), what bathrooms they can enter, and what sports teams they can compete on, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
etc.

[Sam]

The State has the right, privilege, and obligation to ensure 501c3 organizations operate within the confines for 501c3 activities.

Deliberate manipulation of an algorithm with the intent to cause economic harm is not journalism.

Administrative practices do not fall within the confines of the judicial system. Musk could simply register a complaint and the State can investigate.



Find where I have advocated for such.

Musk can file a complaint in court; there is no legal mechanism for Musk to petition the state to investigate a journalistic organization because it used legal means to publish a critical story. The state obviously can do so, in a practical sense, but "The state should serve at the interest of its wealthiest citizens and pursue vendettas against news outlets" is a little passé, I'd argue.

If you're not following the thread of Paxton's retaliatory investigation being an example of how Republicans are not "small government", I will remind you of such. If you want to continue helping to make that point, by all means.

-Sam

[Starlight]

...return power to the states.

I feel obliged to remind you of the time that sentiment reached its peak in US history. Many people were upset when the federal government restricted their freedom to own slaves. People wanting freedom from the tyranny of federal government in that way, was so they could freely own slaves.

The connection you draw between 'freedom' and power being returned to the states, is historically about the freedom to own slaves. It was not about a net increase in freedom, but rather a decrease in it (slavery), where some people used their own freedom from government regulation to subjugate others to the unspeakable horrors of slavery.

Stop interfering with our constitutional freedoms like free speech and religion.

I'm struggling to work out what you're thinking of here... the religious freedom to force all classrooms to have commandments from a certain religion on the wall??

[Diogenes]

Musk can file a complaint in court; there is no legal mechanism for Musk to petition the state to investigate a journalistic organization because it used legal means to publish a critical story.

The story was deceptive and caused economic harm, not merely critical.

The state obviously can do so, in a practical sense, but "The state should serve at the interest of its wealthiest citizens and pursue vendettas against news outlets" is a little passé, I'd argue.

Both parties abuse the State. As Trump noted against HRC, Dems have used the State to help wealthy citizens.

Perhaps you missed how the State went after the Laptop story and how Obama's IRS went after conservatives.

If you're not following the thread of Paxton's retaliatory investigation being an example of how Republicans are not "small government", I will remind you of such. If you want to continue helping to make that point, by all means.

-Sam

Republicans have never been "small government". You seem to think I care about Republicans. Your only interest is "see, look what Republicans are doing". A response:

You only care because of "(R)" next to the name.

[Diogenes]

I feel obliged to remind you of the time that sentiment reached its peak in US history. Many people were upset when the federal government restricted their freedom to own slaves. People wanting freedom from the tyranny of federal government in that way, was so they could freely own slaves.

The connection you draw between 'freedom' and power being returned to the states, is historically about the freedom to own slaves. It was not about a net increase in freedom, but rather a decrease in it (slavery), where some people used their own freedom from government regulation to subjugate others to the unspeakable horrors of slavery.

I'm struggling to work out what you're thinking of here... the religious freedom to force all classrooms to have commandments from a certain religion on the wall??

Very nice guilt by association.

[Diogenes]

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on whether women can have abortions, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Liberals also don't want to extend federal protections to abortion survivors. To frame this as conservatives would, they want to extend rights and protections to more people. Are more rights a bad thing? After the 1st Trimester, I would agree to extending certain protections but the Left wants to allow abortion up to birth and even partial birth.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can enter the country, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

This would include the Left want to allow terrorists to be able to enter the country. Of course, this is all to increase the Left's voter base.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what substances someone can smoke / take, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Leftists also do this with things like sugar tax. These are also harmful substances.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can get married to each other (same sex marriage), liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Leftists are more concerned about destroying the family than carrying about same sex "marriage". I take it you think brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry, since you want fewer restrictions.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what changes people can medically make to their bodies (transgenderism),

Mostly children seeing as they are incompetent to consent. The Left is also against people taking mediocre like ivermectin.

what bathrooms they can enter,

To deal with perverts. Women shouldn't have to worry about a man coming into the bathroom.

and what sports teams they can compete on,

To give women a space where they can be competitive and not be outclassed by a man who can go from 400 something place to 1st.

liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.
etc.

Mostly gaslighting on par with just essentially deregulation that the Left is always complaining about.

[Sam]

The story was deceptive and caused economic harm, not merely critical.




Both parties abuse the State. As Trump noted against HRC, Dems have used the State to help wealthy citizens.

Perhaps you missed how the State went after the Laptop story and how Obama's IRS went after conservatives.



Republicans have never been "small government". You seem to think I care about Republicans. Your only interest is "see, look what Republicans are doing". A response:

You only care because of "(R)" next to the name.

Going to suggest that making up 501(c)(3) rules for why retaliatory state investigations are justified and referencing a >decade-old conspiracy that was debunked years ago to make accusations of partisanship do not showcase the sort of even-mindedness that necessarily undergirds this sort of "givin' the high-hat" effort.

-Sam

[Starlight]

Liberals also don't want to extend federal protections to abortion survivors. To frame this as conservatives would, they want to extend rights and protections to more people. Are more rights a bad thing? After the 1st Trimester, I would agree to extending certain protections but the Left wants to allow abortion up to birth and even partial birth.

This would include the Left want to allow terrorists to be able to enter the country. Of course, this is all to increase the Left's voter base.

Leftists also do this with things like sugar tax. These are also harmful substances.

Leftists are more concerned about destroying the family than carrying about same sex "marriage". I take it you think brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry, since you want fewer restrictions.

Mostly children seeing as they are incompetent to consent. The Left is also against people taking mediocre like ivermectin.

To deal with perverts. Women shouldn't have to worry about a man coming into the bathroom.

To give women a space where they can be competitive and not be outclassed by a man who can go from 400 something place to 1st.

Mostly gaslighting on par with just essentially deregulation that the Left is always complaining about.

I don't disagree that conservatives can come up with arguments as to why they want more government intervention (though I think they are poor arguments), the simple fact is that when considering conservatives vs liberals the conservatives want more government intervention on more issues.

Across the board in the culture wars, as I outlined, the liberal position is almost always that the thing should be left up to the individual to decide, and the conservative position is almost always that the government should mandate a particular choice and prohibit the individual making that particular choice.

[rogue06]

Sparko, it's one of the basic principles of politics 101 that conservatives tend to want more government control than liberals.

As a libertarian I think both liberals and conservatives want too much regulation and control. But in the current climate to assert that conservatives want more government control than does the left is at best a joke.

Here in the U.S. conservatives are generally, albeit slowly, finally actually trying to reduce the size and scope of government which is the polar opposite of seeking to increase control.

Moreover, speaking of basic principles of politics 101, anyone seeking to increase government will also try to consolidate it as much as possible, rather than seek to de-centralize it.

Consider the basic differences between liberalism and conservatism as they exist currently in the US:
- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on whether women can have abortions, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Trying to preserve innocent lives from death isn't exactly an intrusive expanse of government, particularly now that many of those on the left want at the very least abortion up to birth (partial birth abortion), to "after-birth" abortion (straight-forward, undisguised infanticide)

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can enter the country, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

So, how restrictive is immigration in such liberal wunderland as New Zealand? I understand that fairly low limits for applicants from most countries was already an issue and that y'all have cracked down and tightened restrictions and introduced both language and skill criteria.

With our borders being overrun and cities being overwhelmed, at least for now conservative positions regarding the border seem to be viewed far more favorably than the current ones.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what substances someone can smoke / take, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Except when liberals are telling you that you can't get a soft drink in over 16 oz.

Funny how so many of those who call themselves pro-choice in reality wants to control every facet of your life from what you drive, to what you eat and drink, to what you wear, to even to the type of lightbulbs you can use.

Like outlawing restaurants from serving plastic straws and forcing them to provide paper ones that not only get soggy quickly, they also come in a plastic wrapper...
And it's basically a libertarian position regarding legalizing drugs, although Gallup found that, at least with regard to "left-handed Winstons" (marijuana/cannabis) a majority of Republicans favor some form of legalization while Pew found it was slightly under.

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on who can get married to each other (same sex marriage), liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

While you can always find someone pleased to talk to a reporter who is still upset over gay marriage, AFAICT, most conservatives don't have any issues over it. What get's them upset is when someone seeks out a church and tries to force them conduct a gay wedding and things like that

- Conservatives want more government prohibitions on what changes people can medically make to their bodies (transgenderism), what bathrooms they can enter, and what sports teams they can compete on, liberals want fewer such government prohibitions.

Were wanting fewer government prohibitions supposed to include supporting irreversible medical procedures for young children while keeping the parents in the dark?

In reality, virtually nobody got upset about drag queens and trans genders. There had been several shows on cable TV about them. In reality RuPaul et al. were becoming passé.

What changed is when some of them started insisting on some sort of "right" to read stories to young children while all dressed up which often resulted in a performance reserved for adult establishments. Yet another thing nobody really cared about, including conservatives as long as they followed zoning ordinances just like other similar establishments. They might not care for them but nobody was raising a fuss.

That and biological males, with all the advantages of that biology, entering into athletic competitions that was specifically set aside for girls and women, tends to upset the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship.

Last year, Gallup found that even among Democrats about half think that athletes should play on teams that match their biological sex, which up from 41% in 2021.

So this is not exactly a "conservative" view nor can favoring allowing anyone to compete in whatever group they identify with be said to be "liberal" given that half of them oppose the idea.

etc.

Indeed, but not in the way you mean...

Those who like to declare how pro-choice they are are often the same people who don't tolerate much "choice" that doesn't match their own personal convictions

Also Health Care, Beverage Size, Straws, Wearing Fur, SUVs, and as you said, "etc."...

[Terraceth]

I am curious about people's views on the idea of secession itself.

It seems to me that the US states could probably be sensibly split up into 3-5 separate countries, and the resulting countries would be happier as a result. But, I judge that the institutional inertia against such a split is so strong that it's just not going to happen. (e.g. there's no mechanism in the law & constitution to allow a split)

The most plausible initial secessions would seem to be Texas (maybe plus a few red states nearish it), or California (maybe plus a few blue states nearish it).

The only Supreme Court to opine on the legality of secession topic was Texas v. White. This case was concerning whether Texas bond sales during the Civil War were legal. The decision of the Supreme Court essentially was that Texas and the rest of the Confederacy had never actually left the United States because they couldn't leave the United States in such a manner:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

So essentially, the only way out of the United States for a state once you join it is through "revolution or through consent of the States". Technically they tried revolution, but that ended up not working out. So basically, according to the Supreme Court, you can secede from the US only by successful revolution or by convincing the other states to let you leave, though it didn't exactly specify exactly what the requirements for "consent of the States" are (would just passing a federal law be enough?).

As for the general topic, we've constantly had at least some states "considering" secession, but things don't come of it and I don't see much reason to think these current considerings are any different.

[Terraceth]

I feel obliged to remind you of the time that sentiment reached its peak in US history. Many people were upset when the federal government restricted their freedom to own slaves. People wanting freedom from the tyranny of federal government in that way, was so they could freely own slaves.

People could freely own slaves; the federal government hadn't done much of anything to restrict it in the Southern states. The controversy was over the expansion of slave power, with the Republicans having a platform on prohibiting slavery in the territories or admitting any new slave states, but not doing anything to the states that did have slavery (they hadn't actually done any of it yet, though, before the secession started up). I suppose the platform would be a restriction on slavery, but it isn't really about states' rights because these restrictions were aimed at territories and potential states, not current states.

The connection you draw between 'freedom' and power being returned to the states, is historically about the freedom to own slaves. It was not about a net increase in freedom, but rather a decrease in it (slavery), where some people used their own freedom from government regulation to subjugate others to the unspeakable horrors of slavery.

I don't agree with this. The states having a lot of power and states' rights weren't invented by the South in regards to slavery; these were a major part of the country from day 1. States' rights were a huge issue during the framing and ratification of the Constitution, and even before it. The 13 states were willing to join together in a new country, but none of them were particularly interested in giving up much power to do so. This strong desire for states' rights led to the Articles of Confederation, which left the federal government pitifully weak and barely able to function, so the Constitution was an attempt to make the federal government more powerful and able to actually govern properly. There was strong resistance to the government gaining more power over the states (again, states' rights) which is why the Constitution, even while empowering the federal government, still tried to leave a lot of power to states. This did in some cases involve slavery (e.g. forbidding the federal government from banning the slave trade until 1808), but this hesitancy to give more power to the federal government was a factor in even states where slavery was either not particularly important or had been abolished (e.g. Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783, but still only narrowly ratified the Constitution at 187 to 168).

Indeed, states' rights were exactly why the Bill of Rights was passed to begin with. The Bill of Rights was not made to apply to state law (that was done by the later 14th Amendment). Their purpose was to further constrain the federal government from interfering with the states; for example, multiple states had state churches. When the First Amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" the point was to prevent Congress from overruling the decisions of the individual states about their state churches (or lack thereof).

The phrase "states' rights" might have been tarnished by the Civil War, but for better or for worse, it still remains a cornerstone of the way the US government is set up and would have been that way even if every state in the country had agreed to abolish slavery right after the Civil War.

[Diogenes]

I don't disagree that conservatives can come up with arguments as to why they want more government intervention (though I think they are poor arguments), the simple fact is that when considering conservatives vs liberals the conservatives want more government intervention on more issues.

Changing Title IX to force schools to allow men compete in women's sports is hardly less intervention.

Across the board in the culture wars, as I outlined, the liberal position is almost always that the thing should be left up to the individual to decide, and the conservative position is almost always that the government should mandate a particular choice and prohibit the individual making that particular choice.

Last I checked, it was Colorado that attempted multiple times to force someone to "Bake ze gay cake" and it is Washington that is persecuting 19 year olds and charging them with felonies for scuffing up a rainbow road mural. 59 officers get injured in the mostly peaceful summer of 2020, but that's apparently different.