Logo of the Texas Nationalist Movement.
There is something called "dog whistle" politics, where a pol sends signals to the "base" that would not sit well with the mainstream if they could hear them. They are always couched in such a way that they can winkingly back off, without really backing off.
As an example, take Gov. Perry's two-step on his playing footsie with the secessionist crowd by bringing up Texas' right to secede, and then smiling approvingly as the crowd chants "secede". He now says he never meant to secede from such a wonderful union, but was just sort of talking theoretically about the right of Texas to secede, to a receptive crowd of Texas Nationalists.
Yesterday, I said there was a new code word to watch for: "(New whack-o code word watch: '10th Amendment')". So, when Gov. Perry got cutesy about his secession talk, we get this:
Last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in showing support for a Texas resolution championing states' rights provided for in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He voiced support for states' rights again Thursday. He also defended freedom of speech to a room full of journalists.
"This is America, baby. First Amendment. We like it too, as well as the Second and the 10th (amendment)," he said.
Yes, to a room full of journalists, as he's assuring them he isn't sucking up to his secessionist base, he invokes the 10th Amendment. The same 10th Amendment that already has a well-funded "grassroots", pro-secessionist "www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com". Make no mistake, his intended audience knows darn well what all this reference to the 10th Amendment means: the right to secede.
Does the 10th Amendment argument hold water? No. According to Karl-Thoma Mussellman (what a name!), "Well, regardless of how Rick Perry feels, and the fact that we fought a war back in the 1800's that kind of settled the issue, and the fact that a 5-3 Supreme Court decision kind of settled the issue, well, you get the point."
That Supreme Court Decision to which he refers is Texas v. White, where it was held that no state could secede from the Union. Plus, Texas history scholars don't buy it, either. (Proof of liberal bias in academia?)
We particularly like the idea floating around that Perry is in an election -- I take it, this idea is for the non-reptilian brained of us, to signal that, no, Perry isn't insane, he's just pretending to be insane for the rubes.
Interesting side note: As of this moment, a poll in the Sean Hannity forums has 60% saying secession is NOT anti-American.
Comments
You wrote:
"According to Karl-Thoma Mussellman (what a name!), 'Well, regardless of how Rick Perry feels, and the fact that we fought a war back in the 1800's that kind of settled the issue, and the fact that a 5-3 Supreme Court decision kind of settled the issue, well, you get the point.' "
Where to start? So the Union is voluntary, but any State that attempts to withdraw from it will be bombed into submission. Is that what Thomas Jefferson had in mind?
Further, we're supposed to believe that 1) Principles of Constitutional law are rightly settled by firepower and 2)Only the Federal government can decide how much power it has.
I'm not sure how to respond to that kind of government supremacist rhetoric.
Mike Tuggle has started the demolition of your argument. How would you expect one branch of the government to rule about it's own power? They are actually going to say we need less power and control? Hah! I say sir, you jest!
This is the very reason that states are free to secede or at least nullify any unconstitutional law that Congress or any supremely unconstitutional executive order (Presidential Diktat).
This is why Jefferson authored the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 in which he said that it was ridiculous to expect the federal government to restrain itself, the only real check on the fed gov was the states or any one state to say NO, this law shall not stand!
The federal government was created by thirteen independent states (commonly called nations today) which is why there were thirteen treaties of peace between England and the several States. Even writers of the pro constitution propaganda set forth in the Federalist Papers recognized this , that the states existed before the Federal Government as independent nations and that they joined the confederation called the united States only with the understanding that they could leave at any time, I refer you to the ratifying document of the Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!