Ferrari Mailing List: Re: Betrayal of Journalists

[LarryT (l02turner]

Hmmm...  I wonder if it could *really* happen - one or more states deciding 
to secede?  Likewise I wonder what the FedGovCo reaction would be? 
Afterall, I believe the state national guard serves at the discretion of the 
governor - right?

Also, I wonder how the 3 (?) states that are actually Commonwealths are 
affected, if at all?   Va., a Commonwealth, has one of the best 
constitutions written, but I'll have to see what it says about not following 
the Constitution that was  agreed upon - it was written by some guy named 
Tom Jefferson - which the founding fathers saw fit to use as the basis for 
the *Big* Constitution.

I just see the next administration - regardless of who wins - as being a 
loser with a capital L on his or her forehead.

Not sure what will precipitate the coming crisis - but I have a baaaaad 
feeling.  Hopefully I;m wrong --

It would have been nice to have taken out bin Laden before he finalized his 
evil plans & dragged us into a .long-term war against terrorism -

Larry T (66 MGB, 74 911, 91 300D)
www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts
Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
PORSCHE POSTERS!  youroil.net
Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Rentiers" <rentiers [at] mac.com>
To: "LarryT" <l02turner [at] comcast.net>
Cc: "The FerrariList" <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] Betrayal of Journalists



Q:
Doesn’t the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?


A:
No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1]
(adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2]  However, it does
state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent
State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note
that it doesnot state “...subject to the President of the United
States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...” or
“...subject to the rest of the United States...”)

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the United
States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or
any other “free and independent State”) from the United States.
Joining the “Union” was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary
withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any
self-appointed academic, media, or government “experts”—including
Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions
also state that “All political power is inherent in the people ...
they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government
in such manner as they might think proper.”

Likewise, each of the united States is “united” with the others
explicitly on the principle that“governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government
becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and
property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government” and “when a long train of abuses and
usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”



On Mar 15, 2008, at 2:31 PM, LarryT wrote:

> I like this one -
>
> <<It seems that when Montana's
> settlers signed a statehood contract in 1889, one of the conditions  was 
> that the federal
> government agreed that individuals had the right to keep and bear  arms. 
> If the Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is merely a  state or 
> "collective" right, Montana officials say that the  statehood contract 
> will have been breeched. "The U.S. would do well  to keep its contractual 
> promises to the states that the Second  Amendment secures an individual 
> right now as it did upon execution  of the statehood contract," Montana 
> Secretary of State Brad Johnson  said in a letter to The Washington Times. 
> The Times also notes that  the "collective right" interpretation of the 
> Second Amendment  doesn't hold water in Montana because the state didn't 
> have a  militia in the 1880s. >>
> I wonder how many other states have these kinds of agreements?  Lots  I 
> hope - and with state govts with balls to go with the agreement -.
>
> Larry T (66 MGB, 74 911, 91 300D)
> www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts
> Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
> PORSCHE POSTERS!  youroil.net
> Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Rentiers" <rentiers [at] mac.com>
> To: "LarryT" <l02turner [at] comcast.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ferrari] Betrayal of Journalists
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, LarryT wrote:
> >
> > > I see something bad coming.
> >
> > There's a way out but you may not like it.
> >
> > http://reason.tv/   click on the Drew Carey videos lower left.
> >
> > http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
> >
> > ken
> >
> > ps. I'm not voting. When  we hold our nose and vote that just  sends  the 
> > message that the winner has a mandate when nothing could  be less  true.