Friday, July 31, 2009
Perry, a constitutional "disability?"
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net or click on the "comments" button below the story.
Editor's Note: A very alert citizen sent us this intriguing missive. We'll keep his name anonymous. Maybe someone out there who speaks Latin as a second language can lend us a hand with that closing phrase.
Is it possible that the case can be made on the basis of this provision that Rick Perry's repeated support of secessionists constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment and that he is no longer eligible to serve as an executive officer of the State of Texas? That would be "a holy kick in the pants!"
Signed,
Woodcreek North, by god
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
--
Ego operor non sino fossor laetus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Liberally (you should excuse the term) translated, it means "I do not suffer fools gladly". Rather apt, I thought.
Rather apt for liberals or for guvner good hair?
You'd have to ask him who submitted the first post.
Whew! Thanks eddiemae for translating. I knew it had something to do with a foolish clown considering the fact it was in reference to Perry.
What a ridiculous premise for an article! Did the USA declare war on Texas while I slept? Must have been a slow news day.
Hypothetically, if secession were to happen, the US Constitution would no longer bind the Governor and us. Secession would not automatically create a state of war.
It has become a Democrat characteristic to constantly beat up on the incumbent Chief Executive. Bush or Perry, it doesn’t seem to matter, if you have nothing to offer. This just shows the deplorable condition of the Democratic Party is in Texas.
I guess the matter would hang on what Perry specifically said at these rallies and whether his actions and words could be considered "support" for those wishing to ceceed.
Depending on that outcome, the text of the 14th amendment (which Texas itself ratified) seems pretty clear--you can't support insurrection and hold elective office in the US.
The anonymous post above this one, in which anonymous claims that if a state ceceeds then the constitution no longer matters--is simply fiction. Wishful thinking on his/her part, perhaps.
That said, there are many aspects of the constitution that are simply ignored these days. The Fourth amendment, for example. Or that wars cannot be waged by the US without a declaration from the Congress (and not the president), or any number of other bedrock constitutional laws. It appears to be a very sad fact that a significant part of our population no longer believes in the rule of law, and our founding documents and principles.
Even more ridiculous is the federal government to usurp constitutional powers reserved for the states as is clearly delineated in the Constitution. When the the eleven sovereign states elected to no longer be a part of the Union in 1861, they had broken no law, nor broken away from an organization from which they had sworn undying fealty. Rather, read the Constitutions of the eleven states from the time, they all had provisions for their ability to leave the Union should they ever decide to freely. They had freely elected to associate, and conversely they could freely decide to disassociate themselves from the Union which they did.
The federal government as it exists today acts illegitimately when they adopt law that exceeds their constitutional authority. When they do, the States have the right under the Constitution to ignore said mandates and illegitimate acts of said federal government. That does not amount to "insurrection". What foolishness. What has happened to reading history objectively?
Anonymous (above) states that the federal government has overstepped. While I agree it has in some areas, I don't think this is one of them. The law seems pretty clear, and, like all amendments, it had to pass with two-thirds votes in both houses of congress, and then be ratified by 3/4 of all states in the union.
The constitution is the highest law of the land--you may not like this particular part of it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is law.
We don't get to choose which laws we obey, or "believe in" and which ones we don't.
No. 6, "It appears to be a very sad fact that a significant part of our population no longer believes in the rule of law" When you take that all the way up to the highest levels of our "constitutional" government, it is easy to understand why. It is plainly visible even here in our local levels of government. A good number of our elected representatives have already seceded.
CO
You may recall that the Reconstruction Era ended only when the enemy invaders of the sovereign Confederate States of America forced the conquered states to pass this amendment. Further, the only persons who could vote were essentially the carpetbaggers and former slaves. Those who were dispossessed of their right to be free citizens were disenfranchised of their right to vote in the same system that said that they didn't have the right to secede. If that were true, they would have had the right to vote still and most likely would not have approved the 14th Amendment.
Coercive voting. Just like the federal government is doing now with the health care reform and otehr
I was gonna say, I think there's a rest home somewhere near where General Lee surrendered for all you old gray coats.
Keep posting, dear "nonnymoose". You're providing a good example of the kind of thinking that Perry supports with aid and comfort. You are an excellent Exhibit A.
“You may recall that the Reconstruction Era ended only when the enemy invaders of the sovereign Confederate States of America forced the conquered states to pass this amendment”.
I’ve been waiting for your next post, my friend. However in anticipation thereof, here’s a thought about your quote above and a history lesson for you: Those who instituted Reconstruction and later “forced the conquered states to pass this amendment” were (gasp!) RADICAL REPUBLICANS Thaddaeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Therefore, you can thank them for “carpetbaggers and former slaves” who assured the passage of the 14th Amendment. That’s why it would, indeed, be a “holy kick in the pants” if the 14th came back to bite Perry on the ankle. I have a feeling that somewhere Nixon is snickering.
I think it is quite humorous that all you Dems seem to have to complain about is Perry mentioning secession. I guess since none of you were there in 1861, except maybe ‘eddiemae’, you do not realize that it was the Democrats that denied Blacks their freedom and seceded from the union which ultimately caused the civil war.
Only a fool would not know that Perry was speaking in the abstract to make a point. Get serious, this is a waste of time and energy.
...and I find it humorous that the author of the last post thinks that only "Dems" find Perry's pronouncements on this subject stupid in the extreme. Does the poster really want to give the "Dems" credit for being the only people in Texas with some sense?
Post a Comment