Rick Perry

[Tahuti]

"In God We Trust" is unconstitutional, but I don't ever hear you (or any other "constitution-following freedom lovers") complain about that.

Why is that? The US constitution hardly says anything about religion except that elected officials do not need to take religious tests and there is freedom of religion. It doesn't say the US is barred to utilise religious imagary like this motto. I don't like this personally but I don't think it is constitutional.

 

[Ajidica]

Not really, America is being pretty stupid right now, and secession is constituionally protected regardless of what the courts say.

Not to rain on your parade, but treating something as constituional despite the Supreme Court saying it isn't goes against the constitution. After Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, the framers easily could have passed a law modifying the SC jurisdiction or passed an amendment depriving the SC of judicial review. They didn't. The Supreme Court, acting in its Constitutionaly defined role, has ruled that secession is not constitutionaly protected. Now if you feel otherwise and have a case that is different enough from Texas v. White for the Supreme Court to hear it and possibly re-evaluate their ruling, you have the ability to do so. Until that happens, secession is not constitutional.

Why is that? The US constitution hardly says anything about religion except that elected officials do not need to take religious tests and there is freedom of religion. It doesn't say the US is barred to utilise religious imagary like this motto. I don't like this personally but I don't think it is constitutional.

Precedent established in Engle v. Vitale.

 

[duckstab]

Now if you feel otherwise and have a case that is different enough from Texas v. White for the Supreme Court to hear it and possibly re-evaluate their ruling, you have the ability to do so. Until that happens, secession is not constitutional.

OK, four options

 

[Leoreth]

What baffles me more is someone who supports the death penalty still can be considered a libertarian.

 

[Earthling]

I'm thinking Perry will do well in the primaries and it'll probably come down to a two way race between him and Romney. The other candidates and the deals they make plus their convention could still be a deciding factor and I certainly wouldn't say that Perry can't win the primary - he could under the right circumstances.

He'd also be very popular in certain states and subsets of Republican voters in the general election, but I don't think he'd win in the nation at large. I don't really think Romney or (other more extreme Republican/TeaParty candidate) would either but maybe he'd be a little less close to victory than Romney should Romney be nominated.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd support Mitt if he won the primary, but I'd much rather see a different candidate. I've always had a soft spot for Herman Cain, just because it'd be nice to have a real businessman in the White House.

Mitt would be little better than Obama TBH.

The judicial branch interprets the Constitution. What's constitutionally protected, for better or worse, is exactly what the courts say.

Now, one can argue whether or not states or other political entities have a right to secede, the Constitution notwithstanding. But the fact is, under the current interpretation of U.S. law, secession is illegal and not constitutionally protected. If you want to do it, you have three options: Amendment, Convention, or successful armed revolt.

What is constitutionally PROTECTED is what the courts say. That's different than what the Constitution actually says. The courts are wrong in this case via the 10th amendment.

And yes, if Texas seceded, there would probably be war, and it would be imperialism 2.0.

 

[madviking]

What is constitutionally PROTECTED is what the courts say. That's different than what the Constitution actually says. The courts are wrong in this case via the 10th amendment.

Nah. You're kinda wrong cuz of Texas v. White. The Supreme Court determined that the Constitution says states cannot secede because of Article Four.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Nah. You're kinda wrong cuz of Texas v. White. The Supreme Court determined that the Constitution says states cannot secede because of Article Four.

The problem is, the Supreme Court can't grab a magic wand and change what the Constitution says...

 

[useless]

...The Supreme Court's job is to INTERPRET the constitution.

 

[madviking]

The problem is, the Supreme Court can't grab a magic wand and change what the Constitution says...

Except that's exactly what the Supreme Court does.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Except that's exactly what the Supreme Court does.

They can try.

Read the 10th amendment.

 

[Dreadnought]

Mitt would be little better than Obama TBH.

You know, that may be the case, but I think the whole "I don't like either candidate, so I'll vote third party" idea isn't the best reaction.

And the Supreme Court is debatable enough in its history. We're not going to accomplish much with this debate.

 

[duckstab]

The problem is, the Supreme Court can't grab a magic wand and change what the Constitution says...

The 10th Amendment doesn't say states can secede. You're choosing to interpret it as such. And under the Constitution, the only interpretations which have the force of law are those made by the courts.

 

[MobBoss]

Does it bother you that he has made seperatist remarks regarding your country? Cause if someone from Wexford or Leitrim tried that here, Gorey or Carrick-on-Shannon would end up like Grozny

He didnt make 'separatist remarks' anymore than some have in discussing whether a state has a right to leave the union or not.

Seriously, if you go see exactly what he said, it was pretty tame to be honest, and in fact he reiterated that there the (states) union is great and there is no need to dissolve it.

In other words what he said was pretty tame....unless you really desire to over-hype and play it up to the point of ridiculousness, like some blogs did.

So, does what he actually said bother me? Not in the least.

And fwiw, I notice that not a single one of those that used the earlier words 'delusional, a fanatic, extremist or loony', have made any point of fact that using those labels is legitimate.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know, that may be the case, but I think the whole "I don't like either candidate, so I'll vote third party" idea isn't the best reaction.

Voting third party is a good protest.

Not something I'd do every time, but if it were Mitt VS Obama I'd hardly give a crap.

And the Supreme Court is debatable enough in its history. We're not going to accomplish much with this debate.

How true.

@Duckstab- Unless you can find clearly defined Constitutional language where it says otherwise, by definition the 10th amendment does prove such a thing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why are people referring to him as delusional, a fanatic, extremist or loony?

Because the guy prays?

When Texas secedes from the Union you'll be joining the confederates to fight against the union ?
EDIT: Actually they should just leave, then American can invade liberate oil rich third world country that it becomes. I dont think they'll like the postwar though the US dosnt have such a good record there but the liberation will be spectacular.

 

[Zack]

The problem is, the Supreme Court can't grab a magic wand and change what the Constitution says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

 

[MobBoss]

When Texas secedes from the Union you'll be joining the confederates to fight against the union ?

Nope. I took an oath, and I would keep that oath.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What baffles me more is someone who supports the death penalty still can be considered a libertarian.

Wait, to whom are you referring?

Capital Punishment has nothing to do with authoritarianism by default.

 

[NickyJ]

You know, that may be the case, but I think the whole "I don't like either candidate, so I'll vote third party" idea isn't the best reaction.

Agreed. While I do have doubts about Romney, I'd take him over Obama any day of the week. Voting for a third party candidate who has little to no chance of winning is basically throwing away an important vote. My favorite point of view is the 'voting against' view. "I'm not voting for Romney, I'm voting against Obama." Another view is the hurricane view: Which hurricane would you rather strike your home: a category five, or a category three. I'll take the three, which means I'll take Romney.