The bill I have been kind of tracking in Texas took a step forward today. Texas bill HCR 50 made out out of committee, so that's a very very interesting development.
If anyone is interested in reading up on the Texas bill to re-affirm states rights you can read up on the following link. Basically they are calling out the federal government for "violating states rights" and they are re-affirming sovereignty. As of right now its not a succession, but it is a move designed to chastise an overactive federal government ... at least that's their case.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillL…To me the big difference between this and the similar move made by New Hampshire earlier is that I don't know how NH could not survive on its own as a nation, but Texas is a completely different matter. I really don't want to see the disolution of our country, but we do need a reality check, as we have been drifting away from the concepts the nation was founded on ... and that goes both ways, to the left and to the right.
On one hand a strong & active federal government is usually associated with the Left IMO, and is in line with an eventual global government, which would be needed if we ever truly wanted to act globally instead of nationally. I agree with some of these steps, but not all, a program designed to care for a farmer in the central Midwest would have little to no benefit to a New Yorker for example. Managing that would require many levels of government, and they would all need to be very very active. However that would also require more taxes from the federal perspective.
Now conversely states rights, which were recognized in the 10th amendment viewable here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth…and its logical to me (I have no info to this point just my thinking which may be wrong) that this amendment was required when trying to consolidate 13 different entities, who just broke away from one power, into a new power. It would have been simple without this expressly made statement, to simply trade one overlord for another, I completely understand the reasoning for this at the time. I just don't know how it applies to modern day.
Distance was a huge issue before, where you may not know what was going on in the next state just because of how far away it was. Now in the age of information we trade that information with a simple click, and we are updated in real time. Elections are reported as the votes are counted by machines ... taking a long intensive process and doing it in minutes/hours. In the long run, the distance issue is no longer a valid argument IMO. It seems to me that enforcing a rule that that was made for a reason that no longer applies is stupid. Now I readily admit I am no scholar, and my thinking may have missed several arguments which are entirely valid. If you feel the need to educate me please do ... I am uneasy about this bill, and the ramifications it makes. Especially since OK passed a similar resolution, the bill got vetoed by the governor, but that happened yesterday, the bill passed the house by the margin 83-13 and the senate 25-17, which is 3 votes from a 2/3rds majority. Its a very very interesting time in the good old us ... I wonder if we will still have 50 states at the end of next year?