Texas law does not override conflicting federal law. It says so in the constitution's supremacy clause. Andrew Jackson suggested hanging state officials who tried to pull that trick. THis is a grandstand play by one moron playing to the others. IF the feds had not stopped Texas we would still have white only primaries, segregated everything, private lynchings by mob rule and lots of other nice stuff. As much as I detest the federal government, the Texas government is immeasurably worse.
also, it says texas says something to obama, all I see is a headline hunting moron legislator pitching an unconstitutional proposal in the mix. When are you goofballs going to catch on to when you are being played? Even Scalia conceded in his gun rights decision that the state has the power to enact reasonable restrictions on our individual right to bear arms. Obama is making mouth about how he is going to propose powerful gun control legislation; he knows he can't get it enacted, so he says he will use executive orders to do something. His ability to do that is limited. I own guns and always have and always will and am no anti gun nut. But keeping big clips and some kinds of ammo out of the hands of retards is not going to hurt anybody. Of course, it probably wont do much good either. Obama is running his mouth just like the idiot legislator from Knuckledraggingville,
I know Steve Toth (voted for him). I think his comments are cartoonish and play right into the hands of the Obama handlers. I plan to tell Steve that when I see him Gov Perry's statement is much better.... Perry responds Gov. Rick Perry released the following statement regarding President Obama's executive actions: "The Vice President's committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there. "Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror. "There is evil prowling in the world - it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children. "In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president."
Wow, this woke up the liberal idiots. If everything about Texas embarrasses you, move to NY where Bloomberg and Cuomo can tell you what to eat, what to drink, what you can say and what you can own. The majority of Texans do not want to be like NY or any other bastion of lefty thought. I honestly believe liberals would allow the government to wipe their *** if Obama decreed it.
I'm for all liberals moving to New York or California, and then both those states secede from the Union. That makes far more sense to me. Because in my opinion, the rest of the 50 states... so all states excluding New York and California... IS the REAL America and what this country is all about. So that's the new plan. Liberals to NY and CA and they go their own way. Which would just be a formality, as their sense of culture and 'law' will have already made them into a new country. Their cultural centers and financial centers would justly be a significant country in the world, and they can continue to make up their own laws and civil and social rules to suit them, and leave the rest of us alone. They would be centers for media, high-tech, entertainment, finance and education. Fine. So be it. Anyone wanting to go there and work or go to school can treat it like going to any other country. So new story line for my new TV series. New York and California become separate new countries with their own culture and way of life, and everyone there "into" what they are all about... and those loving that way of life just get there as fast as their U-Haul can haul you there!!! California has more than enough military installations, including naval presence, and New York's harbor will suffice on the east coast. The more I think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. DAMN!! Please do it!!!
Here's an idea. How about we create a separate country in east texas all the way up to the land thieves' border, have all the Cons, gun nuts, birthers, TP clowns move into this barf bowl, and the rest of us reasonable Americans keep Austin on south and west?
Or, just put it to popular vote. If my side loses, I agree to move to Wyoming. As for what Texas would be like if not for the federal government, you might want to first consider what Texas would look like if not for Austin, Crockett, et al. We would be worried about the Mexican drug cartels under the Mexican government...
gecko, I agree with Perry's statement. I just wish it didn't come from one of the most self-serving and dishonest sacks of **** in politics.
Bill White could be as stupid as Claytie Williams and it would still be an inapt comparison. White did not win, Perry did and he is the one who ran the dumbest race for a presidential nomination since whoever. It was as dumb as Claytie's but more expensive. Perry is a vicious little aggy dolt and everybody in Texas who walks on two feet is embarassed about the retarded simian, who purports to speak for Texas and is busy as we speak trying to destroy the university system. I am against most gun restrictions but the idea that he speaks for sane gun enthusiasts is nonsense.
who said Claytie wasn't generous? I met him once and liked him; I liked him a lot better than I did Anne Richards, but that was not the point of the post, was it? Any of them. Perry and the idiot legislator are playing on the irrational fears of a bunch of bedwetters. Nothing Obama proposed is anything but a reasonable limit on the abuse of firearms and as Justice Scalia has written, the government can do that. Are you guys opposed to limiting our access to machine guns, hand grenages and nuclear arms? Are those not reasonable restrictions?
Thank you, 123.... I will read and go over your post at length. Further... what I really don't won't is the Executive Branch of government ruling by edicts. Getting into that realm of politics. His job is to sign bills or veto them, command the military, execute treaties, make appointments and kiss babies. I want the elected legislative branch of 435 Representatives by population, and 100 Senators by region, two per state, to decide all the rest, with review on Constitutionality by the nine Supreme Court Judges. What really happened with the presentation of the List of 23, is the posturing of a President laying out an agenda and body of what would appear to be legislation, and doing it in a televised Dog & Pony Show. Not good. That is not his job, and not the best demeanor of carrying out that vital office that is but one of Three Branches of Government. All the details in that list is in the realm of the business of the separate States and/or the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Obama may be the most nerve-wrecking Presidents in the history of America regards threats to the Constitution and Separation of Powers. He is attempting to set precedents that could haunt this Republic for years if it is allowed. He is attempting to create a new vision of the Office of the President that can wield it's power over the other two branches -- and the separate States -- by drumming up emotional followings through social media and crafty organizational skills to the point that the majority of the voting electorate can naively and stupidly follow any crafty charlatan that gets in that chair, and then a real nutcase might just get in there one day beyond anything we could imagine now. THAT is what concerns me. Say Obama gets through all 8 years without totally diminishing the liberties of the Republic! Then a term or two later someone gets in there that really wants to tear up even more of the Constitution, and by then the powers of that branch of office has been extended way beyond what was ever intended. Like dripping water, it erodes a little at a time. EVERY President sitting in the Oval Office should say, 'My first job as President is to preserve the rights and limitations of the Office of President. THAT before any specifics of the rest of what that office entails. Whatever I do will always preserve the rights and the limitations of that office. In a way, my job is to protect that job and pass it on. NEVER to diminish it or erode it. And I have the Constitution as my guide. That above any party politics or personal wishes." I am against what we now have as a kind of media-age altering of the intended powers of that branch of government. I don't care what is in the list of 23 things in this current matter. I'm just against the President making that his business and going before the public in a Dog & Pony Show like a preacher to the congregation how things are going to be. He meant well and did it respectfully and for absolutely moral, ethical and common sense reasons -- but it is still a danger to head down that path of governing. The Executive Branch has overreached far too much in the past five or six decades. Both parties. In the age of mass communications, can any member of the Legislature go before the public and make such emotionally charged addresses and Dog & Pony shows? No, only the President is doing that. Do any of the Supreme Court Justices do that? No. So now we have one Branch of the Government -- centralized in ONE PERSON -- literally taking time now and then to get up on stage on tv in front of 300 million citizens of the land, and speaking / lecturing / preaching / whatever that leader wishes to put in the minds and hearts of all in the land. Fine for now you say, but what are you doing to do years from now when it's about other things? Do you want one person taking charge of the country like that? Really? Yes, I know it's a bully pulpit, but I still don't like it at times. In the wrong hands and on the kinds of topics that don't belong to the edicts of just one person, it's risky to me. I love Congress because it forces 535 elected members of Congress to have to speak for the whole country in a widespread balanced way. I never want such a voice centralized in one person. And I believe he founders of this country certainly did not want that. If the President wants to speak out, let it not be so much about specifics, let it be about character and encouragement to work together and move forward, but let the broader group of elected representatives, let that Branch of Government, and the states and their governments, decide specifics. As President may sign or veto legislation, but it is not for you to legislate. It is not a single person's leadership to tell everyone what we need to do. About ANYTHING. Including health care, by the way. Or taxes. Or spending. My 4 cents. I went on, I see. And I consider the 2nd Amendment more important than the 1st Amendment. Without the 2nd, we might not have the 1st.
in civics class I recall they taught us that the constitutionality is taken up by the US Supreme Court, not by moronic aggie governors.
Its funny how conservatives are quick to tell everyone they are not real Americans for all sorts of things. But, when they lose an election or congressional vote they are ready to go to war with the country they claim to be so patriotic about.
