The point I was trying to make a few posts back was that it IS the state's choice to secede or not, and that a number of folks here actually want to. My opinion was I don't agree with a lot of things about texas, and on a seperate note, I don't think the state's ready for secession, even if its possible given the diversity of industry/etc that the state possesses.
My appologies. Do you live in Austin by chance?
Even if we were there economicly and with our industry, and in our ability to sustain ourselves (which i don't think we are, we've become to dependant), The federal government wouldn't allow us to anyways.
Which... brings me to this...
But states are not entirely individuals, we are all part of the U.S.A. and even if it doesn't quite seem like it, what one state does will effect another. It's like a group of people getting together to form an organisation, they become a part of the whole and once you do that you are/should be subject to special rules and restrictions that may make the organisation look bad.
Lincolin once said "A house divided cannot stand". He was just as right then as he is now, the states shouldn't bicker and argue over minor things. I think each state should indeed do what they feel is the right thing to do, but most importantly they should refrain from things will weaken the country.
But I think at this point I may be drifting away from the subject.
First, Lincolin is far from the best person to quote when talking about states right. He basicly conquered the states that did secede from the union...
Although to his credit he did give them back their voting rights after a few years of military ocupation...There are matters where we need to stand together as a nation such as in matters of national defence. We should have a national army, of course... But things like nationwide weapons bans, highly controversial medical laws, ect. No.
