Modern "states rights" issue.

[pampango]

The new states' rights cry can be heard at many tea party rallies. Even Texas Gov. Rick Perry has at one time raised the banner. During his last and record-setting run for re-election he told a tea party rally that secession was not out of the question. He later backed off that remark. He also is invoking states' rights when he threatens to refuse any federal money for Medicaid. He also has softened that stance of late.

States' rights is also a favorite phrase in the battle of immigration reform. States such as Arizona, Oklahoma and, unfortunately, a growing number of others claim that passing get-tough immigration laws is the right of the states.

Technically, the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement, not the states. Members of Congress ought to be the ones getting the heat from the anti-immigration crowd. Many in that group, however, also happen to believe that the federal government already has too much power, so they aren't likely to relinquish their devotion to laws that blame a powerless minority for everything that has gone wrong in their lives.

So, here we are, 150 years after the biggest "states' rights" fight. I don't really expect a serious secession movement, although I shudder to think what would happen if Texas really did secede. Would Oklahoma, with its love-hate relationship with Texas, be far behind?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20101226_213_G1_ULNSor225616&allcom=1

[alphafemale]

1. Those sorry southern f__ks will be all for seceding.

Right up to the moment we tell them we'll cut off their Medicare.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Those state aren't going anywhere

They have too much of our stuff in their possession and ya know damned well they're not good for the money it would take to pay us back for all those highways, bridges, sewers, electrical lines, etc.

IMO the states that seceded during the civil war should consider themselves lucky. Despite all the deaths that occurred - military and civilian alike - it would have been much worse if they had seceded successfully for a couple generations, followed by a true international war. General William Tecumseh Sherman would appear to be a great humanitarian in comparison to the horrors that could have been poured out upon the confederate armies and civilian populations if they'd been viewed as 'damn furriners.' During the civil war, those in southern states were viewed largely as Americans; even if they were dead-wrong in their stance toward slavery and their willingness to take up arms against fellow Americans, they were still ostensibly 'American.' If they'd successfully separated from the United States, the inevitable war to follow could have been much more horrific if US armies no longer considered them 'fellow countrymen' (albeit misguided ones).

[WingDinger]

3. Wrote a song about it, and it goes like this

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WingDinger/37