The Push for Texas to Secede From The Union...

girl_dee · 11-10-2012, 11:30 AM

Well Texas commerciala always said "Texas, like a whole nother country"

QueenofSmirks · 11-10-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girl_dee

Well Texas commerciala always said "Texas, like a whole nother country"

When my brother was considering moving to Texas (strictly for warmer weather), I told him the ONLY place he could even *consider* moving to was Austin. He checked it out and loved it, and he did move there. But even he says that living in Austin, he sometimes forgets he lives in Texas.

Linus · 11-10-2012, 12:46 PM

If they are interested in seceding then they have to pay back all the funds that the US gov't has given them over the years. And they cannot use the US Dollar as currency nor the passport.

Martina · 11-10-2012, 12:50 PM

I had no idea there was discussion of this again. It's absurd, but I love the idea. I want them to be forced to be part of Mexico again and be a linguistic minority. At the very least, they should secede. Wonderful Texans, of whom there are many, can join the rest of us.

I agree, we need to find a way to keep Austin.

It's funny. Other states are just as conservative, but I have no desire to throw them overboard. Texas -- Texas can leave.

Greyson · 11-10-2012, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martina

I had no idea there was discussion of this again. It's absurd, but I love the idea. I want them to be forced to be part of Mexico again and be a linguistic minority. At the very least, they should secede. Wonderful Texans, of whom there are many, can repatriate.

I agree, we need to find a way to keep Austin.

It's funny. Other states are just as conservative, but I have no desire to throw them overboard. Texas -- Texas can leave.

The thought of Texas becoming part of Mexico again made me laugh. I am pretty sure the successionist do not have that in mind. It would be poetic justice.

I agree about Austin. Maybe Austin can become part of the Left Coast in name. Not by earthquake.

Martina · 11-10-2012, 12:59 PM

Just thinking though, they would repeal all kinds of pollution regulations and with those refineries, pollute the air, that unfortunately would waft over the rest of us. I say let's just keep aggravating them into a frustrated frenzy.

JAGG · 11-10-2012, 01:10 PM

You are right Self Made Man. What a colossal waste of time . But something I'm sure legislators will be happy to waste time energy and taxpayers money debating. It's alot like wasting taxpayers money to hold a session to vote on an official state color, or an official state beverage. REALLY? Did somebody think that was cute? Because I didn't!!! That's fruad waste and abuse. For every second the electricity was on and the gas and the water the time they wasted, should be added up and refunded to the tax payers out of their own pockets. You can't come together agree and vote on where the highway funding should go when the infrastructure of your state is eroding away by the second, but you have time to vote on a state color. WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!

The_Lady_Snow · 11-10-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martina

I had no idea there was discussion of this again. It's absurd, but I love the idea. I want them to be forced to be part of Mexico again and be a linguistic minority. At the very least, they should secede. Wonderful Texans, of whom there are many, can join the rest of us.

I agree, we need to find a way to keep Austin.

It's funny. Other states are just as conservative, but I have no desire to throw them overboard. Texas -- Texas can leave.

Mexico would rather not.............

thedivahrrrself · 11-10-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Mexico would rather not.............

Well, yeah, Texas would have to recognize the gay marriages from Mexico City if they joined Mexico

girl_dee · 11-10-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks

When my brother was considering moving to Texas (strictly for warmer weather), I told him the ONLY place he could even *consider* moving to was Austin. He checked it out and loved it, and he did move there. But even he says that living in Austin, he sometimes forgets he lives in Texas.

You know what they say about Austin?

That it's a shame it's surrounded by Texas.

JustJo · 11-10-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedivahrrrself

No! I like Florida, despite their ridiculous politics. They have beaches! (Yeah, Texas does too, but not the same) And there's Miami! And Key West!

Texas can secede (we'll offer a path to citizenship for folks from Austin), but I'd like to keep Florida.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

So yeah, leave Florida alone, I like living close to the beach, our County went blue the people here spoke loud and clear.

Hey! I love Florida too....and my county also went blue.

Not all of Florida is backward-thinking (although evidently we all have trouble counting

)

blush · 11-10-2012, 05:48 PM

Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A:
No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

Source: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#texvwhite

Now, I don't want to secede, we wouldn't survive.

Nadeest · 11-25-2012, 03:17 AM

"Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment."

With all due respect, if I am not severely mistaken, the powers not reserved to the federal government go to the states, OR the people. Personally, I favor giving the least power to the government or governments as possible.

I agree, though, I don't want Texas to secede. I don't think that it is a good idea, to say the least.

As for Texas being solidly Republican, it is, and has been for a number of years, however, that may well be about to change, due to the demographics of the population here. I think that it is going to be a nice change, given the policies of the Republican Party towards GLBT people, and others that are not like them.

Kätzchen · 11-25-2012, 01:01 PM

http://www.dw.de/catalonia-votes-in-...txt-newsletter

Martina · 11-25-2012, 05:04 PM

It will be a glorious day when demographics turn the state blue again. It did go for Jimmy Carter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nadeest

As for Texas being solidly Republican, it is, and has been for a number of years, however, that may well be about to change, due to the demographics of the population here. I think that it is going to be a nice change, given the policies of the Republican Party towards GLBT people, and others that are not like them.

11-10-2012, 12:46 PM	#3
Linus The Planet's Technical Bubba How Do You Identify?: FTM Preferred Pronoun?: He/Him/Geek Relationship Status: Married to my forever! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Redondo Beach, CA Posts: 5,440 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,929 Thanked 10,727 Times in 3,172 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	If they are interested in seceding then they have to pay back all the funds that the US gov't has given them over the years. And they cannot use the US Dollar as currency nor the passport. __________________ Personal Blog \|\| [] \|\| Cigar Blog "We become Human Doings instead of Human Beings." -- Ram Dass

11-10-2012, 01:10 PM	#7
JAGG Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Preferred Pronoun?: JAGG Relationship Status: =) Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Tulsa (cat free zone) Posts: 6,093 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 18,651 Thanked 17,531 Times in 4,137 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	You are right Self Made Man. What a colossal waste of time . But something I'm sure legislators will be happy to waste time energy and taxpayers money debating. It's alot like wasting taxpayers money to hold a session to vote on an official state color, or an official state beverage. REALLY? Did somebody think that was cute? Because I didn't!!! That's fruad waste and abuse. For every second the electricity was on and the gas and the water the time they wasted, should be added up and refunded to the tax payers out of their own pockets. You can't come together agree and vote on where the highway funding should go when the infrastructure of your state is eroding away by the second, but you have time to vote on a state color. WTF !!!!!!!!!!!! __________________ I don't want to spend my life with someone I can live with, I want to spend my life with someone I can't live without.

11-10-2012, 05:48 PM	#12
blush Member How Do You Identify?: femme Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: I'm with goofy. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 911 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 962 Thanked 2,375 Times in 616 Posts Rep Power: 15632317	Actually... Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP] A: No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White: "When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. "...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. "...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union." — Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868) It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union. What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true. To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place. This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day. Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself... The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states. It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession. An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government). Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states. Source: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#texvwhite Now, I don't want to secede, we wouldn't survive. __________________ "We never forget those who make us blush." Jean-Francois de la Harpe

11-25-2012, 01:01 PM	#14
Kätzchen Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, please. Relationship Status: Cherishing my friends & chosen family Join Date: May 2010 Location: Pacific Wonderland ツ Posts: 15,939 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,759 Thanked 33,463 Times in 10,600 Posts Rep Power: 21474867	Catalonian independence vote is seen as a litmus test (Die Welt) http://www.dw.de/catalonia-votes-in-...txt-newsletter __________________ “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, then you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu. “A winner is a dreamer who never gives up,” —Nelson Mandela “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time,” — Maya Angelou

11-10-2012, 11:30 AM	#1
girl_dee Practically Lives Here How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: dee Relationship Status: Hitched up Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Livin’ the Dream Posts: 24,079 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,560 Thanked 54,856 Times in 13,915 Posts Rep Power: 21474873	Well Texas commerciala always said "Texas, like a whole nother country"

11-10-2012, 12:50 PM	#4
Martina Senior Member How Do You Identify?: * Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: * Posts: 4,999 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 13,409 Thanked 18,290 Times in 4,167 Posts Rep Power: 21474854	I had no idea there was discussion of this again. It's absurd, but I love the idea. I want them to be forced to be part of Mexico again and be a linguistic minority. At the very least, they should secede. Wonderful Texans, of whom there are many, can join the rest of us. I agree, we need to find a way to keep Austin. It's funny. Other states are just as conservative, but I have no desire to throw them overboard. Texas -- Texas can leave.

11-10-2012, 12:59 PM	#6
Martina Senior Member How Do You Identify?: * Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: * Posts: 4,999 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 13,409 Thanked 18,290 Times in 4,167 Posts Rep Power: 21474854	Just thinking though, they would repeal all kinds of pollution regulations and with those refineries, pollute the air, that unfortunately would waft over the rest of us. I say let's just keep aggravating them into a frustrated frenzy.

11-25-2012, 03:17 AM	#13
Nadeest Member How Do You Identify?: as myself Preferred Pronoun?: She Relationship Status: Single Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Leesburg, FL Posts: 595 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,876 Thanked 2,118 Times in 501 Posts Rep Power: 17077997	"Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment." With all due respect, if I am not severely mistaken, the powers not reserved to the federal government go to the states, OR the people. Personally, I favor giving the least power to the government or governments as possible. I agree, though, I don't want Texas to secede. I don't think that it is a good idea, to say the least. As for Texas being solidly Republican, it is, and has been for a number of years, however, that may well be about to change, due to the demographics of the population here. I think that it is going to be a nice change, given the policies of the Republican Party towards GLBT people, and others that are not like them.