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

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, 05:48 PM	#2
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	#4
Kätzchen Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, please. Relationship Status: Attached to my granddaughter & chosen friends and family.. Join Date: May 2010 Location: Enjoying life @ home ツ Posts: 16,106 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,739 Thanked 33,534 Times in 10,656 Posts Rep Power: 21474868	Catalonian independence vote is seen as a litmus test (Die Welt) http://www.dw.de/catalonia-votes-in-...txt-newsletter __________________ “In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate,” — Isaac Asimov.

11-25-2012, 03:17 AM	#3
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.