Can we make it an oval?
Posted on 07/15/2012 3:46:27 PM PDT by cap10mike
Could Texas once again become the Republic of Texas?
Without question, the Nov. 6 election will be a do-or-die, make-or-break, Rubicon-crossing event. If the presidential election goes one way, we get a “do-over.” We’ll be given the opportunity to take the first step on a long, arduous journey back to our political and economic roots. If it goes the other way, federalism and balance of power will continue to be edged out by an overreaching federal government and an imperial presidency. Socialism will have an unbreakable hold on the economy, and a centralized government, rather than a free market, will determine business’ winners and losers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
First of all, absent a national calamity, secession will never happen. As soon as the Fed's decided that Texas was serious about it, every Texas leader involved would be arrested on all sorts of made-up charges. Say hello to the FBI at your doorstep, backed by the 101st Airborne.
But if secession did happen, I'm guessing that the assets would be peaceably divided, much like what happened when the Ukraine seceded from the old USSR.
Ok, if I was the leader of a group that led an insurrection that led to the deaths of 700,000+ people, I would think that after hostilities ended, I would probably go on trial for treason. Why didn’t that happen?????
Texas would collapse very quickly in a war with the rest of nation because of finance.
Who is going to pay for the Texan war effort? Who is going to lend money to Texas?
Will Texas simply print money like the CSA did in the Civil War?
No, it's not...
...no, sadly it's not, yet that dark chill is gathering still, before the storm.“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Hussein Obama, 7/2/2008He didn’t call it a Civil Defense force, that would imply he thinks we need (or perhaps deserve) defense.The official name is National Civilian Community Corps.
I think of it as the NATCCC, or simply the NATCs...
Does Washington *really* want to shoot at “fellow Americans”?
I can't speak to their intentions, only to their actions, and their actions speak for themselves.
I don’t honesty know if it will ever happen, but there are still enough country boys in Texas to make things uncomfortable for people that aren’t wanted. And that would be one of the things that would have to go right along with secession, is running some idiots and bums off.Here illegally? get a work card or go home. People caught slipping in? well, we have the solution for that, too.
The war ended with one side winning but the question of secession was never answered. Why? Because if an amendment post war had been proposed and ratified that would ex post facto have made it legal, pre war. Making Lincoln's war illegal and vindicating the South. THe USC is totally silent on the issue, and remains so.
101st got Texans in it too.
Texas has US dollars which are negotiable, even if some electronic dollars are frozen.
Texas also has a great amount of very hard assets that can be made liquid with those that would like to put a thumb in the eye of FedGov. That's a long list....
No, skooter. You can wave and shout all you like, but reality is that you have to get people to go along with you if you want to govern.
Fedgov is shedding support every second.
/johnny
There are times in the course of history when a state needs to create its own rights. Asking "Pretty please, may we secede?" of our federal government will only get a state so far in its desire to fulfill its needs.
Texas might lose, but it wouldn’t be because of finance. We have too many natural resources for that. You do give thought to something else , though. We might get help from else where like Washington did
Agree. It is only the statist Free Republic anti states rights thugs that think that way. Bamby is no Lincoln.
Good question.
In my opinion those treasonous criminals should have been hanged right after the war ended.
Davis, Stephens, Cooper, Lee, Beauregard, Bragg, Breckinridge Longstreet and all the rest of them.
It would have sent an everlasting message that treason against the United States will NOT be tolerated.
You'd like to see that wouldn't you, you fascist boot licking coward.
Can we make it an oval?
You won't have to. they will leave on their own, chase the honey.
I guess I really get under your skin then, Billy.
Guess what? I believe that an open discussion of leaving or disolving the Union is appropriate.
Tolerate that.
/johnny
The Constitution has been so changed from its original function and purpose as to represent a breach of the contract between the States that formed the Union. On that basis any State has the right, even the responsibility, to withdraw from the contractual obligations.
At this point in the game, I’m right there with you.
AFWIW, I’m in TX.
People are not slaves. They can enter and leave treaties whenever they want. The Preamble and the Introduction of the US Declaration of Independence explain all that. The US Constitition is not a suicide pact; if some participants of that compact are not fulfilling their obligations then other members have no duty to the compact either.
If you can muster those kinds of electoral support why can’t you get the other legislation you want?
If 100% of population of some state vote against a candidate he still can be elected to be their President. If 100% of Congressmen of some state vote against some legislation it still can be adopted and used against the state. If a President wants to punish the state for offenses real or imaginary (see Arizona) he can do it - and he did it.
The union exists only until its advantages exceed the disadvantages. USSR was stable for 80 years and fell apart overnight - when the federal binds became too thin. Republics detached themselves from the union because the union was not beneficial to them anymore. Rulers from the center were unable and unwilling to listen to the people. Laws were made that went against the grain of local people, against their interests. Finally, local rulers emerged who promised to be better rulers than the remote ones.
Texas may depend on other states' economy. However if that economy continues to deteriorate that benefit will be gone. Instead there will be shackles of supporting "useless eaters" - recipients of social benefits in other states. The contrast will be particularly great between oil-owning, agricultural states and formerly industrial states. The union can be replaced with specific treaties (mostly of mutual defense.) The current US Army is not defending the borders of the country anyway. Israel-like approach to forming an army, along with volunteers, will reduce the cross-border traffic down to zero within a week.
States of the USA are mostly larger than an average country in Europe. They are rich and they have people who are willing to work - as long as the government does not confiscate fruits of their labor. The population is armed better than Switzerland. I'm surprised that separatist movements haven't yet started. Elsewhere in the world they are a common occurrence - often because central rulers get too used to their seats of power and start ruling imperially, like kings.
Here’s an outline for our new constitution:
www.freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.