If Obama wins: Will Texas secede from the union?

BizPac Review ^ | Michael Dorstewitz

[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.

[Quickgun]

And ranchers here will start buying more ammo and backhoes....

[Slambat]

“we have agriculture, oil, seaports.”

Yes, but do we have an ABM system? Do we have nukes for a
deterrent? As soon as any governor declares it the invasion
would begin. This administration would throw the whole hog
at Texas and enjoy doing it.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Nobody is going to secede over a four year term.

The South Carolina hotheads did it over Lincoln's election in 1860. But few would accuse that bunch of possessing much political common sense.

[cap10mike]

“No” is such a negative word. :)

[LaserJock]

“It was illegal for Texas to secede the first time and it is still illegal now.”

...and it was illegal for the United States to secede from Great Britain. Our Declaration of Independence is very clear. When government becomes tyrannical, a people not only have a God given right to cast off their oppressors, they have the responsibility to do so. No constitution or court ruling can deny a God given right.

If the federal government violates the pact between it and the states (the Constitution) by trampling the rights of the people, the the states have a responsibility to “...dissolve the political bands that have connected them...” with the federal government.

[driftless2]

Agree with everything you said, and furthermore, no one state can have more rights under the constitution than another state no matter what their state constitution says.

[JRandomFreeper]

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

/johnny

[freedommom]

Not if he picks his buddy Rick Perry as his VP/Running mate

---

What about Jan Brewer ?
she can sure wag her finger at obama
he needs more of this

[Quickgun]

Yeah, we might just have to kick a few folks out that don’t belong here! And left up to our own, we can do that too.

[cripplecreek]

“No” is such a negative word. :)

It also happens to be a realistic word.

[Slambat]

“The Constitution itself does not prohibit secession, only the interpretations of the victors prohibits secession.”

Exactly, right on the money. For this subject, it’s the
quote of the day. Good goin.

[moonshot925]

That was an opinion of a man

Roger Taney was Chief Justice of the United States for 28 years. His word has some authority.

I also gave you a Supreme Court case, Texas v. White, which came to the conclusion that the Texas ordinance of secession was absolutely null.

[OrangeHoof]

I LOL at the people who think any secession movement is going to ask the federal government for permission to secede. If it ever gets done, the state government is going to act and then dare the U.S. to do anything about it. Does Washington *really* want to shoot at “fellow Americans”? It’s not 1861 anymore.

[ex91B10]

The author is a moron: he thinks that a Rommney administration will "right the ship" and stop "federalism" and put a halt to an "over reaching government" and even break the back of socialism?

And he probably believes in Santa and that unicorns s**t skittles.

[cap10mike]

Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to “re-admit” Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be “re-admitted” and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.

[JRandomFreeper]

Texas was crushed the first time and will be crushed again if it tries to secede from the union it voluntarily entered into.

In 1864, the world was very different. The north was the economic and production center of the country. Texas was scrub farms with small income.

Compare and contrast with today.

War is always about logistics. First and last.

Texas might not be so easy to crush today.

/johnny

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

So, when Texas secedes, what happens to the leftist onclave called Austin and the University of Texas?

[353FMG]

Egad, I hope so.

Let’s have a 1776 all over again if need be but this time let’s write a Texas constitution not just emphasizing civil rights and liberties and more feel-good platitudes, but let it be perfectly balanced by calling attention to the need of civil RESPONSIBILITIES.

The US Constitution hangs like an albatross around the nation’s neck. That’s why we are getting eaten alive by Islam allowing to hide under the guise of a religion instead of a political movement.

[cap10mike]

From a practical standpoint, you’re probably right. But it’s fun to let your imagination loose.

[fahraint]

And, I pointed out the deaths of a million men who debated his viewpoint. Was he Casear? No he wasn’t. He prevailed because his side won, not because he was right. The US Constitution does not prohibit secession....if you can find where it does, I’m all ears.