Posted on 06/24/2016 6:15:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Hey, Texplainer: Britain voted to leave the European Union. Can Texas secede from the United States?
In the wake of Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union - nicknamed "Brexit" - speculation of a Texit on the horizon have cropped up once again. The secessionist movement has a long history in the Lone Star state. Delegates for the Texas Republican Party even recently debated adding secessionist language to the party's platform. But is it actually legal for Texas to leave the United States?
Simply put, the answer is no. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not pull off a Texit - at least not legally.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Yes.
Next caller please.
Yeah pretty much. The South continued their racism towards Blacks and Jews and Catholics so the only thing was it kept the South from going their own way; interesting in light of what the UK just did.
“Today’s Texas is as liberals as San Francisco.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Not even close.
Perhaps this might help
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/
I meant that you were likely to be inundated by the War Between The States FR Fanatic Contingent.
Texas v. White
Justice Anton Scalia: http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-scalias-views-on-secession-2012-11
There are many other authorities.
>>Freedumb, where you err, is in thinking that a mere LAW has supremacy over a natural RIGHT. <<
I guess the word “legal” means something else where you come from. What is your birth language?
>>That decision is a joke. By the way, what provision of the constitution says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional? <<
USCM Article III, §1
“the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Pretty clear.
If that isn’t the case, then the SCOTUS has been operating without authority since day 1. In fact, your interpretation would mean there are only 2 branches of government: The Executive and the Legislative.
The most Republican and most Democratic states still have about 30% of people who vote for the other side. In most states, it's a lot closer. Obviously, there is no "natural, inalienable right" of 50%+1 of the people in a state to change the condition of the other 50%-1 and deprive them of our shared US citizenship.
>>In the ratifying conventions, do you think the majority of those who voted believed that?<<
They should have known that.
>>Would you personally have voted to join?<<
I don’t know Texas history well enough to answer that. That is like asking the Founders if Independence was a good idea at the time. Looking back, it makes sense, but at the time there were many who thought that cutting ties with the Crown was a bad idea economically and militarily.
Nor is that my point.
>>The inalienable rights granted by our Creator, supersede the laws of men. Those rights form the very basis of our political union to begin with.<<
So, you are an anarchist. The only law you recognize are the “rights granted by our creator,” as interpreted by — you.
The USC and other legal documents are mere suggestions and annoyances which you must follow to avoid punishment.
Got it.
“I guess the word “legal” means something else where you come from.”
No, I understand the meaning of the word perfectly. I just wonder why you’re so dead set on insisting that laws supersede natural rights.
Men make laws that abrogate natural rights all the time. That doesn’t make those laws just, nor does it mean that those laws are superior to people’s inherent rights. It only means that pure tyranny is in force.
“The USC and other legal documents are mere suggestions and annoyances which you must follow to avoid punishment. Got it.”
I have no disagreement with laws, per se, except in cases where they abrogate and trample on natural rights.
Laws which compliment, conform to, and flow from natural rights, can be said to be just. No sane person would disagree with any law that fits that description.
On the other hand, a law which deprives the people of a basic right, can be said to be abhorrent and unjust.
These are the distinctions I’m attempting to convey to you.
Well, you didn’t answer the question, which is not surprising.
The problem with the Slavers Secession was that it was attempted unilaterally. Knowing that the Constitution was silent on the act, but also mindful that there were others (a majority of others) who held a different attitude regarding secession, they did it anyway - using "rules" that they made up as they went along.
Even that wasn't enough to spark war, but when they illegally seized federal institutions, mints, storehouses, and forts, and then fired upon federal soldiers they forced a response from the federal government.
If you resort to force of arms and start shooting do not be surprised if someone shoots back.
“...keep in mind that your potential opponent or adversary has his natural rights as well. That’s why we have laws.”
If I were violating my adversary’s fundamental God given rights, I would expect for a system of just laws (and enforcement) to compel me to cease that activity.
Only a law which is repugnant to the natural rights of man would dictate otherwise.
Which wasn’t the case in 1861.
I was being facetious. See you later.
Uhm, that was tried about 150 years ago. It didn’t turn out to well at all...
Article V of the Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government to all the states.
Since the 17th amendment, has anyone seen any federalism?
No?
It’s good nobody is shooting at the moment.
5.56mm
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.