Skip to comments.If BHO is reelected, Time for Texas to Secede (Vanity)
Posted on 07/07/2012 10:55:47 AM PDT by no dems
Being a native-born Texan, it is my understanding that Texas is the only State in the Union that can legally secede from the Union, because it was once a Republic on it's own. (The Republic of Texas.)
Now, someone help me out here: Is that a fact? If so, I'm calling on all Texas FReepers to join me in laying the groundwork to make it happen if Barack Obama is reelected. What do we need to do to start a Secession Movement, and where do we begin? If you're not a Texan, you don't understand the Texas mind-set. If BHO is reelected, I guarantee you that Texas would vote 60% - 40% FOR Secession. Even Governor Perry has talked about Texas seceding. LET'S FRIGGIN' DO IT!!!
All states can do that. I was being facetious for someone else’s benefit. I keep sending them to snopes. You can go there and find all states can actually do that. Of course, here, we fly all 6 flags.
But what about those who trade iberty for a gulf breeze?
There’s got to be an exception for that :P
All states can do that. I was being facetious for someone else’s benefit. I keep sending them to snopes. You can go there and find all states can actually do that. Of course, here, we fly all 6 flags. And hello, hulka. Good to see you.
Therein lies the problem. You see yourself as an American citizen, giving your allegiance to the federal government instead of your State; this is much like a German/Frenchman/Englishman giving his allegiance to the EU rather than his country.
Not if said anywhere south of San Antonio. . .or in El Paso.
However, it should be noted that this provision was more or less redundant, as any state can be split into two or more states by action of its legislature and Congress.
Article IV, Section 3: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
The only difference I can see is that TX can split itself without congressional approval. But then the new states would still have to petition for entry into the Union.
You assume correctly.
At this point I'm not assuming there will be an election this November, let alone that it will be fair.
I will continue to do all I legally can to both eliminate him from office AND invalidate all he has done as a fraudulent occupier of the White House.
Please do feel free to continue doing everything you can to denigrate any attempt to question his legitimacy.
I'm sure the haters of the American Dream appreciate every iota of support you provide to defend Obama's allah-given right to rule over this country.
Perhaps the allahgator will eat you last.
Obama Romney | | | | | | | | Marxist Fabian Socialist Socialist \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / IMPLEMENTS SOCIALISM
biggest taker states are either simply low population density but with highways and big federal land mngt like Wyoming
or states with a lot of military presence
or with high non productive minority populations like Mississippi
it all contributes
and it means nothing really
it is a liberal argument bolstered by liberals and race baiters and folks here who have no clue in the culture war...somebody at the Nation or HuffPo or in Jon Stewart's office discovered this morsel that rich urban and liberal states with high taxes pay in more than they take in usually and even some here run with it like every money spent in that state is an entitlement
it was a favorite point of trumandogz...now banned..anyone remember him?
They do have a military.
I don’t have enough room for a Six Flags over Texas - type of display in my front yard.
There you go.
If I moved to Texas and was granted residency, I would consider myself a Texan.
Perhaps you can explain something to me.
As you point out, I’ve had considerable discussions with those supporting the notion that Obama is ineligible to the presidency.
I have, possibly with rare exceptions, always treated them as if their position was honestly held and therefore worthy of respect, even though I disagree.
Many of them, as you illustrate here, have not responded in a similar fashion. Why do you think that is?
You're assuming that the 40% that would vote against it wouldn't accept it. That is, just because they don't really like the idea doesn't mean they would be opposed to it.
There are people who really wouldn't care, provided a) the government leaves them alone for the most part, and b) they have access to justice (or at least no blocking of it).
Yep. I don’t miss him in the slightest.
I see this is in the 1845 Texas Constitution.
What about the 1876 Constitution, the one enacted for re-admission to the Union.
That is the current constitution, so, does the 1876 Constitution have that same language? I can’t find it.
Appreciate the assist.
Perhaps they have been abraded by ones who are not as honest as you?
You are quite right. Those who refuse to accept it at all, perhaps with violent opposition, would be a subset of those who voted against it.
But the question still exists. It is very difficult for a government based on the consent of the people to have legitimacy if a large minority of the people disapprove.
Or at least more so than for governments basing their legitimacy on some other principle.
Odd. Obama makes it look effortless, between rounds of golf and vacations...
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.