Texas v. White (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
It wasn’t illegal. The 1869 SCOTUS could hardly be deemed honest precedent on the matter. In 1789 not one state thought it was entering a “roach motel”. The “Perpetual Union” language was in the Articles of Confederation and it was not included in the Constitution.
That is not correct. That is one side of it. You didn’t hear the Texas side of things.
If the Constitution meant for States to be in the Union forever, it would have said so. It didn’t.
What the Court ruled is in affect changing a contract. A contract cannot be changed without BOTH parties agreeing to it. That never happened.
Texas, and ever other state, can leave if it’s citizens decide to do so, period.
Texas didn’t give a rats ass the first time,and won’t give a rats ass this time either. The administration in Washington has violated nearly all of the Constitution, so, IMHO, that alone gives Texas or any other state that thinks it can make it on it’s own the right to leave. We don’t depend on the rest of the country to any degree that we couldn’t manage here in Texas.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“...except through Revolution.” Indeed.
Did John Roberts write the majority opinion on that case?
BS! Nothing is final until God says it is. God Bless Texas.
“All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State.”
I am not a lawyer but have several years of contract administration experience and interpret this ruling to mean that the State of Texas IS indeed tied, in perpetuity, to a REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
A case could be made that Obama,in using executive orders and regulations to bypass congress (will of the people), has directly “transformed” the US from a republic to an imperial entity not defined by by either the constitution or this ruling, freeing Texas to proceed with succession if so desired.
Yeah, its weak but you could even use Obama’s own speeches to build a stronger case for this “transformation” in order to weaken White vs TX.