They do that and I’ll move there. I love Colorado, but now that it’s Colo-fornia, thinking about bailing.
I think the secession has been settled.
The Federales will bankrupt themselves to kill us in job lots and devastate our homes rather wave bye-bye.
It won’t be necessary. Trump is not finished yet.
bump
I’ve lived there before...and can gladly do it again if need be! Would make the state redder!
Would rather use the term independence.
A US state can file all the separation papers it wants. But the chance of it successfully seceding is zero point zero.
The United States is always lecturing the rest of the world about the importance of self-determination. But try it here and Billy Sherman comes knocking at your door,
There are examples of excellent, successful recent divorces. Lativa, Lithuania, Estonia divorcing the USSR. Czechia and Slovakia separating. Those were peaceful and successful. A few others had some issues, but the point is dissolution can be done and done peacefully. If given the option, I would vote for Texit - no doubt in my mind.
The problem is
You may try to leave - but the globalist, statist, destructive, cult-religion of the left remains.
And they will never stop in their messianic attempt to control you and the world. The notion you can leave, and live in peace, is a fantasy.
We’ve been trying to get out for 150 years but haven’t had any luck.
“Quebeck?”
Never going to happen. Barely a majority of Texas is Red.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, given the Supreme Court’s clarification of the fed’s constitutionally limited power to appropriate taxes, probably most so-called “federal” funding in any state is arguably state revenues that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification feds stole from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
Such revenues should never have left any state, the revenues instead spent any way legal majority state voters residing in a state want it spent.
In fact, based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Justice Joseph Story, here is an incomplete list of INTRAstate issues, expressed in first half 19th century terms, that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the express power to dictate, regulate or tax and spend for, the feds now wrongly ignoring state sovereignty on these issues.
Poor laws [welfare, housing, food stamps]
Agriculture
Public Education
Wages of labour
Profits of stock
Capital
Machinery
Rents of land
The punctual performance of contracts
Roads
Rivers
Canals
Colonies
The reason that patriots everywhere are now being oppressed under the boots of unconstitutionally big federal government is the following imo.
Regardless that the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority Supreme Court justices had clarified the fed's constitutionally limited powers in United States v. Butler, using inappropriate words like “concept" and “implied,” FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later scandalously initiated the politically correct repeal of the 10th Amendment in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
And since the time of Wickard, generations of misguided voters have unthinkingly abused their 17A voting power to not only finish off the 10th Amendment, but have also effectively nullified the Constitution’s Article V amendment process by electing corrupt senators who promise constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs to get themselves elected regardless what the states want.
Finally, can anybody imagine constitutionally clueless state government leaders demanding that the feds surrender stolen state revenues back to the state if a state decides to secede from the Union? I can’t.
Texas tried this once before. Didn’t work out too good.
I see a lot of yeas and nays on here, but this is just a bill for a referendum to be voted on by the citizens of Texas. Whether the bill succeeds or not, it sure would be interesting to see how we would vote. If for no other value than to see liberal heads explode in stereo.