Posted on 06/23/2021 7:03:03 PM PDT by 11th_VA
A quirk of a 19th-century Congressional resolution could allow Texas to split up into five states
Before John Nance Garner became Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, and before he declared the job “isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit,” the cow-punching, whiskey-drinking, poker-dealing Texas congressman pushed a plan to grab even more clout for his already enormous state.... “Cactus Jack” argued that Texas could, and should, split itself into five states.
“An area twice as large and rapidly becoming as populous as New England should have at least ten Senators,” Garner told The New York Times in April 1921, “and the only way we can get them is to make five States, not five small States, mind you, but five great States.” Thanks to the terms of Texas’ 1845 admission to the Union, he argued, the state could split anytime, without any action from Congress—a power no other state has...
“We’re the only state that can divide ourselves without anybody’s permission,” says Donald W. Whisenhunt, a Texas native and author of the 1987 book The Five States of Texas: An Immodest Proposal. “That’s just the way it is.”
Article IV, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress must approve any new states. But Texas’ claim to an exception comes straight from the 1845 joint congressional resolution admitting Texas into the Union. It reads: “New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.” Supporters of Texas division say this means that Congress pre-approved a breakup...
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.com ...
So we could just split Texas up. Make more red states and take back the Senate.
Would one be cartel controlled?
Probably yes ... but the RATs in the Texas house would probably flee the state so a quorum would not be possible ...
This is what I’ve been saying for a while as a response to the pitch to make D.C., Puerto Rice, etc. states. Texas could add 8 more red senators by splitting itself up. There’s more legal support for Texas doing that than for making D.C. a state (which arguably violates the Constitution).
Californicate would copycat.
I believe that Texas entered the Union under a treaty, since it was an independent sovereign nation. Congress can’t override the Constitution by simply passing a law, but a treaty is different.
That said, some say that when Texas rejoined the Union in 1870 (now Lincoln fought the war saying the states had never actually left, but he was dead) it gave up the right to split without Congress’s approval.
Sure, only problem is you might get there blue states. Texas us barely holding on to red state status now. The big cities, all blue, would demand to be part of a blue state and the party begins.
Texas Becomes:
1. Best Texas
2. Texas Max
3. New Texas
4. Texas Forever
5. Make Texas Great Again
They don’t have the power to do it without fed approval.
Texas does.
It actually is not arguable if you read the constitution.
Can you name one treaty that the United States government has honored in its entirety? Ever?
Bkmk list
I don't think they can. Was California given an exclusion similar to Texas when California joined the Union? If not they will need US Congressional approval to split into more states. Probably a super majority required.
Texas got permission 150 years ago and it is still valid.
I think this is an important and practical way Texas can gain complete control over the United States politically.
It is especially true now that border regions are becoming much more Republican.
It would be possible to create five states and a net +8 senators that would cripple democrat prospects.
It would add electoral votes to Texas.
I further support an agenda of Texas colonialism that would flip small northeast states like Vermont by having Texans by summer homes allowing voting there in strategic numbers.
Imagine Bernie sanders replaced by someone like Ted Cruz.
The potential cascading effects are massive.
Perhaps enough to move the us Capitol to Texas.
Can you name one treaty that the United States government has honored in its entirety? Ever?
“Perhaps enough to move the us Capitol to Texas.”
That would be a grave mistake. We’ve seen what that has done to Virginia.
Here’s a hint: the longest any known treaty with the Government of the United States has lasted WAS the Treaty of Ghent which ended the War of 1812.
The United States abrogated that treaty when they re-introduced armed ships into the Great Lakes following the “Patriot Act”.
Treaties are only honored until they are no longer convenient to one or both signatories.
It was long ago mentioned that one way for all the states to effectively secede from the very corrupt federal government is to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (17A).
But Trump's red tsunami of patriot voters will first need to primary federal and state lawmakers who cannot get a grip on the constitutional reality that most federal domestic policy is based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated state revenues, which ultimately means citizens' wallets. Such revenues are stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the corrupt, post-17A Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“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.
”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.
Insights welcome.
What do you base that opinion on? (Not being difficult, I really wonder.)
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.