Posted on 02/04/2024 5:01:26 PM PST by McGruff
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Sunday walked back her previous comment that Texas could secede from the US if it decided to do so.
“No. According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked whether she thought the Lone Star State had a right to secede.
“What I do think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about seceding for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that,” she said. “But what I will say is … Where’s that coming from? That’s coming from the fact that people don’t think that government is listening to them.”
Her comments mark a turnaround from remarks she made last week, when Haley told radio host Charlemagne tha God that “if Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Texas has a booming economy and feeds DC. If Texas did not have to fund DC’s insane foreign policy, globalism, and utterly out of control welfare state and follow DC’s regulatory regime, Texas could easily be self sustaining.
Wanna buy some oil? Some gas? Some Cotton? Some high tech?
Wanna launch rockets into space? Elon would LOVE ending his relationship with the FAA and NTSB.
Cash on the barrelhead.
If they are still a US citizen and their Social Security check is deposited in a US bank or one with international branches then yes.
But Texas succeeding will cut off their US Social Security benefits because they would no longer be US citizens.
As I say Texas succeeding will solve the underfunding of the SS system for at least 100 years...
The collapse of the Soviet Union is probably a better analogy.
State benefits stopped for a few months while the new Republics tried to figure out what was happening.
As I understand it they eventually paid partial benefits depending on the Republic—but common folks definitely had to tighten their belts and a significant number had serious issues.
soc sec is owed to the recipients regardless of where they live..
“I’m glad Lincoln saved the Union, but he offered nothing of legalities in that speech, merely sophistry and emotions.”
The South intended to leave the union; not destroy it.
Without the South, the union would still have had all those wonderful, smart, industrial states - just without those many millions of dollars of import duties created by cotton exports.
In other words: money.
For those that prefer to think the war was fought for lofty ideals I will suggest: “Lincoln fought to free the slaves.”
I’d check into the number of SS recipients in Texas and it the State is going to make them whole...
DC is running on massive deficits only way for Texas to keep up with the promises made by the US after succession would be running massive deficits or cutting benefits...
Not if you are not a US citizen...
“But Texas succeeding will cut off their US Social Security benefits because they would no longer be US citizens.”
You don’t have to be a U.S. citizen to get social security benefits.
I hate to be the one to tell you this.
Send DC a late notice if they miss your payment after your state has seceded....
You can even refer them to a collection agency if you wish.
lol.
Vivek Ramaswamy said Nikki Haley is Dick Cheney in high heels - I’m starting to think that was a bit too flattering. Cheney had brains, even if he all he used them for was perpetual war. Haley is starting to look as stupid as Kamala Harris.
If you honestly think the US would pay SS benefits to Texas residents after the state succeeded from the union then I have a bridge you might like to buy..
Of course, folks living throughout the world can still receive their SS benefits because they are US citizens. If Texas succeeds they are no longer citizens.....
“Of course, folks living throughout the world can still receive their SS benefits because they are US citizens. If Texas succeeds they are no longer citizens.....”
I don’t think you understand yet that a person does not have to be a U.S. citizen to collect social security. That is current law.
Look it up.
The “current law” might change if some states secede...just maybe...
Lol.
The federal government has not only refused to uphold the constitution, they are actively stomping on the billl of rights. Quite simply they are actively destroying rights granted by God to every person. Therefore any state, county or person can decide to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.
Anyone who thinks this is a suicide pact is wrong. If required, it may require watering the tree of liberty.
You do not understand that if Texas succeeds the US government will not pay social security benefits to those who are no longer US citizens.
It’s not going to happen after succession....
The only scenario I can see where SS benefits would continue to be paid to secession state residents would be an amicable separation with a formal treaty/trade agreement type of situation.
That is not impossible—but very iffy for sure.
“You do not understand that if Texas succeeds the US government will not pay social security benefits to those who are no longer US citizens.”
For the purpose of this post: Does a social security recipient have to be a U.S. citizen?
Nikki needs to recede.
“The “current law” might change if some states secede...just maybe...”
Let’s be realistic. No one that attempts to secede will be paid social security.
Not because it is or isn’t owned; it will not be paid because anyone that attempts to invoke the Declaration of Independence will be dead.
After the disaster at Appomattox, Americans lost their rights and remedies.
” Does a social security recipient have to be a U.S. citizen?”
Today—nope.
After secession?
Probably the law will be changed to treat secession state citizens as “enemies of the state” and “terrorists” and they will not be paid.
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.