Posted on 04/17/2009 10:17:36 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union or bars it from doing so. The constitution does not say anything about states leaving.
Just the same, I think it might be just a little more politically savvy to NOT write the material for the opposition.
The conservative movement has a decision it needs to make, and in a hurry. Is it going to be the erudite, urbane and well articulated party of ideas, like it's fathers Goldwater, Buckley and Weyrich, envisioned.
Or, is it going to go the way of crazy-talking rednecks who fantasize about "the South Rising Again". I for one, certainly hope it heads in the direction of the former and not the latter.
He’s right. Been there, done that, got the bloody T-shirt. ;)
You don't know much about Texas do you? Texas has a military past, the National Guard and reserves are very large (huge air assets, 15,000 army NG personnel, etc), the state supplied almost 16,000 active duty in 2004 alone (Canada had 28,000 enlistments from 2003 to 2008). They have had a Navy before, the Texas Rangers have often had to expand to battalion size military units when needed for major combat, the state has it's own Texas State Guard.
. Texas would be filled with fresh from active duty personnel to fill the slots need for border patrol and and military like slots.
Heck even the Confederate Air Force used to have it's own paratroopers until about the 80s, there is no shortage of highly trained and skilled people in Texas to replace the few Border Patrol that are there.
I don't see how you get "an angry mob" out of that.
How many Border patrol do you think are in Texas?
i’m not talking surrender. and good guess,i am in nyc. the difference is that ny is pretty much like the other liberal states. calif however has become some wild social experiment. everything happening at the federal level has been preceeded by california.
“Third, 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 provision of the Federal Constitution.”
Simple really, The “new” Texas is Austin and the surrounding cesspool. The four states comprised of the rest of the decent folks would not even have to join the US.
Yes yes, I know it is a pipe dream :-)
Last fall, when I saw all of Obama's supporters yelling "Pie". I knew it was going to come.
I wouldn’t argue with that, but it does reveal how terrible it can be to let one of our states be abandoned by the best our society has to offer. I don’t want to abandon the bad states. I want to turn them around.
I appreciate the comments. Take care.
Would it be easier to defend if the nation were turned around, or easier to defend if it were one state against 49?
If Texas were to leave, it would have a serious threat from the rest of the nation. As I stated before, the vast resources of the current federal government would not be at Texas disposal.
Look, this has been an interesting discussion. You take care.
”Now, we believe and maintain that the Union is to be preserved only so long as it is beneficial and satisfactory to all parties concerned.
“We do not believe that any man, any neighborhood, town, county, or even State, may break up the Union in any transient gust of passion; we fully comprehend that secession is an extreme, an ultimate resort--not a constitutional, but a revolutionary remedy.
“But we insist that this Union shall not be held together by force whenever it shall have ceased to cohere by the mutual attraction of its parts."
Not really. We won a war against those who wanted to do so, so they could maintain their slave based economy. And that was an issue that had been festering since the Constitution was written. We won the war and wrote into law that slavery was illegal. I don't recall any amendments on secession.
As said earlier in this thread, the Constitution is silent on the matter. The Declaration however, spelled out quite clearly that there are valid reasons for doing so, and when those long trains of abuse finally get too much, then not only is it a people's right, it's their duty.
Having done just that, how could the Founders deny the possibility to future generations if their little "experiment" in human government failed.
To be sure, it should not be undertaken for light and transient causes, and the Founders did give us plenty of tools for redress of grievances. Secession would be the final tool for the final straw.
Well, not necessarily. Political inclination of the new Senators would depend largely on boundary lines of the new states.
Rio Grande Valley is predominantly Hispanic and would likely vote blue. San Antonio is, and always has been, Hispanic. Inner cities of Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth would vote Democratic.
Houston has so many Katrina settlers and Hispanics that it’s anybody’s guess.
Pretty much would depend on how many right-thinking (pun intended) suburbs and rural towns are included in each new state to dilute the idiots.
Half the population is, by definition, below average intelligence. And they can all vote.
Neither secession nor separate states will happen. But it won’t hurt to make some noise.
“Can States Secede?”
Of course. Just as the colonies seceded from a larger power that they no longer wanted to be ruled by. Our declaration of independence sets forth the principles for just that.
Now as a practical matter, though a people have a right to self-determination and a right to withdraw peacefully from a gargantuan central government that has thrown aside all constitutional restraints, whether that people will be able to do so in the face of superior force is another issue.
Or to put it another way: If 9-11 only managed to unite us for about 6mos before we were tearing at each other, what possibly could ever bring us together again? As such, perhaps it is better if we part as amicably as possible.
That would constitute fascism, also. Why am I not surprised seeing who this is coming from, the Yankee way or the firing squad. I do believe you really are William "the Torch" re-incarnated. Have a pleasant day FRiend.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
I think your the only one on the thread that gets it.
The Declaration of Independence ‘is’ codified law of the USA.
It’s importance to absolute liberty supersedes The Constitution due to rights guaranteed to us by God.
This is why the Libs hate God so much. Our rights are given by him and by no man.
tahDeetz
Sounds good, I could never move to Texas because of the heat, but one of those cooler places sounds good.
u as well.
>already a proud independent. i owe my allegience to my country,not a party.
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."
Was the power to prevent secession delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the constitution to the states?
Texas would be a nuclear power days after leaving. Would the lessened USA have the stomach for a nuclear war to bring us back?
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.