Posted on 06/25/2016 10:10:24 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
After residents of the UK voted today to leave the European Union, the movement for an independent Texas may be gaining serious momentum, with thousands online calling for a “Texit.”
The largest group agitating for secession is the Texas Nationalist Movement, which has been promoting its own version of Brexit, called Texit, over the past several weeks. The group has taken inspiration from the pro-exit campaign in Britain, noting that the two movements share many of the same principles. Daniel Miller, president of the TNM, told Australian website news.com.au, “The vast majority of the laws, rules and regulations that affect the people of Texas are created by the political class or unelected bureaucrats in Washington” — a sentiment which echoes the arguments made by the British Leave campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at vocativ.com ...
https://texassecede.com/faq.php
Don’t mess with Texas.
Your thoughts on this?
Take care people going the other way don't trample you.
Ted isn't that popular lately.
Had not considered that before, but I think you are correct. The bottom feeders would leave en masse, and those who will not leave voluntarily, will be forced out.
So was California; but alas Babylon, in the last 30 to 40 years we have just become a communist satellite of SPICKSICO.
So, in your mind, European states are free to vote to leave an oppressive and overbearing bureaucracy that is no longer representing their needs, but American states do not enjoy this Freedom? Pray tell what other rights and powers the winning and losing states all lost in that war. If you read the Constitution, the very noticeable difference between the pre-Antebellum Amendments and the post-Antebellum Amendments is that they USED to all say "Congress shall not", and afterwards, they all say "Congress SHALL have the power". Seems like the result of the Civil War was to grab many many more powers, not relinquish them.
He remains admired by those who care more about the Constitution than they care about populism and revenge against the Left.
I agree. Secession will never happen as long as there is a United States. Texas is as much a part of those United States as the United States is a part of Texas. It would be impossible to separate the two without killing Texas. Think of it as conjoined twins with one heart and two brains. Yes, they can be separated and maybe a heart transplant could be done on one (Texas) but it won’t live very long or be very healthy ever. But by staying joined they can live on indefinitely.
I’ve been noticing some odd behavior down Texas way over the last few years. I think a lot of it is the frustration we all have with this gay muslim kenyan President we currently have and a feckless congress who refuses to stop him like they should. Some of it is just plain good ole’ boy nonsense like what happens in Waco all too often and even the lefty cities like Houston act the same way; just in reverse for the left.
This President has divided this nation like none other before him; at least in relatively modern times with the possible exception of FDR. Not coincidentally; they are much alike.
That’s an interesting point too. Thanks for the mention. Perhaps other states are limited. I don’t know the answer on that.
You make good points, and I’m glad we can agree on Texas leaving the union. I understand the frustration. I live in California, so I’m used to that.
My tagline touches on a point that is important to me.
“It’s morning in America again.” This addresses the nation, but doesn’t directly address the smaller areas, the states, regions, counties, and cities.
You bring in a whole new team, and it not only addresses towns, but communities, the nation, and the world.
Under Reagan we saw a number of nations freed up from Marxism even before the Iron Curtain fell.
Trump started this global movement for freedom, making things great again, and I think it’s going to touch every person on the planet.
No other man I can think of would have come close to this.
We have our Reagan II, something we’ve prayed for over 27 years.
Sigh...
Fine. Let us first examine the actual words used in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
Now let us examine the actual words used in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, which was expressly passed by the consent of both "the Senate and House of Representatives" (and not just by ratification of the Senate under the Treaty Clause):
"And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given ... New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may [not "shall"], hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall [not "may"] be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution ..."
The drafters of the Resolution clearly understood the difference between the words "may" and "shall," having used them both in the same sentence. By passing this Joint Resolution of both Houses of Congress using the words "shall be entitled to admission," Congress expressly provided their consent, in advance, to Texas forming up to four additional states, in which case those four additional states "shall" be entitled to admission to the union.
In other words, if Texas at any time wants to split into a total of five or less States, then they have already gotten the consent of Congress. If Texas wants to split into a total of more than five States, then they have to go back to Congress and get additional consent.
Your interpretation of the Resolution not only changes the word "shall" to "may" but renders this entire section of the Resolution utterly meaningless. Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, any State "may" split into as many new States as they want, but only if they first get the consent of Congress, which Congress "may" or may not give. Congress has already given its consent for Texas to form up to four new States, in which case those States "shall" be entitled to admission to the union.
It is axiomatic in statutory and contractual interpretation that no term should be interpreted in a manner so as to render any provision superfluous or meaningless, or as Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, "Words mean things."
Of course, this is all academic now, since the Constitution and statutes of the United States now mean whatever the hell five Supreme Court Justices want them to mean at any point in time. I can only hope that someday (perhaps in my children's lifetime) a majority of the Supreme Court Justices will be strict constructionists like Scalia, so that once again words will mean things.
The political divide in this country is not between the rich and poor (the Democrats have at least as many billionaires as the Republicans) or between races (Democrats have at least as many racists) or even geographic. The political divide is between urban and rural.
You can confirm this by looking at a county by county map of any of the past several Presidential elections. The nation appears as a sea of red with small islands of deep blue scattered throughout the country. Liberalism is both a cause and effect of living in a large city.
If you choose to live in a large city, you want and need your government to provide you with a long list of basics for survival - everything from utilities to protection to transportation. If you choose to live in rural America, you neither want or need a lot of government services. You have a septic system for sewer, a well for water, and the police or an ambulance are up to an hour away.
For example, if you live in NYC you probably do not own a car, may not know anyone who owns a car, and cannot understand why anyone would want to. If you want to go to the store for groceries, you walk, take the subway or maybe a cab and carry a bag home with you. If you live in rural America, walking to the store for groceries is not an option. The closest store is probably 10 to 20 miles away. There is no mass transit because the population density is far too low. So once a week or once a month you make a trip to the nearest Walmart and haul back a truckload of supplies. Now thanks to the Interweb, you probably get a UPS truck coming by every week (assuming that you have dial up Internet access).
Similarly, if you live in NYC and someone breaks into your apartment in the middle of the night, the correct response is (1) barricade yourself in an interior room, (2) call 911, (3) scream “I have called the police, go away” and (4) hope that the police get there before you are raped and killed. You do not own a gun and would be afraid to use one if you did since if you miss you could hit someone in the neighboring apartment and whether you hit or miss you would be arrested for illegally owning and using a gun.
If you live in rural American and someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night the correct response is (1) shoot him, (2) call your nearest neighbor and tell them what happened, so they can put the word out to the rest of your neighbors and be on the lookout for any fleeing accomplices (3) call the sheriff and tell him what happened, (4) put on a pot of coffee, (5) wait on your porch for your neighbors to arrive, look at the body, and drink coffee with you on the porch, (6) wait an hour or more for the sheriff’s deputy to arrive (with the Justice of the Peace in tow) to take your statement and for the JP to declare, “Yep, he’s dead,” and (7) wait until morning for the local undertaker to arrive and haul off the body.
If Texas ever were to secede, we would have illegal aliens streaming across both our Southern and Northern borders.
Like many of my relatives, I live in a remote rural area-have most of my life-and I agree that your description of the differences between rural and city life are correct-city dwellers who move out here usually don’t stay more than a year or two-they don’t have what it takes to be happy with self sufficiency...
We do have satellite internet out here, but the general store is 10 miles away, nearest grocery store-a Lowe’s market-is 18, nearest HEB, WalMart, etc is about 32 miles-and EMS and the sheriff’s deputies are 30 minutes to an hour away-there are only about 19,000 people in this whole county-the largest town has 900 of them, so there aren’t a lot of LEOs and they cover a huge territory.
I drive my 4x4 to the Lowe’s and the butcher shop every couple of weeks, and get any immediate needed stuff at the general store in between times. Most everyone drives either an SUV or a truck, usually a 4x4. Like most other people, I order everything from clothes to makeup online and UPS brings it to the gate...
If someone climbed over the gate at the road, I’d call the sheriff before they ever got to the house, while holding my shotgun-if hearing it get pumped did not deter them, then I would follow your steps, accordingly-I’ve already pointed a pistol at an intruder who burst through the front door-he was deterred....
Congress could not have fully consented to the division of the state because it wouldn't have fulfilled its obligation to ensure a republican (little 'r') form of government ("admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution"). So in order to prevent Texas from dividing into additional states, all Congress has to do is withhold approval of the proposed constitutions of the new states.
We have property North of Town about 15 miles out, but haven't built anything there - maybe won't since we are both retired now.
Last time we had a burglar, I thought it was Hubby ignoring me, and when I realized it wasn't, I was so mad and indignant that I hollered at the guy and delivered such a blistering diatribe, that he turned around and ran back out the door and down the hill.
After he left, that's when I got scared. After it was all over. Not sure why.
Nope, sorry. The first section of the Resolution specifically required the adoption of “a republican form of government.”
Again, your interpretation does not hold up, because it renders the entire section superfluous and utterly meaningless.
The Texans of 1868 didn't agree with your interpretation. When the proposed state of West Texas drafted its constitution, it knew that the constitution would be submitted to Congress for approval.
Interesting lil tid bit most have not even heard about. Under the latest Texas legislature and conservative leadership of Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Texas voted to create a “Texas Gold Depository”.
Think they're reading the tea leaves up in Austin?
>>Ted isn’t that popular lately.<<
It’s pretty obvious you’re not a Texan.
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.