Posted on 06/20/2022 12:42:25 PM PDT by DFG
Texas Republicans want to hold a referendum next year to decide whether or not the state should secede from the U.S.
The party charges the state has taken its right to self-govern and calls for secession.
The demand was part of the party platform Republicans voted on at their state convention this weekend, where they also formally rejected President Joe Biden's election in 2020 as legitimate.
Under a section titled 'State Sovereignty,' the platform states: 'Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified.
'Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.'
Texas has long pushed an independent movement, called 'Texit.'
After the area declared independence from Mexico in 1836, it was a sovereign state for nine years before it was annexed by the United States in 1845. There have been multiple secession movement since then.
Legally Texas cannot secede from the union. There has been a myth that it can because of the way it was annexed but the Congressional order of annexation merely stated Texas could - at a future date - divide itself into five states. It says nothing about leaving the union.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
After midnight but before the inexplicable counting stoppages.
Trump led in PA by 682,000 votes (15.2%)
Trump led in GA by 311,000 votes (7.5%)
Trump led in MI by 307,000 votes (9.6%)
Trump led in WI by 128,000 votes (4.9%)
Trump led in NC by 77,000 votes (1.4%)
* Decertify Arizona
* Decertify Pennsylvania
* Decertify Georgia
* Decertify Wisconsin
* Decertify Nevada
* Decertify Michigan
* DECERTIFY BIDEN!
In case you hadn’t noticed, we are already there.
It wasn’t original, I stole it from somewhere...
That’s a distinction without a difference.
The document still exists but the people in charge don’t respect it?
Then the document no longer exists as a functional document. Same difference.
“That’s a distinction without a difference. The document still exists but the people in charge don’t respect it?
Then the document no longer exists as a functional document. Same difference.”
Not true. Because there still ARE people who DO respect it. What you suggested is akin to saying that the Bible no longer exists because there are people who ignore it.
“That’s a distinction without a difference. The document still exists but the people in charge don’t respect it?
Then the document no longer exists as a functional document. Same difference.”
Not true. Because there still ARE people who DO respect it. What you suggested is akin to saying that the Bible no longer exists because there are people who ignore it.
“I don’t want to live in a Balkanized country.”
Sadly, you already do.
Respected by very few in office. Look at Cornyn from Texas of all places, about to sell us out on 2A.
The exceptions like DeSantis are few enough to be considered like Noah in the OT.
It doesn’t make any difference, it would never happen with the communist strongholds in Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth fighting it.
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here.
“14th Amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....”
What law would a seceding state be making or enforcing WITHIN THE UNITED STATES — by secession? None. “Making” and “enforcing” are both active actions (i.e., they are acting UPON someone or something). Thus, the active qualifiers of MAKING a law or ENFORCING a law necessarily mean WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. The seceded state is not doing that, because the seceded state is no longer part of the U.S., and therefore is neither making nor enforcing a law within the U.S.
To paraphrase an old 1960s trope, the seceding state is saying to the U.S., “You go your way, and we’ll go ours.”
“Any Texas claim of secession would terminate the privileges and immunities of all citizens of the United States resident in Texas.”
No, it wouldn’t, as U.S. citizens would still have all the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens while they are within the United States, and would still retain those rights and immunities within the seceded state (which would be its own country or would have allowed itself to be annexed by another), but subject to the laws of the seceded state or the country to which it has become annexed, just as U.S. citizens on foreign soil have always been subject.
“Texas Constitution 1868: Article I, Bill of Rights:
That the heresies of nullification and secession, which brought the country to grief, may be eliminated from future political discussion....”
Don’t you think it would have been more appropriate if you had referenced the Texas Constitution that is in effect today, and has been since 1876 (NOT 1868)? Or, are you attempting to play fast and loose with the facts?
This is what the current Texas Constitution says:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Feb. 15, 1876.)
So, you see, the operative clause is “...subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”
That means if the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit secession, neither does the Texas Constitution.
These are interesting and entertaining debates, and I enjoy them, as they make us think (which is always desirable).
In the end, though, it would come down to what SCOTUS says; and even at that the decision of SCOTUS is only “right” until a later SCOTUS determines otherwise.
No one said a constitutional republic was pretty; but it’s the best governing system yet devised.
“The exceptions like DeSantis are few enough to be considered like Noah in the OT.”
And Noah, if the OT were to be taken literally, saved mankind from complete destruction.
BTW: I am a big DeSantis supporter.
When the shooting starts then we’ll have arrived.
Not yet we aren’t. We’re still fifty states and one flag and one country. We don’t need Secession 2.0.
“The only way to throw off the tyrannical government is to amend the Constitution to rein it in, eliminate the parts we don’t like, and add new ones to it with the consent of the states.”
The history of the world has never had pieces of paper preventing radical change.
Leftists understand this.
Conservatives (for the most part) do not.
Some lessons can only be learned the hard way.
It really is a matter of civil society. Does one want to establish a set of orderly rules to live by, or does one want to return to the days of Dodge City, constantly looking over one's shoulder for the person who was bigger, stronger, or faster than one's self?
This is what the second amendment was all about. The Founders feared weaker states forming their own armies in order to have "equality with their more potent neighbors," according to James Madison in Federalist #8.
Madison then goes on to describe an arms race between the states as they each try to match the others in strength.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World.Put in its simplest tribal terms, rejecting the civil society existing under the Constitution would return us to the days of the strong oppressing the weak, which the Founders feared.
To amend your statement: The history of the world has never had pieces of paper preventing radical change, until the Constitution. That is what was meant by the phrase "American Exceptionalism;" we were exceptional amongst the countries of the world in how we were a nation of people who agreed to be ruled by the consent of the governed, not by divine-right monarchies or conquerors.
-PJ
It is not about what I prefer.
It is about what is and will be.
The United States will not last forever.
The breakup will not be “legal” and will not be pretty.
Waving pieces of paper in the air is irrelevant.
Con respecto, senor-been to a big blue city lately? The nearest one is 50 miles away from this rural area-I won’t go there-working and shopping is safer in this red county...
We already live in a Balkanized country-and the shootings multiply every weekend along with the homeless population, the drugs and thugs of los carteles, and the BLM tyranny that glorifies dead drug dealers like George Floyd while the DOJ demonizes Asians and Caucasians, as well as conservative Blacks-and even local law enforcement. We may be one flag, but we are not one country any more and haven’t been for at least 25-30 years.
We now have productive states supporting dependent states with OUR tax money-I’m sure some other productive states with people sick of their taxes pouring into green new deals and other socialist dreams, public schools where kids belong to the teachers-not parents-and don’t learn anything but how racist they are, what LGBTQXYZ is, etc will leave the chaos that our once-wonderful country has become, if invited...
My ancestors left Mexico for W Texas and NM when it was Spanish territory-before 1800-a wilderness full of hostile Natives-but at least the Spanish government was far away so they could raise livestock and grow food in peace-they cared more for their freedom to live their lives in peace than living in a place where they only got to keep what the government let them. I’ve been waiting for the revolution since I was 14 years old-and I’m all for Texas first, always-secession looks fine to me-I have a Come and Take It/Goliad flag that is brand new just waiting to be flown-and Texas will not be alone...
I agree-our society is no longer civil-not even close-according to my dad, it began heading into insanity when communism started being accepted as okay and LBJ ruined the natural order of things by creating a dependent class of people who have become a modern Roman mob-he believed that until the day he died and he was right, in my opinion...
I don’t get why some people-even here at FR-seem to be afraid of not having the government “give” them stuff-or tell them what they can own, how much to pay, whatever, as if it were the government’s money-which it is not-let us have our money back-we can manage it just fine-especially after we pry those on public assistance-including the welfare mommies-off the government’s tits-why are these people afraid of controlling their own income and destiny?
What might happen, and likely would, is breaking away from the state, like West Virginia did in the Civil War, from Virginia.
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.