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 ...
You can cut and paste to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.
That's nice. You can continue to post ignorant nonsense it it makes you feel better.
Cruikshank held that only the states or local government could create the right to keep and bear arms; and if it did, the US Constitution protected that.
You're delusional, which is why you can't cut and paste that.
United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875)
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.
So is being an idiot.
In other words, little if any credibility.
I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
"Relax," said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check-out any time you like
But you can never leave!"
I'm well aware of Dr. Franklin's background. I suspect that his namesake is spinning in his grave.
SCOTUS on Cruikshank (1876): “This (the Second Amendment) is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
Thus, Cruikshank held that the Second Amendment (indeed, the Bill of Rights) applied only to restrict Congress, but it did not restrict state governments. So, states and local governments could justify under Cruikshank their power to bestow the right to keep and bear arms to those of their citizens it chose, and deny same to those it chose. Some states and local governments used Cruikshank to justify denying blacks their rights.
This would certainly appear to fly in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fourteenth Amendment (1868, in pertinent part): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This protected American citizens from infringement by the states as well as by the federal government.
Fourteenth Amendment (again, in pertinent part): “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This applied the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the states as well as the federal government. It also was meant to stop state governments from discriminating against certain classes of citizens (especially blacks).
The SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller (2008) recognized the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms in his or her own self defense, independent of any local power to restrict that right to service in a militia, but subject to reasonable local restrictions for felons, the mentally impaired, the immature (by age), et al. Heller only addressed RKBA by citizens of Washington, D.C. (and similar other federal territories), though its impact was national.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), SCOTUS held that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment RKBA for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states (i.e., that the right is pre-existing, and is not dependent on a state creating one).
I really don’t care if you disagree with that.
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.