Bill on Texas Secession presented to Texas Legislature

In Rick Perry We Trust.





NOT!


Keep on believing the hype. The politicians in Texas are no different than the ones in Washington. They all wine and dine together and uphold the party's platform.

reply to post by GullibleUnderlord


The same thing thay Lincoln did...... spin the issue into something it wasn't to justify his means. I support the decisions of Texas because all the states are essentially a country in themselves and the federal gov't is comparative to the united nations.
I don't live in Texas and don't like the geography but by god they are through and through loyal to their freedoms and I respect that. As a Missourian I feel that we too should grow a set and reassert our sovereignty too. I started a thread on allodial sovereignty and it ties into this loosely but has the same color of ideology.
The real issues of the civil war was nothing to do with slavery(emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that suceeded the Union and left the Union states with their slaves) and all to do with high taxation, interstate tariffs and state sovereignty. Texas, is again asserting its sovereignty and I support whatever means nescessary to let them govern themselves so long as it doesn't infringe on "my" rights for sovereignty.
The only problem I see with Texas pulling away from the Union is the fact that the largest Army base in the world is in Killeen, Texas or i should say Fort hood instead. So any action will be met with strict and fast deployment of thousands of troops to regain and conquer that state. If by chance that happens then we could see a tidal wave of states break away from the Union and objectively/collectively overthrow the federal system and reinstate a more perfect union. After all, that is what the framers of this great nation envisioned and planned for the continuity of the people's right for sovereignty and self governance.

so it would turn into a civil war, oh well i doubt that it will pass seems
like fiction for that to happen guess we will wait and see

While I am all for getting rid of Texas, and barring anyone from Texas from entering the United States ever again upon penalty of death.

One has to remember.

Ron Paul is from Texas. You loose Texas, you loose your God.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Depends on how you look at it, as Martial Law is a power given to the president.

But thats a conversation for another thread.

Martial law is one thing, but forcing someone into a contract is a power that no one has. Especially since the President needs Congress' approval to initiate martial law. When the southern states seceded, the south's representation left Congress. Meaning that, Congress did not have the authority to make any decision since representatives were missing. So the decision to declare martial law was de facto.

Especially the decision to force the south back into the contract.

And its very relevant discussing it here, because I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama and our current de facto Congress use the same tactics against Texas. Especially if other states follow Texas' lead.

Have fun with your new third-world nation, guys. I'd say I'll mus you, but let's be honest, kicking Texas off the list will save the rest of the country several billion dollars.

reply to post by whatukno


Hey that is an interesting argument! If texas did succeed in falling away then could Ron paul still be President if he moved to another state? He is afterall a natural born citizen before they fell awy and if he moved back in the U.S then he'd still be a citizen but would that disqualify him? on another note isn't Obama a dual citizen too? Even if Ron paul couldn'r run we still got Rand.

reply to post by agentblue


Actually dual citizenship isn't a disqualification, but living out of the country prior to running for office would be. But if Texas does leave the Union, then Ron Paul would immediately loose his citizenship, and Rand would become an anchor baby and have to be deported too.

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Depends on how you look at it, as Martial Law is a power given to the president.

But thats a conversation for another thread.

Martial law is one thing, but forcing someone into a contract is a power that no one has. Especially since the President needs Congress' approval to initiate martial law. When the southern states seceded, the south's representation left Congress. Meaning that, Congress did not have the authority to make any decision since representatives were missing. So the decision to declare martial law was de facto.

Especially the decision to force the south back into the contract.

And its very relevant discussing it here, because I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama and our current de facto Congress use the same tactics against Texas. Especially if other states follow Texas' lead.

Fair enough, I just dont want to derail the thread is all.


This is a debate i highly hesitate to get into for a couple of reasons, the first of which being that I dont necessarily agree with what lincoln did, so it is tough for me to argue in his favor. I am also no where near educated enough on actual LAW to know what precedences have been set in either way.

I do believe that your assertion that the constitution is a contract between the states and gov't would not hold up in court, but again, I am a student of history, not of law, which is why I stated what happened, not why it was or was not legal.

the minute that goes down that would be considerd an act of war and it
would all be down hill from there for the us i think

Look, I am not in favor of this Bill and there are a lot of things in Texas I have issues with. But to say good riddance to the second largest economic state in the union is not a good thing. 5 of the top fortune 500 companies reside in Texas, and it has 57 over all tied with Cali. And it has the second largest work force in the country. With a gross state product of 1.227 trillion dollars it would be a huge blow to the United States if they leave.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

That being said, many states have passed such resolutions, not just Texas.


WASHINGTON RESOLUTION
NEW HAMPSHIRE RESOLUTION
ARIZONA RESOLUTION
MONTANA RESOLUTION
MICHIGAN RESOLUTION
MISSOURI RESOLUTION
CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION
GEORGIA RESOLUTION
OKLAHOMA

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


You have to remember one thing about Texas: Texas has the Right to Seceed as they were an independant Republic before they joined the United States, one big difference from the rest of the states.
They also do this every once in a while just to stir up the people in Austin and let them know the natives are getting restless.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Good luck!

Secession-ready Texas has received most federal disaster assistance of any state.

Just weeks after declaring that Texas might secede from the union because “the federal government has become oppressive,” Gov. Rick Perry (R) today asked for more federal aid when he “issued a disaster declaration” because of the swine flu. Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein found that, since the beginning of FEMA’s record-keeping, Texas has actually received more federal assistance from FEMA than any other state:

-4/30/09

This gets a little old every two years.

edit on 7-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Actually, this is the first time this has been brought before the legislature in quite awhile. They tried two years ago and were denied on a technicality.

As for Texas receiving more money for disatser releif.

First of all, Texas only receives $0.94 for every dollar sent to DC.

Iin essence, Texas spends more money in taxes than it receives in funding.

Furthermore, Texas has been hit with a few droughts the past 25 years, not to mention hurricanes. Did I mention that Texas housed most of the Katrina refugees?

Learn your facts before mouthing off.

Originally posted by GullibleUnderlord
does texas have everything they need in their state to supply their people ? because washington would stop any trucks from going into texas i know they are big on farms and dairy but is that enough ?

Most of Texas is farm land.

Most of the world's beef comes from Texas. That means we have milk as well.

Water . . . check.

Fruits and veggies . . . check. Cotton . . . check. Mineral and fossil resources . . . check.

reply to post by binomialtheorem


Well good, when you move out, I can take your place along with my whole family by moving in!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Have fun with your new third-world nation, guys. I'd say I'll mus you, but let's be honest, kicking Texas off the list will save the rest of the country several billion dollars.

As if the USA is not going down the tubes as it is.

lol


But really now?

Texas takes in much less than it puts out financially.

Texas supplies the worlds beef markets, and has a big hand in cotton, sorgum, seafood, and oil.


Keep burying your head in the sand.

You should really do some research with Synnthia lol

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Actually, this is the first time this has been brought before the legislature in quite awhile. They tried two years ago and were denied on a technicality.

Actually, reading what you hit "reply" to could go a long way toward actually presenting something useful instead of just arguing to argue.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
-4/30/09

This gets a little old every two years.

edit on 7-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

09. Two years. Key words in that post.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
As for Texas receiving more money for disatser releif.

First of all, Texas only receives $0.94 for every dollar sent to DC.

Iin essence, Texas spends more money in taxes than it receives in funding.

When you leave out federal funds for roads and disasters, you know like the disasters I mentioned. I guess I am missing your actual rebuttal to that. Again, it would have helped a great deal to have read my post.

Furthermore, Texas has been hit with a few droughts the past 25 years, not to mention hurricanes. Did I mention that Texas housed most of the Katrina refugees?

What is your point? 13 disasters in the last decade they have gone crawling to the federal government to get bailed out on. Your response does exactly what to rebut that?

Learn your facts before mouthing off.

Try making sense.

reply to post by METACOMET

. . .

It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Apparently they failed to read the 10th Amendment.

And yankees wonder why the "illiterate southern rednecks" get all pissy. lol

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


We all know that this is just Texas grandstanding, macho BS. I'm from Texas and If the Cowboys were confined to Texas and couldn't play in the NFL and the Longhorns and A&M could only play in Texas the Texans would beg to be let back in the US.

But cut of their mail, internet and let em sweat for a bit.