White House: Texas must remain part of the US

[JQPublic1]

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Bad news for thousands of people who wanted to see Texas secede: The state is still in the U.S.

The White House has responded to a petition asking that Texas be allowed to break away from the country, saying the Founding Fathers who created the nation "did not provide a right to walk away from it."

More than 125,000 people signed the petition, which was created a few days after President Barack Obama won re-election. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

LINK:White House: Texas must remain part of the US

 

[asaratis]

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Bad news for thousands of people who wanted to see Texas secede: The state is still in the U.S.

The White House has responded to a petition asking that Texas be allowed to break away from the country, saying the Founding Fathers who created the nation "did not provide a right to walk away from it."

More than 125,000 people signed the petition, which was created a few days after President Barack Obama won re-election. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

LINK:White House: Texas must remain part of the US

Lincoln would not allow secession in 1860. His would-be clone Barack Obama cannot allow it today.

 

[Ringel05]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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 provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.

Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

 

[Darkwind]

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Bad news for thousands of people who wanted to see Texas secede: The state is still in the U.S.

The White House has responded to a petition asking that Texas be allowed to break away from the country, saying the Founding Fathers who created the nation "did not provide a right to walk away from it."

More than 125,000 people signed the petition, which was created a few days after President Barack Obama won re-election. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

LINK:White House: Texas must remain part of the US

The White House gets it wrong again! Color Me surprised.

The Founding Fathers actually did. However, Lincoln did away with that when he won the war.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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 provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.

Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

Urban centers such as Houston, DFW, Austin etc. could be Democrat enough to carry a few of those new states blue.

 

[Ringel05]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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 provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.

Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

Urban centers such as Houston, DFW, Austin etc. could be Democrat enough to carry a few of those new states blue.

I'm aware of that, besides, I doubt they would ever do it in the first place, just thought it was interesting.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:



Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

Urban centers such as Houston, DFW, Austin etc. could be Democrat enough to carry a few of those new states blue.

I'm aware of that, besides, I doubt they would ever do it in the first place, just thought it was interesting.

Of course they won't do it. What's interesting is those cities in Texas might become Democrat enough to make the whole state blue one day.

 

[sitarro]

Urban centers such as Houston, DFW, Austin etc. could be Democrat enough to carry a few of those new states blue.

I'm aware of that, besides, I doubt they would ever do it in the first place, just thought it was interesting.

Of course they won't do it. What's interesting is those cities in Texas might become Democrat enough to make the whole state blue one day.

With all that the asswipe democrats are doing under the imbecile in chief, don't count on it.

 

[UseCaution]

The Confederate States of America Dogma crap:
Whining as always, Sorry Ass losers, well you got all those guns, and to
pussy to use them. And losing again would be worst, to a black president ....

 

[sitarro]

The Confederate States of America Dogma crap:
Whining as always, Sorry Ass losers, well you got all those guns, and to
pussy to use them. And losing again would be worst, to a black president ....

I love it when one tries so hard to be a condescending ass but is such an illiterate shit, he shows the world that he is nothing but a loud fool........typical of leftist clowns........ that is what you are isn't Use, a leftist clown? You racist assholes that project who you are on others, how do you live with yourselves?

 

[UseCaution]

The Confederate States of America Dogma crap:
Whining as always, Sorry Ass losers, well you got all those guns, and to
pussy to use them. And losing again would be worst, to a black president ....

I love it when one tries so hard to be a condescending ass but is such an illiterate shit, he shows the world that he is nothing but a loud fool........typical of leftist clowns........ that is what you are isn't Use, a leftist clown? You racist assholes that project who you are on others, how do you live with yourselves?

What a fool!

--- Review again! ---

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Bad news for thousands of people who wanted to see Texas secede: The state is still in the U.S.

More than 125,000 people signed the petition, which was created a few days after President Barrack Obama won re-election. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

-------------

Hmmmmm....?
Texas vote:
Winner:Romney /57.2% /4,555,799 still a loser! And Texans are cowards in general and Dallas Cowboys suck as America Team anyways. New name for them maybe "Confederate Team" mostly refers to LOSERS in America! Read Texas school books, if they allow this fact to remain as science was removed..
B. Obama / 41.4% / 3,294,440 ... Still President...
So, what will you/Texas do to control your local rebellion if you could ever get Texas secession movement to come true........, there is no widespread popular support for an independent Texas. And the 125,000 vote above most don't live in Texas probably anyhow. And I think running to Texas will not be something they are willing to do... As they are PUSSIES! And you need the north tax dollars to pay your bills. Wow, what to do. what to do......

Again.....
Whining as always, Sorry Ass losers, well you got all those guns, and to
pussy to use them. And losing again would be worst, to a black president ....

WAIT! The Blackman said NO! YOU LOSERS!!!!!!! The Confederate States in action...what pussies!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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 provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.

Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

Oy vey! Complete lack of understanding. Texas does not retain a unilateral right to break into five separate states at its own whim. The resolution stated that a total of four additional states could be created out of the then existing Republic of Texas, to be admitted to the Union pursuant to constitutionally prescribed mechanisms. Thus, any new state(s) created out of the region of the current state of Texas would still have to be granted Congressional approval.

Prior to annexation was completed, there was a great deal of discussion about how to go forward. Some wanted to see Texas divided into several states that would each be admitted into the Union. Some wanted Texas to remain one state. Some Americans were concerned about the balance between slave and free states. Some Texians were concerned about being underrepresented in Congress. On top of that, there were logistics. Would the Republic of Texas have to first split into five separate countries and be annexed individually? Could the US carve out separate states from the Republic which was being annexed as a single entity? Would Texas be forced to remain a single state against the will of its people if it decided it wanted the multi-state solution? And finally, can these questions all be sorted out quickly? Because the Mexicans are knocking at the southern door.

The annexation itself proceeded in unusual fashion. The article of annexation was a Joint Resolution of Congress, as opposed to a formal treaty between the US and the ROT. Thus, the article has to be read from the point of view of Congressional members speaking amongst themselves. They agreed that they would admit Texas into the Union, and would entertain up to five states being created out of the Republic, and would proceed as per constitutional requirements for admitting a new state out of the territory of a current state. The very same resolution, after passed by Congress, was voted on by the Texians, and subsequently the Texian legislature.

 

[UseCaution]

Despite the continuing myth that the Texas Annexation documentation contains a clause allowing the state to secede whenever it wants, it is exactly that, a myth. However:

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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 provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.

Now Texas is mostly Republican. Imagine eight new republican senators, some of whom would most likely be hard liners.........

Texas secession: How the Lone Star state could mess with the rest of us. - Slate Magazine

Oy vey! Complete lack of understanding. Texas does not retain a unilateral right to break into five separate states at its own whim. The resolution stated that a total of four additional states could be created out of the then existing Republic of Texas, to be admitted to the Union pursuant to constitutionally prescribed mechanisms. Thus, any new state(s) created out of the region of the current state of Texas would still have to be granted Congressional approval.

Prior to annexation was completed, there was a great deal of discussion about how to go forward. Some wanted to see Texas divided into several states that would each be admitted into the Union. Some wanted Texas to remain one state. Some Americans were concerned about the balance between slave and free states. Some Texians were concerned about being underrepresented in Congress. On top of that, there were logistics. Would the Republic of Texas have to first split into five separate countries and be annexed individually? Could the US carve out separate states from the Republic which was being annexed as a single entity? Would Texas be forced to remain a single state against the will of its people if it decided it wanted the multi-state solution? And finally, can these questions all be sorted out quickly? Because the Mexicans are knocking at the southern door.

The annexation itself proceeded in unusual fashion. The article of annexation was a Joint Resolution of Congress, as opposed to a formal treaty between the US and the ROT. Thus, the article has to be read from the point of view of Congressional members speaking amongst themselves. They agreed that they would admit Texas into the Union, and would entertain up to five states being created out of the Republic, and would proceed as per constitutional requirements for admitting a new state out of the territory of a current state. The very same resolution, after passed by Congress, was voted on by the Texians, and subsequently the Texian legislature.

Texas divided into several states is a "in the middle" along the correct course of action to take. I will sign anything to help...Divide and be conquered again "The Confederate States in action" I would keep all the current union paper in order.. Ya' All will need it!

 

[Politico]

Texas was never planning on going anywhere so it it a moot point. Shame they didn't raise the petition limits sooner.

 

[Sallow]

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — Bad news for thousands of people who wanted to see Texas secede: The state is still in the U.S.

The White House has responded to a petition asking that Texas be allowed to break away from the country, saying the Founding Fathers who created the nation "did not provide a right to walk away from it."

More than 125,000 people signed the petition, which was created a few days after President Barack Obama won re-election. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days.

LINK:White House: Texas must remain part of the US

The White House gets it wrong again! Color Me surprised.

The Founding Fathers actually did. However, Lincoln did away with that when he won the war.

They absolutely did not.

There is one way..and one way only that a state can secede according to the Constitution. Legislation would have to pass both houses of congress, be signed by the President and survive any challenges in the Supreme Court.

That's it.

Otherwise they are engaged in insurrection and face the consequences.

 

[Dutch]

As i have said before, if they want to break away just tell the voters that the Texas Longhorns, AM Aggies would never be able to play for a national championship ever again. And throw in the Dallas Cowboys for good measure. 125,000 signatures, thats childs play. You get that in Austin every other Saturday in the fall.

 

[UseCaution]

Texas please do this... That sucking sound you here is all the companies leaving as your new TAXATION PLAN will see to that!!!! I say Eq. or/> CA and NY. So first order order of the day invade union state for money and jobs? A black Pres. will add a new fence to the north Ya' All will be fighting a two front war. see Mexico that's ugly.....And I for one will fund the mexicans to take over Texas as this is your problem now.. Bring it home Pedro..

 

[Staidhup]

Given time, this country will split apart for the only reason that the weight of government will become so overwhelming. The split will not be the result of war. As time passes the very premise and rights afforded by the Constitution will be meaningless, and ability of the government to retain its power over the states compromised due to financial instability. It's citizens will discover no value and benefit in remaining united.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

you mean the government isn't going to take a bunch of whining pussies' petition to leave the union seriously? i am shocked. shocked.

 

[Mustang]

Secession. It would have been a good deal for the US as long as Texas agreed to take George W. Bush with them for good. Hell, I would have liked to see those Texicans vote Bush in as their first president.