Texas DOES have a right to secede according to those who know the law and Constitution

[meaner gene]

i don't believe it is an act of war

no one has the right to rule over you against your will... make u live without representation

It's not an act of war. It's an illegal action, that the supreme court already ruled as being null and void.

It has no force of law, and the government can use the force necessary to keep Texas in compliance with it's federal obligations as a member of the union. Such as sending the IRS into Texas to compel income tax.

 

[bodecea]

TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union. the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally 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

Any argument Texas had that they could secede, was already ruled on.

Note the word "unilaterally"....in other words, lobby to have the U.S. government agree....a mutual parting of the ways.

 

[meaner gene]

No...Secession, IMO, is legal. You just have to go thru the legal process. If the Southern states had just seceded in 1860.....that would have been fine. But then those idiots had to go and start a war by firing on Fort Sumter.

Only half right. It was illegal and void for them to secede.

But as you pointed out, firing on Ft Sumter allowed the government to the actions necessary quell insurrection.

 

[bodecea]

They blocked the harbor to Charleston.

They did no such thing. However the Southern states did, firing on U.S. ships just trying to resupply Sumter. The South started a stupid war they couldn't cash in on.................and many have been whining about it ever since.

 

[surada]

They did no such thing. However the Southern states did, firing on U.S. ships just trying to resupply Sumter. The South started a stupid war they couldn't cash in on.................and many have been whining about it ever since.

LOL... Why were they resupplying Fort Sumter in Chas Harbor?

 

[meaner gene]

Note the word "unilaterally"....in other words, lobby to have the U.S. government agree....a mutual parting of the ways.

I believe that congress has the power through constitutional amendment to release a state from the union. But it would take 2/3rds vote in both houses, and 3/4th of the states to agree.

 

[struth]

Texas DOES have a right to secede according to those who know the law and Constitution

Andrew Napolitano is an attorney who has studied the US Constitution and he says that Lincoln was wrong to go to war to keep the states together, that they have a right to secede

it makes sense

when the country was being formed, the leaders needed all the states to ratify the Union and Constitution

if they have the right to agree to it, they have the right to take back their agreement.. the right to secede... Remember the words of the early documents... that if, after a long string of usurpations... people find it necessary to throw off the bonds... (I will get the exact words soon but you know them or should .)

The SCOTUS has disagreed....states do not have a unilateral right to secede from the Union...

Texas v. White - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Texas DOES have a right to secede according to those who know the law and Constitution

But they aren't, so what's the point of having the discussion?

 

[bodecea]

LOL... Why were they resupplying Fort Sumter in Chas Harbor?

Food....water....etc. The kinds of things that a garrison will be using daily and need to get more of, especially when they are cut off from the mainland.

 

[bodecea]

I believe that congress has the power through constitutional amendment to release a state from the union. But it would take 2/3rds vote in both houses, and 3/4th of the states to agree.

Yes, then it's not unilateral. Texas (and other red states) should get their lobbies going.

 

[bodecea]

But they aren't, so what's the point of having the discussion?

Well, they DO like to keep whining about it.

 

[DBA]

Sure they can. What's stopping them from starting the process? They need to get crackin'

Don't know. I would certainly support the movement, but I wouldn't mind waiting to see how the midterms turn out first. If the Republicans don't pick up several seats then the fix is most certainly in and it is time to make a move.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Texas DOES have a right to secede according to those who know the law and Constitution

Andrew Napolitano is an attorney who has studied the US Constitution and he says that Lincoln was wrong to go to war to keep the states together, that they have a right to secede

it makes sense

when the country was being formed, the leaders needed all the states to ratify the Union and Constitution

if they have the right to agree to it, they have the right to take back their agreement.. the right to secede... Remember the words of the early documents... that if, after a long string of usurpations... people find it necessary to throw off the bonds... (I will get the exact words soon but you know them or should .)

Wrong.

A state can only secede with the consent of all the other states, having nothing to do with 'throwing off' anything.

 

[the other mike]

Only half right. It was illegal and void for them to secede.

But as you pointed out, firing on Ft Sumter allowed the government to the actions necessary quell insurrection.

Ft Sumter was just the same as strict abortion laws. ( not that I necessarily agree with them, but as devil's advocate in this argument)....Okay. ( that's sarcasm btw)

Texas will do what they want, but they won't secede over abortion.
A stolen election ? Probably, as other states would join them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Texas DOES have a right to secede according to those who know the law and Constitution

Andrew Napolitano is an attorney who has studied the US Constitution and he says that Lincoln was wrong to go to war to keep the states together, that they have a right to secede

it makes sense

when the country was being formed, the leaders needed all the states to ratify the Union and Constitution

if they have the right to agree to it, they have the right to take back their agreement.. the right to secede... Remember the words of the early documents... that if, after a long string of usurpations... people find it necessary to throw off the bonds... (I will get the exact words soon but you know them or should .)

Not really, that is Texas isn't exclusive in what you're saying, any state can leave the union. I disagree with that. However Texas can secede from itself!

A quirk of a 19th-century Congressional resolution could allow Texas to split up into five states\

For More Than 150 Years, Texas Has Had the Power to Secede…From Itself

A quirk of a 19th-century Congressional resolution could allow Texas to split up into five states

www.smithsonianmag.com

Article IV, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress must approve any new states. But Texas’ claim to an exception comes straight from the 1845 joint congressional resolution admitting Texas into the Union. It reads: “New 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.” Supporters of Texas division say this means that Congress pre-approved a breakup.

 

[iceberg]

But they aren't, so what's the point of having the discussion?

Trump wasn't colluding with Russia, but...

 

[bodecea]

Don't know. I would certainly support the movement, but I wouldn't mind waiting to see how the midterms turn out first. If the Republicans don't pick up several seats then the fix is most certainly in and it is time to make a move.

Get the lobbyists started early working Capitol Hill. I know a lot of Blue state Senators and Representatives can easily be con-vinced to vote for it.

 

[meaner gene]

Ft Sumter was just the same as strict abortion laws. ( not that I necessarily agree with them, but as devil's advocate in this argument)....Okay. ( that's sarcasm btw)

Texas will do what they want, but they won't secede over abortion.
A stolen election ? Probably, as other states would join them.

It's like marriage and divorce. None of the actions can be unilateral. And in this case, it takes the agreement of the states to let any state secede. And i'm sure the terms would include them returning and/or paying back the union for government property they retain.

 

[occupied]

Texas secession simpletons see themselves being independent enough to deprive masses of people of their rights but somehow able to still use the American dollar, the American flag and the American economy. Fools. The new Confederate dollar would be like the old confederate dollar. Worthless as anything other than toilet paper.

 

[bodecea]

Texas secession simpletons see themselves being independent enough to deprive masses of people of their rights but somehow able to still use the American dollar, the American flag and the American economy. Fools. The new Confederate dollar would be like the old confederate dollar. Worthless as anything other than toilet paper.

But figuring that all out would be THEIR problem, wouldn't it?