Ted Cruz suggests Texas could secede and "take NASA and the military" if Dems "destroy the country"

[DrLove]

How will we EVER find people to dredge the ports? It's way above our technical capabilities, right?

Yes, it definitely would be.

 

[meaner gene]

And, Texas vs White didn't rule on whether secession was legal or not; Lincoln, the SC before and after the Civil War studiously avoided making any such claims in Court, for the obvious reason they would then have to strike down the 13th and 14th Amendments as being illegally passed.

Actually the SC ruled that secession was unconstitutional.

White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

 

[DudleySmith]

Actually it is forbidden, because the constitution has no mechanism to allow it.
To allow secession would mean to allow taxation without representation. As federal income tax is levied against all us citizens irregardless of the state or country they earn income in. Yet Texas would be ineligible as a foreign country to send any senators or representatives to congress..

Granting the power to the Fed use force against a state was specifically left out the Constitution, i.e. it had no such legal powers to do so as per Madison's own arguments against it when such a power was proposed by one of the Pickneys. You're full of shit on top of being ignorant.


“It was then moved and seconded to proceed to the consideration of the following resolution (being the sixth submitted by Mr Randolph)


Resolved “that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts:”


[47]


“That the national legislature ought to be empowered”


“to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation; and moreover


To legislate in all cases, to which the separate States are incompetent: [Ayes — 9; noes — 0; divided — 1.]7 or


in which the harmony of the united States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation


To negative all laws, passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union: (the following words were added to this clause on motion of Mr Franklin, “or any Treaties subsisting under the authority of the unionHYPERLINK "http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#Farrand_0544-01_415"✪


Questions being taken separately on the foregoing clauses of the sixth resolution they were agreed to.


It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last clause of the sixth resolution, namely,


“to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil it’s duty under the articles thereof.”


on the question to postpone the consideration of the said clause ...”






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






“On the question for giving powers, in cases to which the States are not competent,


[54]


Massts. ay. Cont. divd. (Sharman no Elseworth ay) N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay, S. Carolina ay. Georga. ay. [Ayes — 9; noes — 0; divided — 1.]


The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States 〈to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat Leg the articles of Union down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union”, being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union”; on motion of Dr. Franklin,〉19 were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.


The 〈last〉 clause 〈of Resolution 6. authorizing〉 an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.


Mr. 〈Madison〉, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States 〈containing such an ingredient〉 seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed.20HYPERLINK "http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#lf0544-01_footnote_nt_135_ref"HYPERLINK "http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#lf0544-01_footnote_nt_135_ref"✪ This motion was agreed to nem. con.


〈The Committee then rose & the House


Adjourned〉21










[61]










“Motioned vz.


That each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts.


agreed.


That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confedn. and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the seperate States are incompetent.


agreed.


or in which the harmony of the U. S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.


agreed.


To negative all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the national legislature the articles of union, (or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the union, added by Dr. Franklin).


agreed.


[/b]And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.HYPERLINK "http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#Farrand_0544-01_527"✪


postponed.


Mr. E. Gery thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself.”[/b]






http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057

 

[DudleySmith]

Actually the SC ruled that secession was unconstitutional.

White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Rubbish. That case was about a military Governor wanting to steal some bonds for himself as part of the plunder he felt was his right to seize. It was not a case about the legality of secession. No such case exists, dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually it is forbidden, because the constitution has no mechanism to allow it.
To allow secession would mean to allow taxation without representation. As federal income tax is levied against all us citizens irregardless of the state or country they earn income in. Yet Texas would be ineligible as a foreign country to send any senators or representatives to congress..

You have forgotten the very effective legal strategy and legal doctrine that everyone always forgets when considering these types of matters.

That is, the "FUCK YOU, MAKE ME, BITCH" legal doctrine.

 

[DrLove]

 

[whitehall]

He didn't say it that way but that's how the left wing propaganda machine works these days. It beats talking about Biden.

 

[meaner gene]

How many Texans are armed and dangerous?

In fact, Texas has 67% more guns than the #2 state, Florida.

A rifle behind every blade of grass.

And how many nukes does Texas have? You can't shoot a tactical nuke no matter how many guns you have. And if Texans try to attack the US military, their right to self defense doesn't stop with weapons in kind.

If Texans bring a gun, the Army brings a tank. If Texas brings a tank, the Army brings a drone. If Texas brings a drone, the Army brings tactical air support.
If Texas brings an army (such as their national guard) the Army will not do hand to hand, as long as they have the deterrence of overpowering tactical and strategic weapons.

So bring your guns to a nuke fight.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And how many nukes does Texas have? You can't shoot a tactical nuke no matter how many guns you have. And if Texans try to attack the US military, their right to self defense doesn't stop with weapons in kind.

If Texans bring a gun, the Army brings a tank. If Texas brings a tank, the Army brings a drone. If Texas brings a drone, the Army brings tactical air support.
If Texas brings an army (such as their national guard) the Army will not do hand to hand, as long as they have the deterrence of overpowering tactical and strategic weapons.

So bring your guns to a nuke fight.

Are you really dumb enough to believe that nukes are on the table, or are you just shit talking?

 

[Lesh]

Sorry Ted, that ain't the way it works. If Texas secedes, we take NASA and the military. ALL of it including the Coast Guard. Next hurricane or freeze - No FEMA so you're on your own buddy. And you'll be out of a job after Texas has no more representation in Congress. Maybe you can organize a citizen army and capture Cancun?

Sen. Ted Cruz has called on his home state to secede from the U.S. if Democrats "fundamentally destroy the country," adding that Texas should "take" NASA, the military and the country's oil supply along with it.​

​

"If they pack the Supreme Court, if they make D.C. a state, if they federalize elections and massively expand voter fraud, there may come a point where it's hopeless," Cruz said during a speaking event at Texas A&M last month.​

​

"We're not there yet, and if there comes a point where it's hopeless, then I think we take NASA, we take the military, we take the oil," the Republican added.​

Ted Cruz says Texas should secede and "take the military" if Democrats "destroy the country"

Calls for secession have become a right-wing trope — but there's no constitutional way to accomplish it peacefully

www.salon.com

Yea… that was tried once Ted. Didn’t work out so well

 

[meaner gene]

Granting the power to the Fed use force against a state was specifically left out the Constitution, i.e. it had no such legal powers to do so as per Madison's own arguments against it when such a power was proposed by one of the Pickneys. You're full of shit on top of being ignorant.

Starting with that argument. The constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to suppress insurrection. Which specifically involves sending the army into a state.

I don't know where you got that bullshit from, but the constitution says it's bullshit.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 - THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion.

 

[DrLove]

Are you really dumb enough to believe that nukes are on the table, or are you just shit talking?

Depends on how pesky you and your fellow Gomers decide to be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yea… that was tried once Ted. Didn’t work out so well

It was tried twice. We're 1-1.

 

[SavannahMann]

My only thought is. Can we get that in writing?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Sorry, but once you secede, you don't get to use "United States" anywhere in your name.
It's trademarked.

Wrong. A Nation can name itself anything it wants to.

 

[DudleySmith]

Starting with that argument. The constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to suppress insurrection. Which specifically involves sending the army into a state.

I don't know where you got that bullshit from, but the constitution says it's bullshit.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 - THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion.

lol playing 'I Touched You LAst!!!' with a lot of unrelated rubbish. Secession is not an 'insurrction', nor a 'rebellion', nor a 'civil disorder', dumbass; it was accepted as perfectly legal from the ratification onward that the Union was a voluntary one. In fact it was the New England states who were the first to cry and snivel and threaten secession for the first 50 years of the country's history, dumbass; nobody thought it was illegal then, and Lincoln and most northerners knew it wasn't illegal as well. They stood to lose a lot of money and massive corporate welfare when the South decided it didn't feel like paying for northern welfare programs, is all. Lincoln said as much, and most everybody knew it at the time.

 

[DudleySmith]

Are you really dumb enough to believe that nukes are on the table, or are you just shit talking?

All he does is shit talk.

 

[Lesh]

It was tried twice. We're 1-1.

The South took a military installation in South Carolina and got their asses kicked.

What’s the second time?

 

[marvin martian]

Actually the SC ruled that secession was unconstitutional.

White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

That was very close to the same time your fellow DemoKKKrats on the court ruled that slavery was totally ok.

 

[DudleySmith]

The South took a military installation in South Carolina and got their asses kicked.

What’s the second time?

More rubbish. The attempt to blockade Charleston and extort tariffs was an act of war. Lincoln knew it when he did it that it would be a provocation. He did so deliberately.