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

[the other mike]

That is not the NSA Headquarters. Catch a clue! It belongs to the NSA but it is NOT the headquarters.

There's one in Utah, one in Texas and one in Maryland.
They are all headquarters for their given regions, walnut brain.

 

[bodecea]

Yup.

It might be a good idea to then split California into two states.

Stay at 50, don't have to buy new flags 'n stuff.

Adios, pardners.

Nope...replace Tejas with Puerto Rico.

 

[bodecea]

I looked up the info to make sure Texas gets 39.5 billion dollars from the federal government, roughly a third of the state's revenue. Does not include all the military bases and the impact they have on the state. etc. etc. Secession is NOT advisable at all.

Ironically, Texas begged the U.S. to get annexed as a state for 10 years because they were broke and wanted the U.S. government to rescue them financially.

 

[MinTrut]

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 .)

None of that matters.

King George called the FFs traitors, and then the United Staes happened.

If Texas wants to secede, it should secede.

No one has the moral right to tell them they may not.

It's super-simple.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 .)

As recent events have shown us, what you have a right to do and what you're actually going to be allowed to do are two very different things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you have a right to withdraw yourself from the rule of a government you do not want . . . any regime tyrannical enough to make you want to withdraw is going to be, by definition, tyrannical enough to make war on you for trying it. As I recall, the last time Americans decided to nope out of a political association with a regime, it led to a war.

 

[Mr Natural]

Texas DOES have a right to secede

And the sooner the better.

 

[sartre play]

Don't we have enough problems? Guess Texas can secede, but why would they want to?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's an interesting notion. You can't secede from the country, because the government of the country you're trying to secede from says that you can't. That's a little like a woman asking her husband if she's allowed to divorce him, and then staying married because he tells her she has to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't we have enough problems? Guess Texas can secede, but why would they want to?

Because staying attached to the rolling dumpster fire that Democrats are making of the nation is so chock-full of benefits for them?

 

[Mr Natural]

Don't we have enough problems? Guess Texas can secede, but why would they want to?

And why would we care?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Are you retarded? (Rhetorical question, since you prove that you are every time you open your mouth.) Of course divorce can be unilateral. If I wanted a divorce, and my husband wanted to stay married, we'd be divorced. He can make it cost me, but he can't make me stay.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think maybe its a little to late to say taking my toys & going home?

Why? Is there a cosmic time limit somewhere that says, "Once you've been part of a country for X number of years, you have to tolerate whatever abuses it imposes forever"?

 

[bodecea]

None of that matters.

King George called the FFs traitors, and then the United Staes happened.

If Texas wants to secede, it should secede.

No one has the moral right to tell them they may not.

It's super-simple.

The Founding Fathers were traitors to England. However, they won the war....what do you think would have happened to them if they'd lost the war?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."


The only way a state could secede is if the other 49 states agree to it.

Otherwise, it's war.

You say that like you think it's a refutation. Sure, secession means war. It always has. Doesn't mean it can't be done, and it doesn't mean it's wrong to do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to remind you of one simple fact. Joe Biden has the nukes to convince Texas to comply.
Also all military personnel in Texas are still subject to the UCMJ, and all military bases stationed in Texas are still US property and under US control.

Try to change that, and that's where the nukes come in.

Well, I can't imagine why anyone would want to secede from a country that says, "Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told or we'll nuke you." What could POSSIBLY be tyrannical and objectionable about that?

 

[bodecea]

You say that like you think it's a refutation. Sure, secession means war. It always has. Doesn't mean it can't be done, and it doesn't mean it's wrong to do it.

Secession doesn't have to mean war. Even in 1860 it didn't have to mean war....but South Carolina was insane.

 

[bodecea]

Well, I can't imagine why anyone would want to secede from a country that says, "Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told or we'll nuke you." What could POSSIBLY be tyrannical and objectionable about that?

What country has said that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If such a thing as a Texass secession were to occur, I would strongly urge all women and minorities to GTFO as soon as possible.

I would strongly urge you, under any circumstances, to keep your idiot advice on what's best for people who aren't you to yourself, because no one values your opinion.

 

[bodecea]

I would strongly urge you, under any circumstances, to keep your idiot advice on what's best for people who aren't you to yourself, because no one values your opinion.

Nerve touched there.