Texas Secession resolution passes GOP committee

[Skylar]

Lol. You don't get to just change the meaning of words.

The secessionists are those looking to abandon the constitution and the united states. They are the ones pushing it in texas.

Are you against them?

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

That states are claiming secession *under the constitution*. The founders didn't claim independence under British law. There is no secession 'under the constitution'. At least not unilateral secession.

Yeah, so what?

So, Texas fringers are claiming this authority under the Constitution. It doesn't exist. Ergo, it won't go anywhere.

 

[Skylar]

With every OTHER state but Kentucky and Virginia rejecting the idea. .

dear, our subject was not the "other states", but rather the Founders!!! Madision and Jefferson were the key founders!!! Sorry


Skylar: "The founders generally didn't support the idea of secession."

Wow. That's like an onion of fail. Just layers of discrete nonsense.

First, neither the Virginia nor the Kentucky resolutions authorized secession. A nullification argument isn't a secession argument. Killing your entire 'secession' argument in one motion.But lets kick that dead horse, shall we?

Second, the 'founders' weren't just Jefferson and Madison. It was the leadership of that era, most specifically those who were at the constitutional convention. A convention Jefferson never attended as he wasn't a delegate. Nor even in the country. Making Jefferson's perspective one of the least relevant founders you can cite when trying to glean the meaning of the constitution.

George Washington, who was a delegate for Virginia....was appalled at the idea of 'nullification'. And was a vocal opponent of it. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate for New York and writer of the Federalist Papers was also explicitly opposed to it. As were the overwhelming majority of the founders. Unless you're going to argue that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton weren't founders, your argument dies a second time.

Third, 14 of 16 states contradicted the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that a state could ignore federal law. As the concept runs contrary to the entire idea of federalism. What would be the point of a constitution if the powers delegated to the Federal Government had no legal authority? And 14 to 2 provides an overwhelming weight of sentiment of the founders on the issue of nullification.

Fourth, Madison himself acknowledged in the Virginia Report of 1800 that any such statement of rejection of Federal law by a State was merely a statement of opinion and carried no legal weight. Stripping your entire argument of even a semblance of plausibility.

Fifth, there was absolutely no mention of the States being able to ignore any federal law that they disagreed with in any of the Federalist Papers. Instead, the federal government was recognized as possessing authoritative powers under the constitution that the States did not possess. With the judicial power delegated to the federal judiciary explicitly including the authority to interpret the constitution.

Sixth, neither the Kentucky nor the Virginia resolutions nullified *any* law.

There's no angle where your argument works. Especially for secession.

 

[hunarcy]

A good way to get a value of roads is take what it actually cost to build it and maintain it then add a certain percentage for inflation.

Viola, you have a value put on a road.

Afraid it doesn't work like that. Let's take another example......

You have a computer. Let's say you bought it for $1200. You've had it for about seven years. You had to get a few things done to maintain it. You bought anti-virus software. You took it to the repair shop a couple times, including one time you got hit with a nasty particular virus that managed to get past your Norton or McAfee or whatever. You had to replace the cooling fan. All in all, it cost you $400 in maintenance costs. That brings you up to $1600.

One day, Comcast is in your home installing your new cable. The tech is a clumsy moron and knocks over your fish tank, which then spills water all over your computer. It's ruined. The company refuses to compensate you, so you sue. When you go to court, you say you want $1600 in compensation, with the above explanation as to why the computer is valued as such.

You won't get $1600 for your computer. Sure, you may have spend that much money on it, but that doesn't mean that is not the value of the computer at the time of the incident. You had the computer for seven years and you got seven years worth of use out of it. So the value of your loss is your purchase price minus the fair use you received. Which, after seven years worth of use is probably going to be pretty low.

Real estate has market values that can be reasonably estimated for resale purposes. The same is not the same for roads. Thus, trying to determine value of highways that were constructed before most of us were born becomes exceedingly complicated.

Sure it can work that way.

You said a value can't be put on roads.

I showed you a way to put a value on the roads.

Which is what it cost to build and maintain with adding in inflation to bring the old dollar values up to current dollar value rates.

If texas wants to leave let them. We're better off without those crazy people. I just want to make sure that any and all federally owned assets are paid for or given back to the federal government.

Most can't be given back so they need to pay us taxpayers for what they keep.

Federally owned assets? When did the US government PAY for those "Federally owned assets" that you are talking about?

It was federal tax dollars that paid to obtain or construct that infrastructure.

Every state gets federal tax dollars for federal interstate roads, for federal lands, for any military bases, for a long list of things that federal government tax dollars were used to create or obtain.

The state of texas took federal dollars so we Americans own it. Not just the people of Texas. If they want to leave the union then they should pay for what they take with them. Otherwise it's just theft.

Federal tax dollars come from the people of each state. But, the Federal Government took the land at a discounted price and never made it up...in come cases, it just took the land outright. So, the theft was on the part of the Feds.

 

[hunarcy]

A good way to get a value of roads is take what it actually cost to build it and maintain it then add a certain percentage for inflation.

Viola, you have a value put on a road.

Afraid it doesn't work like that. Let's take another example......

You have a computer. Let's say you bought it for $1200. You've had it for about seven years. You had to get a few things done to maintain it. You bought anti-virus software. You took it to the repair shop a couple times, including one time you got hit with a nasty particular virus that managed to get past your Norton or McAfee or whatever. You had to replace the cooling fan. All in all, it cost you $400 in maintenance costs. That brings you up to $1600.

One day, Comcast is in your home installing your new cable. The tech is a clumsy moron and knocks over your fish tank, which then spills water all over your computer. It's ruined. The company refuses to compensate you, so you sue. When you go to court, you say you want $1600 in compensation, with the above explanation as to why the computer is valued as such.

You won't get $1600 for your computer. Sure, you may have spend that much money on it, but that doesn't mean that is not the value of the computer at the time of the incident. You had the computer for seven years and you got seven years worth of use out of it. So the value of your loss is your purchase price minus the fair use you received. Which, after seven years worth of use is probably going to be pretty low.

Real estate has market values that can be reasonably estimated for resale purposes. The same is not the same for roads. Thus, trying to determine value of highways that were constructed before most of us were born becomes exceedingly complicated.

Sure it can work that way.

You said a value can't be put on roads.

I showed you a way to put a value on the roads.

Which is what it cost to build and maintain with adding in inflation to bring the old dollar values up to current dollar value rates.

If texas wants to leave let them. We're better off without those crazy people. I just want to make sure that any and all federally owned assets are paid for or given back to the federal government.

Most can't be given back so they need to pay us taxpayers for what they keep.

Federally owned assets? When did the US government PAY for those "Federally owned assets" that you are talking about?

They're owned by the people.... why should the people have to buy their own shit back?

Oh, for these hypocrites, it's the government's money, instead of the people's. Therefore, they are perfectly justified to take your money to give to someone else.

 

[Redfish]

the Texas people that you mention are not secessionists, they are patriotic americans that want the constitution to be followed. The liberals in DC have abandoned the constitution-------------------they have already seceded.

Is that too complicated for your thought processes?

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

That states are claiming secession *under the constitution*. The founders didn't claim independence under British law. There is no secession 'under the constitution'. At least not unilateral secession.

Yeah, so what?

So, Texas fringers are claiming this authority under the Constitution. It doesn't exist. Ergo, it won't go anywhere.

WTF is wrong with you? It doesn't require constitutional authority. Do you think Ukraine and the other former USSR states left in compliance with the USSR laws.

Do you think a seceded state or states would still be bound by the US constitution?

The only question is whether the two factions would engage in a civil war.

 

[Skylar]

Given the ignorance and stupidity of this post, you're in no position to question others' 'thought processes.'

But try to process this:

Residents of Texas are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of Texas subordinate to that, where their citizenship is immune from attack by the state – this is why it is un-Constitutional for a state to 'secede' absent the consent of the other 49 states (see Texas v. White).

For you and most others on the right this nonsense about 'secession' is nothing more than a partisan temper-tantrum because you lost the last two General Elections.

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

That states are claiming secession *under the constitution*. The founders didn't claim independence under British law. There is no secession 'under the constitution'. At least not unilateral secession.

Yeah, so what?

So, Texas fringers are claiming this authority under the Constitution. It doesn't exist. Ergo, it won't go anywhere.

WTF is wrong with you? It doesn't require constitutional authority.

WTF is wrong with you? You....you do realize we're talking about secession under the constitution, right?

If not, holy shit dude. Read the fucking OP before you start babbling.

 

[bravoactual]

All The Texas Reserve/National Guard Military Equipment would be returned to the U.S.k,

No border guards..

No mail service.

Your taxes will go through the roof.

Have Texas fun . Without any jets, tanks and other important military hardware you will be invaded by Mexico and I for can't wait for it.

Be sure to let the door hit you where your non-existent god split you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

those states would be declaring their independence just as the founders declared their independence from Great Britain. Forget the legality bullshit, it means nothing. Are you so naïve that you think some court would decide this?

Depends on if you are talking about a legal process for a State to secede from the union. In which case a legal basis means quite a lot.

If you are talking about Texas placing themselves in a state of insurrection against a lawful government then that is a different issue.

The founders were traitors against England, we view them as heros. If the war for independence had gone the other way then today as English subjects we would view them as traitors.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

those states would be declaring their independence just as the founders declared their independence from Great Britain. Forget the legality bullshit, it means nothing. Are you so naïve that you think some court would decide this?

Depends on if you are talking about a legal process for a State to secede from the union. In which case a legal basis means quite a lot.

If you are talking about Texas placing themselves in a state of insurrection against a lawful government then that is a different issue.

The founders were traitors against England, we view them as heros. If the war for independence had gone the other way then today as English subjects we would view them as traitors.


>>>>

I don't think Redminnow gets that.

 

[Redfish]

What you dumbfucks don't get is that it doesn't matter if secession is "legal" or not. Were the founders of this nation in compliance with British law when they signed the declaration of independence? Of course not.

If a state of states decided to leave the USA, they would be saying that they no longer will be subject to US laws. Would that cause a civil war? That is the question that should be asked. Not some foolishness about whether it would be "legal" or not.

That states are claiming secession *under the constitution*. The founders didn't claim independence under British law. There is no secession 'under the constitution'. At least not unilateral secession.

Yeah, so what?

So, Texas fringers are claiming this authority under the Constitution. It doesn't exist. Ergo, it won't go anywhere.

WTF is wrong with you? It doesn't require constitutional authority.

WTF is wrong with you? You....you do realize we're talking about secession under the constitution, right?

If not, holy shit dude. Read the fucking OP before you start babbling.

There is no secession under the constitution. If you think there is, give us a quote. dipshit.

 

[Redfish]

those states would be declaring their independence just as the founders declared their independence from Great Britain. Forget the legality bullshit, it means nothing. Are you so naïve that you think some court would decide this?

Depends on if you are talking about a legal process for a State to secede from the union. In which case a legal basis means quite a lot.

If you are talking about Texas placing themselves in a state of insurrection against a lawful government then that is a different issue.

The founders were traitors against England, we view them as heros. If the war for independence had gone the other way then today as English subjects we would view them as traitors.


>>>>

What you say is true. I never took issue with any of that. But there is no such thing as a constitutional secession. The only form of secession would be for a state or group of states to declare independence from the USA.

The question is whether it would be peaceful or cause a civil war.

This is not a legal issue any more than it was a legal issue when the founders declared independence from the UK or Ukraine declared independence from USSR.

If such a thing ever happened, and I hope it never does, it would not be resolved by a bunch for fricken lawyers sitting around a table playing lawyer games.

 

[Redfish]

All The Texas Reserve/National Guard Military Equipment would be returned to the U.S.k,

No border guards..

No mail service.

Your taxes will go through the roof.

Have Texas fun . Without any jets, tanks and other important military hardware you will be invaded by Mexico and I for can't wait for it.

Be sure to let the door hit you where your non-existent god split you.

you are wrong about most of that. Why would an independent Texas return anything to the USA? The Texas rangers and local police could manage the border better than the US border patrol. mail service? who gives a shit if the USPS works or not, UPS and FedEx would continue. Taxes? with no federal tax bill due from individuals and corporations, there would be plenty of money and the economy would boom. Without federal restrictions on oil and gas production, that sector would also boom.

I am not advocating secession, but you libs have it totally wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What you say is true. I never took issue with any of that. But there is no such thing as a constitutional secession. The only form of secession would be for a state or group of states to declare independence from the USA.

The question is whether it would be peaceful or cause a civil war.

This is not a legal issue any more than it was a legal issue when the founders declared independence from the UK or Ukraine declared independence from USSR.

If such a thing ever happened, and I hope it never does, it would not be resolved by a bunch for fricken lawyers sitting around a table playing lawyer games.

That's not true.

Logic says a State can secede in the same manner that they because a state. Texas lays before the Congress the result of a State referendum indicating a desire for the secede from the United States and how such a peaceful process could work.

There would be many details to work out, such as the transfer of mobile property back to the United States, the sale of such property that Texas would like to purchase and retain, citizenship and password issues, the assumption of a proportion of the national debt, etc.

Texas asked to be admitted to the United States, Texas can ask to secede from the United States - in both cases it is the decision of the rest of the States (through the acts of Congress - that would allow the peaceful execution of such an endeavor.

Texas Secession resolution passes GOP committee | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

What you say is true. I never took issue with any of that. But there is no such thing as a constitutional secession. The only form of secession would be for a state or group of states to declare independence from the USA.

The question is whether it would be peaceful or cause a civil war.

This is not a legal issue any more than it was a legal issue when the founders declared independence from the UK or Ukraine declared independence from USSR.

If such a thing ever happened, and I hope it never does, it would not be resolved by a bunch for fricken lawyers sitting around a table playing lawyer games.

That's not true.

Logic says a State can secede in the same manner that they because a state. Texas lays before the Congress the result of a State referendum indicating a desire for the secede from the United States and how such a peaceful process could work.

There would be many details to work out, such as the transfer of mobile property back to the United States, the sale of such property that Texas would like to purchase and retain, citizenship and password issues, the assumption of a proportion of the national debt, etc.

Texas asked to be admitted to the United States, Texas can ask to secede from the United States - in both cases it is the decision of the rest of the States (through the acts of Congress - that would allow the peaceful execution of such an endeavor.

Texas Secession resolution passes GOP committee | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


>>>>

you almost have it, except when you say the rest of the states would have to agree to any state secession. Can you cite language from the constitution to support that claim?

 

[WorldWatcher]

you almost have it, except when you say the rest of the states would have to agree to any state secession. Can you cite language from the constitution to support that claim?

Nope, but I can cite language that says Congress can deal with parties that place themselves in a status of insurrection against a lawful government.

If a State attempts to unilaterally secede, they have placed themselves in revolt against the United States. (Merriam-Webster Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.)



Now on the other hand, if Texas asks for permission to leave the Union, and upon negotiation there is a equitable process defined that is acceptable to Texas and the other 49 States, then Texas can leave the Union. I mean really, once the other States agree to let Texas leave the Union - on the conditions negotiated to deal with debt, property, citizenship, currency, etc.) - then there would be no actions against Texas.

>>>>>

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you almost have it, except when you say the rest of the states would have to agree to any state secession. Can you cite language from the constitution to support that claim?

Nope, but I can cite language that says Congress can deal with parties that place themselves in a status of insurrection against a lawful government.

If a State attempts to unilaterally secede, they have placed themselves in revolt against the United States. (Merriam-Webster Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.)



Now on the other hand, if Texas asks for permission to leave the Union, and upon negotiation there is a equitable process defined that is acceptable to Texas and the other 49 States, then Texas can leave the Union. I mean really, once the other States agree to let Texas leave the Union - on the conditions negotiated to deal with debt, property, citizenship, currency, etc.) - then there would be no actions against Texas.

>>>>>

liberal are authoritarian scum who cant accept the idea that Texas wants to be free of them. I wonder if they want to outlaw divorce too?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. A nullification argument isn't a secession argument.

I'm sure if Texas could nullify liberal Federal laws they would not need to secede.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Texas Secession Resolution Passes GOP Committee - Tea Party News

As nonbinding as it may be lets hope it passes the full party vote.

Good riddance. The Republican Party's pretense of patriotism has long ago been tossed into the trash heap by its present occupants, joining other talking points in the trash are, "Country First", "Big Tent", "compassionate conservative", "fiscally responsible" and "Soyndra", "Behghazi" and the new one, unnamed as yet, where they will nominate neo conservatives or the devil himself just to occupy the White House.

 

[WorldWatcher]

liberal are authoritarian scum who cant accept the idea that Texas wants to be free of them. I wonder if they want to outlaw divorce too?

You may have clicked "reply" to the wrong poster, I've been a registered Republican since 1978.


>>>>

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good riddance. The Republican Party's pretense of patriotism.

Dear, Republicans never pretended to be patriotic to anti American liberals, you idiot!!