Author Topic: 'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)  (Read 17629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,333
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online TomSea

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,615
Keep the Flatlanders out of New Mexican ski-resorts.

Oceander

  • Guest
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.

Online TomSea

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,615
Texas is already listed as a minority-majority state, demographic shifts have been forecasted for a long time and I don't put a lot into such forecasts but their are some notoriously blue Democratic areas of Texas such as El Paso, parts along the Rio Grande and so on. I love all people but I am weary of some voting blocs.

Offline Ghost Bear

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,587
  • Not an actual picture of me
The more people I meet, the more convinced I am that I should be a hermit living in a cabin in a deep forest.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,494
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
When DC no longer has the ability to pay the interest on the debt without cutting other bennies...that when the breakup will begin in earnest.
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.

Offline bilo

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,473
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.

Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.

We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?
A stranger in a hostile foreign land I used to call home

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,494
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.

We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?

Agree. I speculate that DC will essentially be out of money within about 10 years or less. It simply will no longer have the means to fund governance of a nation of this size.

Just like the Romans, when the empire became too far flung and expensive to maintain, governance gave way to either other empires taking the territory or political independence to the people within it.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 03:09:57 PM by Free Vulcan »
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.

Offline Hank Rearden

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 50
Fortunately, we don't need a majority to go independent. Just a dedicated minority of activists.

The key will be an outrageous event by D.C. (e.g. a national gun grab) where there are enough Texans to say "enough."

California and New York would both say "good riddance" if Texas wanted to leave peacefully. And it makes sense to go before there is a default on the national debt.

The question that remains is whether key players in the Texas GOP can be convinced that it would be beneficial to their own interests to declare independence.

I'd suggest it would make sense to make it a two-fer offer to Fed Gov. We go independent simultaneously with Hawaii doing the same (or they bring in Puerto Rico as a replacement state for Texas). In other words, make it a short-term irresistible offer.
"The enemy never sees the backs of my Texans." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,165
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
Borders change all the time. It doesn't have to be the result of a violent struggle.

We are more divided than ever. Why not recognize it and go our separate ways?

Exactly. If we haven't been able to have a Convention of the States during the last seven years of extra-Constitutional rule from Zero and the Roberts traitorous decision on Obamacare, I doubt we ever will. If a Union can be formed, it can be disbanded. Forcing the South to rejoin the Union was antithetical to State's Rights and God-given freedom.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,165
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
Fortunately, we don't need a majority to go independent. Just a dedicated minority of activists.

The key will be an outrageous event by D.C. (e.g. a national gun grab) where there are enough Texans to say "enough."

California and New York would both say "good riddance" if Texas wanted to leave peacefully. And it makes sense to go before there is a default on the national debt.

The question that remains is whether key players in the Texas GOP can be convinced that it would be beneficial to their own interests to declare independence.

I'd suggest it would make sense to make it a two-fer offer to Fed Gov. We go independent simultaneously with Hawaii doing the same (or they bring in Puerto Rico as a replacement state for Texas). In other words, make it a short-term irresistible offer.


We do want to leave peacefully and the Texas Nationalist Movement has been working towards it for years.

http://www.thetnm.org/
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,625
    • Fishrrman Speaks!
Oceander wrote above:
"For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago."

Not "settled".

Suppressed.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,130
For better or worse, that basic question was settled some 150 years ago.
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is  no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is  no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.

This southerner residing in Texas doesn't consider them "special" rights.  Massachusetts, California, and Wisconsin enjoy the same rights, as do the remaining states.  If a state *cannot* leave the union at will, there is no government by consent of the governed.
James 1:20

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,165
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
This southerner residing in Texas doesn't consider them "special" rights.  Massachusetts, California, and Wisconsin enjoy the same rights, as do the remaining states.  If a state *cannot* leave the union at will, there is no government by consent of the governed.

The North forced the South back into the Union which goes against our basic freedom and rights. Why is it okay for the EU to break-up and not the United States? Why was the break-up of the Soviet Union hailed by the world? Texas is tired of being a donor state and having unconstitutional federal programs forced on us by an out-of-control federal government.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,333
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Yes. If a state can leave the union at will, there is  no union. Sorry Texans, you don't have special rights.

That is decidedly not the way this country was founded.  Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?

The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense.  These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.

Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union?  If not, then you are purely conjecturing.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,165
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
That is decidedly not the way this country was founded.  Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?

The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense.  These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.

Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union?  If not, then you are purely conjecturing.

Excellent post.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,130
That is decidedly not the way this country was founded.  Where did you get the idea that this was forced slavery by a state to serve other states as its masters rather than a voluntary one?

The principles of a republic is that a collection of autonomous, self-governing states unite for some specific purposes, principally for self-defense.  These are enumerated in the Constitution clearly.

Does that document prohibit a state from leaving the Union?  If not, then you are purely conjecturing.
Forced slavery? Stop it.  First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.

Offline HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • old times there are not forgotten
States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?

They are not sovereign countries, but that begs the question, which is "Can they be?"  The original 13 existed before the union, and agreed to associate themselves voluntarily into a union; the states formed the union by choice, the union did not form the states.  Each later state was accepted on an equal basis with the original 13, joining the union by choice.

Many of us believe, still, that the twisted meaning lies in insisting that the choice was a one time, non-changeable decision.
James 1:20

geronl

  • Guest
If the federal government disregards the Constitution, then the states are free to go independent or reform into a new union

Offline Ancient

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 59
I live in Texas and I would vote for it.

Democrat leaders outside Texas would support it, because it would doom the rest of the nation to complete Democrat control.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
Forced slavery? Stop it.  First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.

The constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When the Federal Government won't follow it's own founding documents, it is tyranny. 
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,333
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Forced slavery? Stop it.  First there were the Articles of Confederation. That was eliminated for the constitution. States are not autonomous. How can states that were created after the founding of the country, most of the states, be sovereign countries?
The answer: they can't. Only in the minds of people who twist the meaning of the constitution.
American citizens can rebel against tyranny. What they can't do is have their states unilaterally leave the union.

You really need a good read of the Constitution.

It clearly states that this is a Union of States, not a country that happens to have states within it.

It also clearly states what powers these states give to this Union, with any not expressed reserved to each state.

Why is that difficult for you to understand?
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,837
As a conservative living in Massachusetts, I would prefer they stay. We need their votes. It's that simple. I know you want to wave the rest of the union away, but I really think you should reconsider.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,494
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
    • The Conservative Fist
I live in Texas and I would vote for it.

Democrat leaders outside Texas would support it, because it would doom the rest of the nation to complete Democrat control.

Yeah but I'd expect 20+ states to follow, and Austin be the new capitol of a smaller USA.

Our Federal govt is at a financial dead end, at some point it won't be wish or desire as much as it is necessity.
The Conservative Fist: https://twitter.com/arguedpolitics - follow me and I'll follow you.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf