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

[IsailedawayfromFR]

http://www.thetnm.org/did_the_supreme_court_make_secession_illegal_in_texas_v_white

In a land where people cherish the right of self-government, the ability to live free and regularly send the best of us to fight and die for that right for other people in the world, Texas v. White stands as an anachronism. Texas v. White, and support of it, is the worst kind of judicial activism, requires an amazing suspension of belief, is rooted in fundamental ignorance of the history and legal foundation of the Union, completely disregards the natural rights of the people, ignores the sovereign rights of the states and is the moral equivalent of supporting involuntary servitude.

Texas is unique for the two exceptions given the country of Texas when it agreed to enter the Union, that no other states possesses.

1. It had the right to secede split into five states at any time.  Some will argue this is no longer a right when Texas joined the Confederacy and then returned to the Union.  Whether it is or not, it shows the wariness of the state in giving up freedoms.

2. It preserved state lands when it joined.  This was handled differently than other states as these lands became federal.  The consequence of this is still in effect today:  very little lands in Texas are in federal hands, and the state is blessed with state lands that are rich in resources, and huge amounts of lands in private hands, also which also have rich resources.  These resources are in federal hands in places like the Rockies, by and large.

Both of these reflect the individual character of a Texan.

I am with you 100%

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??

It will not be there anyway as both are Ponzi schemes hatched to get votes by crooked politicians., so what's the big deal?

Any morsel for me there is greatly compensated for by the cessation of the onerous federal taxation and the instant eraser of the thousands of federal regulations.

Besides, what are you going to do about the federal debt?

[Smokin Joe]

What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??

There is no Constitutional Authority for either program. That stinks, especially for people who have been paying taxes since we were 14, and are not far from getting something back, but it is likely we're screwed, anyway. I expect to work until I die.

[goatprairie]

Texas is unique for the two exceptions given the country of Texas when it agreed to enter the Union, that no other states possesses.

1. It had the right to secede at any time.  Some will argue this is no longer a right when Texas joined the Confederacy and then returned to the Union.  Whether it is or not, it shows the wariness of the state in giving up freedoms.

2. It preserved state lands when it joined.  This was handled differently than other states as these lands became federal.  The consequence of this is still in effect today:  very little lands in Texas are in federal hands, and the state is blessed with state lands that are rich in resources, and huge amounts of lands in private hands, also which also have rich resources.  These resources are in federal hands in places like the Rockies, by and large.

Both of these reflect the individual character of a Texan.

I am with you 100%

Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have.  The idea that Texas has the right to secede if it feels like it is baloney.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There is no Constitutional Authority for either program. That stinks, especially for people who have been paying taxes since we were 14, and are not far from getting something back, but it is likely we're screwed, anyway. I expect to work until I die.

What really stinks is that it is being gradually taken away from you, so it is not some type of automatic 'lockbox' like AlGore was so fond of saying.

ON SS, first it was Bill Clinton's taxation of it(even though it had already been taxed when you paid into it), then it was the graduated reduction in benefits if someone like you decides to work longer.

On Medicare, there is also the additional premium that someone must pay should he decide to be working past 64, in spite of paying all those many years into it.

So where are the so-called 'benefits'?  It is a deliberate, first-rate Ponzi scheme that would be a crime if a private enterprise tried to set up something similar.

The next generation will be hit worse, and our grandkids will have nada.

[goatprairie]

It is not a forced union.  And there are no specific instructions in the Constitution, so those rights are reserved for the States so, surprise, secession is there in the 10th Amendment.

You really desperately need to reread the document.  Obviously, the libs are interpreting it for you.

You're pulling your "facts" out of your hindquarters. If the Founders had given states the right to secede, it would have specifically engraved it in the constitution.  The fact that there is no provision for secession means states cannot unilaterally secede.
 Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.
Trying to use the tenth amendment as a provision for secession is a trick states rightists use to try and fool other people.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have. 

Better read the Congressional Resolution adopted March 1, 1845 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan01.asp  and the complementary one of December 29, 1845  http://legisworks.org/sal/9/stats/STATUTE-9-Pg108a.pdf. 

Article 4, section 3 of the US Constitution provides new states be admitted upon approval of Congress.

[goatprairie]

State referendum seems right.  If the localities voluntarily associated themselves together to create the state, as the states did to create the union, then the localities should enjoy the right to secession based on the same theory.

Why don't you try and think things through. A state is having success with business thriving and the people reasonably happy. But then a group of people who are not happy for various reasons convince a bunch of other people to go along with them and leave the union. I don't know if you'd want a simple majority or two thirds...whatever.
So here you have a state with mostly content people all of a sudden members of a foreign country.
Are you serious? You say every state has the right to secede.  That means states like Iowa or Nebraska could secede and be an independent country. Of course, so could any other states. I suppose you think those states could then rejoin the Union if they felt like.
Do you realize what a catastrophe those events would entail? You'd have unhappy citizens who were previously happy leaving the "foreign" countries to get away from the crazy people.
But there are crazy people in every state, and they could all at times convince otherwise sane people to join them in secession. You'd have people going from state to state (or "independent" country to state) and back again.  And we haven't even gotten into the question about how an "independent" country like Iowa would organize itself and create its own currency, foreign trade, etc.
This kind of crazy secession (and supposedly unsecession) could go on endlessly. Utter insanity.
So take some time and think about the consequences of legal secession and the genius of the Founders in not putting legal secession in the constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

 Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.

So much for someone pulling 'facts' out of their hindquarters.  Pure conjecture without a leg to stand on.

[Smokin Joe]

Show me the provision in the constitution giving Texas extra rights that other states don't have.  The idea that Texas has the right to secede if it feels like it is baloney.

Where is the provision in the Constitution that says the States do not have the right? If that limitation was not placed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment should apply.

[Ghost Bear]

Tell me exactly how the people who want to secede are going to go about it. They all get together and say we're seceding or words to that effect? So the rest of the state including the authorities with guns are just going to say alright, you win? How are they going to do it? Be specific.

OK, I'll be specific. This isn't based on any kind of special knowledge of the laws involved, just my take on a logical way for it to happen.

1. Those Texas citizens in favor of secession from the Union make their case, and get a referendum put on the state ballot so all the citizens of Texas can vote on it;
2. If the referendum to secede passes, then the State Legislature would be instructed to petition the Federal Government to consider our request to leave the Union;
3. The Federal legislature (House and Senate) would then consider the request. Now here's where it gets murky, because they could just refuse to consider it. What I would prefer to see would be that they move the request forward in a way similar to how an Amendment to the Constitution would proceed, i.e., a bill allowing Texas to secede would be voted on in the House and the Senate and if passed would then go to each State's legislature asking them to vote on Texas' petition to secede, yea or nay.  If whatever majority is established (simple majority, 2/3 majority, etc.) agrees to it, then Texas leaves peacefully. If not, then Texas stays in the Union.

What would happen if Texas asks to leave and is not allowed to leave is a different question.

What happens to Social Security and other Federal entitlement programs if Texas secedes is simple: they are a product of the U.S. Federal Government and not the Republic of Texas Government, and so Texas as a nation would have no responsibility to continue providing them. If people want to continue receiving such, I imagine they would have to maintain their U.S. citizenship; in my perfect scenario, anyone wishing to become a citizen of the Republic of Texas would be required to renounce their U.S. citizenship. I haven't researched it, but I'm guessing that anyone renouncing their U.S. citizenship loses their Federal entitlement program benefits.  Anyone who maintained their U.S. citizenship but continued living in Texas would be considered foreign residents, and would need visas etc. In effect, they would be the same as any other U.S. citizen who chooses to live outside of the borders of the U.S.

Again, that's just what seems logical to me. Your mileage may vary. 

[goatprairie]

Multiple law suits about the abuse of power of the federal government have been ongoing for decades.  This isn't a new or unaddressed issue.

Stolen property, loss of rights, armed attacks (Waco and others), unfair taxation, you know, similar items that proceeded the revolutionary war.


That issue is only settled for those that don't want it.  Others have far different opinions.

None of your arguments about oppression by the fed. gov. (which does happen at times...and opinions vary of course) provides for state secession.
Like I said, citizens have the right to rebel against tyranny from the fed. gov. It's one reason we have the second amendment. But it still does not legitimize  state secession.

[goatprairie]

Where is the provision in the Constitution that says the States do not have the right? If that limitation was not placed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment should apply.

You're effectively saying anything not mentioned in the constitution can be done by the states. Because it's not mentioned in the constitution does not make it legal.
 Don't you think the Founders would have put it in the constitution if they thought it valid? They didn't because they knew it would be the end of the union. In effect, there would be no such thing as a union.
Which is why the U.S. federal constitution supercedes any state laws. I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.

[Smokin Joe]

You're pulling your "facts" out of your hindquarters. If the Founders had given states the right to secede, it would have specifically engraved it in the constitution.  The fact that there is no provision for secession means states cannot unilaterally secede.
 Now why do you think the Founders didn't put a path to secession into the constitution? Because they knew that would be the end of the union. If states could leave any time they felt like it, the Founders knew some fools in some states would do so.
Trying to use the tenth amendment as a provision for secession is a trick states rightists use to try and fool other people.

The Constitution delegated specific duties to the Federal Government, set up its structure, and specifically limited the Federal Government, with the remainder of the Rights reserved to the States and to the People. The purpose was to define and limit the Powers of the Federal Government, not to limit the powers of the People who granted such power and authority to the Federal Government, as constrained, by their consent. The Constitution does not grant rights and power to the people from the government. It is a document intended to assign and limit the power given to the Government by the people.

As for leaving at any time, no. The idea was to have a mutually beneficial confederation of States which traded with a common currency (good for business) and worked together for their mutual defense. That in and of itself is an attractive arrangement, so long as the Federal Government does not usurp the powers of the States and People. When that usurpation occurs, the shine goes off that apple.

How ironic that those States many claim to have preserved the 'Union' to eliminate slavery used force of arms to coerce those States and their citizens who no longer desired that 'union' to remain in it against their will, in the involuntary servitude of being forced to remain.

[Smokin Joe]

You're effectively saying anything not mentioned in the constitution can be done by the states. Because it's not mentioned in the constitution does not make it legal.
 Don't you think the Founders would have put it in the constitution if they thought it valid? They didn't because they knew it would be the end of the union. In effect, there would be no such thing as a union.
Which is why the U.S. federal constitution supercedes any state laws. I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.

I didn't say it.

Read:

Tenth Amendment:
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.

After the Revolution, my ancestors (landholders, manor lords under English Law) swore allegiance to their Sovereign State (MD). I have seen photostats of the document. Each of those States was, in effect, a country, with its governor, legislature, judicial system, currency issues, coinage, and, at a minimum, an army (Militia).

There was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited the secession of any or all states from the arrangement.

Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?

These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.

 Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on,  that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession.

It would not have happened, and the Constitution as such would not have been ratified.

[goatprairie]

I didn't say it.

Read: After the Revolution, my ancestors (landholders, manor lords under English Law) swore allegiance to their Sovereign State (MD). I have seen photostats of the document. Each of those States was, in effect, a country, with its governor, legislature, judicial system, currency issues, coinage, and, at a minimum, an army (Militia).

There was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited the secession of any or all states from the arrangement.

Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?

These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.

 Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on,  that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession.

It would not have happened, and the Constitution as such would not have been ratified.

The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it.  For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am a citizen of the United States of America and not some separate state. Believe it or not, the great majority of the citizens of the country like it that way.

The great majority of Texans feel they are citizens of both the United States and the State of Texas.

I bet a majority of the citizens of most states feel the same way.

Your conjecturing of the beliefs of people is getting way over the top.

[ABX]

I can't believe I missed this. I've known Dan Miller since Jr. High. I don't trust him at all and would recommend not taking him seriously. That isn't really a statement on the Texit discussion on what horse you put your cart behind.

[Fishrrman]

mirraflake wonders:
"What are you all going to do about your SS and Medicare??"

TexSecurity and TexiCare.

Next question...?  ;)

[HoustonSam]

The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it.

Actually that is exactly what it means.

For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.

Agreed that doesn't mean a state should do so, but it does mean that the Federal Government can't stop a state from doing so.  The voters of that state of course *can* stop the state from doing so.  The Constitution doesn't only protect the freedom of states to enact wise policies, it protects the freedom of states to enact the policies they choose, wise or unwise, except in areas specifically delegated to the FedGov.

[ABX]

The tenth amendment doesn't mention many things....so what? That doesn't mean that because something is not specifically mentioned you have the right to do it.  For instance, the constitution doesn't forbid states from making everybody in a certain state paint themselves purple and wear chicken feathers. That doesn't mean states should go ahead and do so.

Actually, let's look at the 10th Amendment again:

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.

As many have argued in the State's power debate (not State's Rights- pet peeve), State powers can't trump individual rights. The individual is who holds the rights, a power can only infringe upon a right. in your example, one could argue that a State would be constitutionally prohibited from forcing an individual to 'paint themselves purple....' because forcing them to do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment- assuming they would have to be deprived of liberty in order to be forced to pain themselves purple.

A State can't over-ride and individual's Constitutionality protected rights outside Constitutional methods.

[HoustonSam]

in your example, one could argue that a State would be constitutionally prohibited from forcing an individual to 'paint themselves purple....' because forcing them to do so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment- assuming they would have to be deprived of liberty in order to be forced to pain themselves purple.

That's a reasonable argument, but a state can deprive people of liberty.  The 14th Amendment would be satisfied so long as all citizens of the state enjoyed equal protection - enforcement of the purple paint policy would have to be consistent for all citizens of the state.

[ABX]

That's a reasonable argument, but a state can deprive people of liberty.  The 14th Amendment would be satisfied so long as all citizens of the state enjoyed equal protection - enforcement of the purple paint policy would have to be consistent for all citizens of the state.

It can Constitutionally- through due process of law.

[HoustonSam]

Why don't you try and think things through. A state is having success with business thriving and the people reasonably happy. But then a group of people who are not happy for various reasons convince a bunch of other people to go along with them and leave the union. I don't know if you'd want a simple majority or two thirds...whatever.
So here you have a state with mostly content people all of a sudden members of a foreign country.
Are you serious? You say every state has the right to secede.  That means states like Iowa or Nebraska could secede and be an independent country. Of course, so could any other states. I suppose you think those states could then rejoin the Union if they felt like.
Do you realize what a catastrophe those events would entail? You'd have unhappy citizens who were previously happy leaving the "foreign" countries to get away from the crazy people.
But there are crazy people in every state, and they could all at times convince otherwise sane people to join them in secession. You'd have people going from state to state (or "independent" country to state) and back again.  And we haven't even gotten into the question about how an "independent" country like Iowa would organize itself and create its own currency, foreign trade, etc.
This kind of crazy secession (and supposedly unsecession) could go on endlessly. Utter insanity.
So take some time and think about the consequences of legal secession and the genius of the Founders in not putting legal secession in the constitution.

I'm not saying it would be wise.  People, acting as individuals or as citizens of a state, have the right to do unwise things.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm not saying it would be wise.  People, acting as individuals or as citizens of a state, have the right to do unwise things.

It is called liberty, and some on this thread have a hard time recognizing it for what it is.  It was the hardest thing for our forefathers to obtain and much blood was shed to achieve it.

The degradation of the classroom in the teaching of basic civics is being prominently displayed.