Monckton: It’s Time For ‘Texit’ — Texas Should Secede, Thatcher Advisor Says

[RedHead]

I think we should try a Convention of States before we do anything else.

Perhaps but right now we're talking Texas secession.  How would that work in your opinion?

[austingirl]

I think we should try a Convention of States before we do anything else.

The Texas Nationalist Movement has been working to get support for secession in the Texas legislature.  Their website has a lot of information about their strategy.
http://www.thetnm.org/

[Sanguine]

Perhaps but right now we're talking Texas secession.  How would that work in your opinion?

I haven't thought about the process since it's not yet on the horizon.  However, I do believe in exploring opportunities and possibilities instead of just poo-poohing ideas and not advancing any of your own. 

This seems to strike a chord with you.  Please feel free to elaborate.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the Supreme Court, as well as James Madison, defined the way of leaving very clearly.  A valid secession can only be done with the consent of a majority of the states.

So they follow Mafia rules? 


The Declaration of Independence says people have a right to leave.   I don't think the founders asked the United Kingdom for permission either. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I think a number of states would vote to let Texas withdraw from the Union. I'm not sure if a majority would, yet... but we may get there eventually. 

I am of the opinion that if the founders could leave England without the United Kingdom's permission,   why must anyone have permission to leave?   

Doesn't the Declaration say it's a right given by God?   

[RedHead]

So they follow Mafia rules? 

Say what?

The Declaration of Independence says people have a right to leave.   I don't think the founders asked the United Kingdom for permission either.

No, they launched a rebellion and won.  The Southern states launched a rebellion and lost.

[Ghost Bear]

I think we could get enough states to agree to Texas' withdrawal from the Union.  Tell California and the Rust Belt that we'll stop taking all of their jobs away, tell the Northeastern states that they won't have to be embarrassed to be in the same country with us any more, tell Oklahoma that we'll stop saying they suck, tell Alabama that they won't get beat by the Aggies every other year any more... I tell ya, it'll work!   

[RedHead]

I haven't thought about the process since it's not yet on the horizon.  However, I do believe in exploring opportunities and possibilities instead of just poo-poohing ideas and not advancing any of your own. 

This seems to strike a chord with you.  Please feel free to elaborate.

I think Texas should be permitted to leave if the people of the state want to separate.  Leaving should require no more than admission did; consent of a majority of the states as expressed through a vote in Congress.  Prior to leaving matters like the national debt and financial obligations like Social Security or military pensions would need to be negotiated.  A fair division of federal property has to be agreed to.  But once all that is resolved to everyone's satisfaction then Texas would be on their own.

[Ghost Bear]

I am of the opinion that if the founders could leave England without the United Kingdom's permission,   why must anyone have permission to leave?   

Doesn't the Declaration say it's a right given by God?

The difference is whether you want to do it with bloodshed, or without. Personally, I prefer without.

Which do you prefer?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Monckton is right. (We'll try for a convention of the States first- but if that doesn't work.....)

 

[DiogenesLamp]

No, they launched a rebellion and won.  The Southern states launched a rebellion and lost.

Let's examine your point.   The founders launched a rebellion against a nation that did not recognize a an inherent right to Independence.   To justify their independence,  the founders declared that the "laws of nature,  and of nature's God"  entitled them to leave.   

They won the war,  and presumably validated that principle as well.   


One would think that this meant the nation would thereafter recognize as valid this principle articulated in it's founding document;   Indeed,  the very justification for it's own existence.   


But four score and seven years later,  the principles which legitimized our own founding were no longer valid?

 
How does that work?   

[RedHead]

I am of the opinion that if the founders could leave England without the United Kingdom's permission,   why must anyone have permission to leave?   

They needed permission to join didn't they?

Doesn't the Declaration say it's a right given by God?

Does it?

[RedHead]

Let's examine your point.   The founders launched a rebellion against a nation that did not recognize a an inherent right to Independence.   To justify their independence,  the founders declared that the "laws of nature,  and of nature's God"  entitled them to leave.   

They won the war,  and presumably validated that principle as well.   


One would think that this meant the nation would thereafter recognize as valid this principle articulated in it's founding document;   Indeed,  the very justification for it's own existence.   


But four score and seven years later,  the principles which legitimized our own founding were no longer valid?

 
How does that work?   

How does it work?  Not the way you think apparently.

[DiogenesLamp]

The difference is whether you want to do it with bloodshed, or without. Personally, I prefer without.

Which do you prefer?

Why should there be bloodshed?  I can understand why there had to be war in the case of the United Kingdom,  because Britain did not recognize any such right to independence. 


But we do.


Or at least we said we did when we wrote our own founding document.   




"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[BuckeyeTexan]

As Judge Nap likes to say, "The states formed the union not the other way around."

All peaceful means to resolve current differences should be sought first. Convention of States before dissolving ties.

[DiogenesLamp]

They needed permission to join didn't they?

You must remember your history differently from me.   My recollection is that the States urged each other to join.  Nobody needed "Permission",   people were doing everything of which they could think to induce them to join. 

Does it?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[DiogenesLamp]

How does it work?  Not the way you think apparently.

No doubt it is my thinking which is faulty and those words mean something other than what they explicitly say. 

[montanajoe]

As I've said before if I had not been born in Montana I would have been born in Texas I love it there.

But...

Whenever I hear talk of Texas succeeding I can only scratch my head....

The Texas economy is heavily dependent on two things oil and the US of A Federal Government.

Should Texas succeed then Fort Hood, Lackland, Randolph, Fort Sam, Kelly would shut down, Houston would have a problem. The tens of  thousands of military retirees plus the millions of SS recipients would not get checks. The University system would not get Federal funding and would have to drop out of the NCAA, bout the only good thing left sports wise would be good old Friday nite football.

The only thing left as a steady basis of an economy would be agriculture and I can tell you I have never seen such sorry scroney ass cattle than in south Texas, The fruit crop is significant but it can't be grown without the folks from south of the border doing it as they have for centuries.

In short I think this is an idiot idea....

[Sanguine]

As I've said before if I had not been born in Montana I would have been born in Texas I love it there.

But...

Whenever I hear talk of Texas succeeding I can only scratch my head....

The Texas economy is heavily dependent on two things oil and the US of A Federal Government.

Should Texas succeed then Fort Hood, Lackland, Randolph, Fort Sam, Kelly would shut down, Houston would have a problem. The tens of  thousands of military retirees plus the millions of SS recipients would not get checks. The University system would not get Federal funding and would have to drop out of the NCAA, bout the only good thing left sports wise would be good old Friday nite football.

The only thing left as a steady basis of an economy would be agriculture and I can tell you I have never seen such sorry scroney ass cattle than in south Texas, The fruit crop is significant but it can't be grown without the folks from south of the border doing it as they have for centuries.

In short I think this is an idiot idea....

You're reaching conclusions based on little information.

It may look idiotic from Montana, but we'll see. 

[DiogenesLamp]

As I've said before if I had not been born in Montana I would have been born in Texas I love it there.

But...

Whenever I hear talk of Texas succeeding I can only scratch my head....

The Texas economy is heavily dependent on two things oil and the US of A Federal Government.

Should Texas succeed then Fort Hood, Lackland, Randolph, Fort Sam, Kelly would shut down, Houston would have a problem. The tens of  thousands of military retirees plus the millions of SS recipients would not get checks. The University system would not get Federal funding

And where do all these dollars come from?   Are you saying Texas is a parasite state?   That it takes in more in Federal dollars than it contributes?   


Well who are the Donor states,  and where did they get so much money that they can send some to Texas?   

and would have to drop out of the NCAA, bout the only good thing left sports wise would be good old Friday nite football.

The only thing left as a steady basis of an economy would be agriculture and I can tell you I have never seen such sorry scroney ass cattle than in south Texas, The fruit crop is significant but it can't be grown without the folks from south of the border doing it as they have for centuries.

In short I think this is an idiot idea....

Texas produces oil and manufactures products,   it is not just an agriculture state. 

From what I have read,  it is the only state carrying this horrible Obama economy for the last 8 years.   Without Texas' numbers,   unemployment would be far worse. 

[montanajoe]

You're reaching conclusions based on little information.

It may look idiotic from Montana, but we'll see.

I was stationed in San Antonio and I have lived in Dallas working for Halliburton I'm very pro Texas.

What I am saying is that the economic scales have tipped. The 47% are sadly more like 53% in Texas like the rest of America today. There are far to many dependent in Texas as well as the rest of the US on the monthly check from the US government for Texas or any other state to have a serious practical shot at succession.

[Ghost Bear]

Why should there be bloodshed?  I can understand why there had to be war in the case of the United Kingdom,  because Britain did not recognize any such right to independence. 

But we do.

Or at least we said we did when we wrote our own founding document.   


"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

OK, I'll play your game for a little while.  The thing is, your quote doesn't say, "Right of some People", it says "Right of the People". The citizens of the other states count as People too, since we're all citizens of the United States, and therefore should have some say in whether one state leaves, or not.

Now, will you answer my question? Do you prefer bloodshed, or not?

[montanajoe]

And where do all these dollars come from?   Are you saying Texas is a parasite state?   That it takes in more in Federal dollars than it contributes?   


Well who are the Donor states,  and where did they get so much money that they can send some to Texas?   



Texas produces oil and manufactures products,   it is not just an agriculture state. 

From what I have read,  it is the only state carrying this horrible Obama economy for the last 8 years.   Without Texas' numbers,   unemployment would be far worse.

If you check the numbers you will find that far more Federal dollars are going into the Texas economy than are collected in taxes. As I said the two biggest industries in Texas are oil and the Federal government..

Manufacturing in Texas is mostly for the oil or defense industries.

Again I'm not bashing Texas, but the I am bashing the idea that Texas would or could succeed, the idea is pure fantasy in my view...

[Sanguine]

I was stationed in San Antonio and I have lived in Dallas working for Halliburton I'm very pro Texas.

What I am saying is that the economic scales have tipped. The 47% are sadly more like 53% in Texas like the rest of America today. There are far to many dependent in Texas as well as the rest of the US on the monthly check from the US government for Texas or any other state to have a serious practical shot at succession.

Yes, but the dependent don't like to live where they are not supported.

[Sanguine]

If you check the numbers you will find that far more Federal dollars are going into the Texas economy than are collected in taxes. As I said the two biggest industries in Texas are oil and the Federal government..

Manufacturing in Texas is mostly for the oil or defense industries.

Again I'm not bashing Texas, but the I am bashing the idea that Texas would or could succeed, the idea is pure fantasy in my view...

I understand that, but I think you're wrong.  We have, what, the 9th largest economy in the world.  It's fine to be #nine.