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

[Bigun]

Then would you agree that the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and the air traffic control system are all illegal and unconstitutional agencies since the Constitution does not expressly allow the government to establish any of them?

Chaff! Meer chaff in an attempt to muddy the water!  Not going to work with me!

[thackney]

So when James Madison, who knew a thing or two about the Constitution, said "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it" are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about?

I would say he knew in detail what he was talking about, and the situation he described has already happened.

Do you agree the Federal Government has abused the power granted it in the US Constitution?

[austingirl]

The Union was formed of Sovereign States that delegated  very limited powers to a federal government. The Tenth Amendment has been trampled and a de facto National Government has replaced the Founder's vision.

When the Colonists revolted against the Crown because of excessive taxes and non-representation- was it legal? Who cares? It was their God-given right to throw off the chains of tyranny and form a new government.

[Cowboyway]

Chaff! Meer chaff in an attempt to muddy the water!  Not going to work with me!

NASA, the Air Force, air traffic control, etc were all started and directly related to national defense which the executive and legislative branches have constitutional powers.  But it's not the creation of such entities, it's the fact that once created by government they grow and grow well beyond the original intent.

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!"---Ronald Reagan

[Bigun]

NASA, the Air Force, air traffic control, etc were all started and directly related to national defense which the executive and legislative branches have constitutional powers.  But it's not the creation of such entities, it's the fact that once created by government they grow and grow well beyond the original intent.

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!"---Ronald Reagan

Yes indeed! And the idiot knows that as well!

[Cowboyway]

Yes indeed! And the idiot knows that as well!

I think your tagline sums up non-sequitur quite well: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

[austingirl]

"Texas is a state of the Union and not a separate country.
 When I go to another country I don't list or say my country is Wisconsin. The U.S.A. is my country and that is the entity I give my allegiance to".

@goatprairie

Texas is a sovereign State and I am citizen of Texas -which was at one time a Republic and can be again. Right now we are unfortunate enough to be in  Union that has abandoned all pretext of Constitutional government. I complete reject the notion of a National Government. You apparently agree with it and do not care for the Tenth Amendment.

[RetBobbyMI]

Then would you agree that the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and the air traffic control system are all illegal and unconstitutional agencies since the Constitution does not expressly allow the government to establish any of them?

In some ways I would agree.  The Marines are still part of the Navy, the Air Force should still be part of the Army.  (Now THAT should stir up a hornets nest!).  As for the others, we have far too many alphabet soup agencies. The ATC system i could go along anther the regulation of interstate commerce. NASA, should just be part of something else.

But what does that have to do with Texas Independence?

[RedHead]

No! I mean that it was a POLITICAL writing (actually not part of the decision) otherwise known as dicta from a man who had a very stron vested interest in getting what he said out there!

Obiter Dictum are comments made in a ruling that do not address the central issue before the court.  The legality of the Southern secession was a matter before the court because the defense had claimed that since had seceded then the Confederate state legislature could sell the bonds in question.  So the comments that secession required the consent of the states were not made in dicta.

No again!  I just have a different opinion as to who get's to decide what constitutes and abuse of the compact.

Fair enough.  Who does get to decide?  And why?

On that we agree!

I doubt it will become a habit.

Who get's to decide what is a "negative impact" and where is any of that written in the Constitution?

That is a good question.  If Texas were to walk out tomorrow, as many of you are suggesting, then she walks away from debt, treaty obligations, social obligations, and what have you.  She would dump some of it, like the debt, on the remaining states and could also require the remaining states to continue to fund Social Security checks, federal pension checks, and things like that for Texas residents.  Wouldn't you say that would have a negative impact on the remaining 49 states?  Shouldn't things like that be negotiated prior to leaving? 

[RedHead]

Chaff! Meer chaff in an attempt to muddy the water!  Not going to work with me!

You're the one denying the existence of implied powers.  Where is the power to create any of those agencies explicitly allowed in the Constitution?

[RedHead]

I would say he knew in detail what he was talking about, and the situation he described has already happened.

I would too.  Because Madison continued in the same letter, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain."

Do you agree the Federal Government has abused the power granted it in the US Constitution?

If you say the compact is broken and I say it is not, then what makes you right and me wrong?

[RedHead]

NASA, the Air Force, air traffic control, etc were all started and directly related to national defense which the executive and legislative branches have constitutional powers. 

Hence the explicit power to establish and fund an army and a navy.  What you are saying then is that implied in the power to provide for the national defense is the authority to create whatever agency the government thinks is needed to do so.  Is that correct?

But it's not the creation of such entities, it's the fact that once created by government they grow and grow well beyond the original intent.

Yes and no.  If you complain that the government has grown way beyond what is needed for the Constitutional exercise of its power then you will get no argument from me.  But the question is whether there are powers implied in the Constitution and which can be determined from a fair reading of the document.  You seem to say yes.  I say yes too.  And if the approval of the federal government is needed to admit a state, and approval of the federal government is needed for any change to its status made through dividing or combining or changing its borders an inch, then it doesn't take a genius to conclude that approval to leave altogether is also needed since it's the ultimate change in status.

[RedHead]

In some ways I would agree.  The Marines are still part of the Navy, the Air Force should still be part of the Army.  (Now THAT should stir up a hornets nest!).  As for the others, we have far too many alphabet soup agencies. The ATC system i could go along anther the regulation of interstate commerce. NASA, should just be part of something else.

The question I had was the constitutionality of the agencies, not the fact that we have way too many of them.

But what does that have to do with Texas Independence?

Nothing directly.  But it has to do with implied powers and whether Texas secession can be done only with the approval of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress, the same way it was admitted.

[RedHead]

I think your tagline sums up non-sequitur quite well: “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

And you are evidence that Jonathan Swift was correct when he said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

[RedHead]

Yes indeed! And the idiot knows that as well!

Then tell the idiot where the powers to establish those agencies are explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

[catfish1957]

Good points around regional fragmenting versus individual ........

Would love to see my area with Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana as a nation..... Oklatex.

Our nation's motto would be .... "Get your Oil here."

[Sanguine]

Good points around regional fragmenting versus individual ........

Would love to see my area with Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana as a nation..... Oklatex.

Our nation's motto would be .... "Get your Oil here."

I like "Texhoma".

[IsailedawayfromFR]

States are co-equals under the Constitution.  No one state has any more rights or privileges than another, and no one state can take any steps unilaterally that negatively impact the interests and welfare of the other states.  Unilateral secession does just that.

You must be reading some other Constitution that the one that governs the USA.

The one I read says that the states are given an equal amount of representation in the Senate, but for the House of Representatives, as well as the amount of electoral votes for the President, the representation is expressly UNEQUAL for the states.

You just keep winging it all the time, don't you?  When will you ever just tell the truth rather than lying?

[Cowboyway]

Hence the explicit power to establish and fund an army and a navy.  What you are saying then is that implied in the power to provide for the national defense is the authority to create whatever agency the government thinks is needed to do so.  Is that correct?

Yes and no.  If you complain that the government has grown way beyond what is needed for the Constitutional exercise of its power then you will get no argument from me.  But the question is whether there are powers implied in the Constitution and which can be determined from a fair reading of the document.  You seem to say yes.  I say yes too.  And if the approval of the federal government is needed to admit a state, and approval of the federal government is needed for any change to its status made through dividing or combining or changing its borders an inch, then it doesn't take a genius to conclude that approval to leave altogether is also needed since it's the ultimate change in status.

Implied powers have been a point of contention since the early days, e.g. Jefferson and Hamilton debate over the constitutionally of a national bank.  However, if one were to agree that since  congressional approval is needed to admit a state to the union  then it is implied that congressional approval is needed for a state to secede, then your consent of the states argument has been blown to hell and as such, your bitter clinging to Texas v White should now come to an abrupt halt.

[Bigun]

The question I had was the constitutionality of the agencies, not the fact that we have way too many of them.

Nothing directly.  But it has to do with implied powers and whether Texas secession can be done only with the approval of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress, the same way it was admitted.

That argument is to stupid to even consider. It is exactly like telling an abused spouse that they must get their partner's permission to leave the abusive relationship!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But it has to do with implied powers and whether Texas secession can be done only with the approval of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress, the same way it was admitted.

Lying once again.  In this country, a majority of states is not needed for any Congressional action.  Only sufficient votes by representatives in Congress is required.

This could very well be by a minority of states.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, or are deliberate in lying.

Which is it?

[RedHead]

The one I read says that the states are given an equal amount of representation in the Senate, but for the House of Representatives, as well as the amount of electoral votes for the President, the representation is expressly UNEQUAL for the states.

Does the one you are reading say that some states have rights and privileges that other states do not?

You just keep winging it all the time, don't you?  When will you ever just tell the truth rather than lying?

Disagreeing with your opinion is not lying. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Does the one you are reading say that some states have rights and privileges that other states do not?


Disagreeing with your opinion is not lying.

States are unequal if they do not have the same voting powers.

Do you understand what that means?

[RedHead]

Implied powers have been a point of contention since the early days, e.g. Jefferson and Hamilton debate over the constitutionally of a national bank.

From a debate point, perhaps.  From a legal point it was laid to rest by Chief Justice Marshall in the McCulloch v. Maryland decision. 

However, if one were to agree that since  congressional approval is needed to admit a state to the union  then it is implied that congressional approval is needed for a state to secede, then your consent of the states argument has been blown to hell and as such, your bitter clinging to Texas v White should now come to an abrupt halt.

Why?

[RedHead]

That argument is to stupid to even consider. It is exactly like telling an abused spouse that they must get their partner's permission to leave the abusive relationship!

But to end that relationship completely takes a court, a settlement of questions of disagreement, and generally the agreement of both parties.  If one spouse, abused or otherwise, merely walks out then they still are legally joined with the other spouse.