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

[Ghost Bear]

At nearly 200 posts in, how about some reality:

Texas GOP rejects proposal for vote on secession

12/7/2015

AUSTIN--UPDATE—As expected, a proposal to hold a statewide non-binding vote on Texas secession failed overwhelmingly at an assembly of the Republican Party of Texas in Austin Saturday. Approximately 10 of the party's 62 voting officials supported the resolution.
(snip)

I realize numbers, data, logic won't carry the day on the internet however, where flights of fancy rule

So what?

No one was claiming secession was going to happen tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow. I think pretty much everyone knows it's going to be a years-long effort to achieve.  I'm betting that was the first time the proposal made it out of committee to be voted on. So, progress!   

[thackney]

Do you see Texas formally requesting that in any manner?

In the near future?  No.

I do see it on a state-wide ballot within a few years.

I see this as continuing pressure to get politicians to better follow the 10th Amendment.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

"I'm not sending my grandson out with a 12-gauge shotgun to take on the 82nd Airborne," said State Republican Executive Committee member Fred Henneke, speaking to the assembly.

That is about as ridiculous a statement as one could make.  One attributable to a lawyer turned history professor.

The 82nd would most likely have a few Texans within it, and there is little doubt that their allegiance would be firstly to Texas and secondly to whoever gives an order to take on a kid.

Sounds similar to Jeanne Sheehan's pronouncement that tens of millions will die due to AR15s, doesn't it?

[Doug Loss]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state.  Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty.  As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion.  I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country.  No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.

[austingirl]

Texans narcissistic,  braggadocious bullshit makes both Trump and Obama combined look like pikers.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

@mirraflake

That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.

[Doug Loss]

Documents useful to this discussion:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/texmenu.asp

[TomSea]

@mirraflake

That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.

Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.

[Sanguine]

..but it's the truth.  The Texas pipeliner staying at the local RV park has  in his back window of his truck "If you ain't from Texas you ain't sh*t"





@Sanguine

One obnoxious bumper sticker does not a trend make.  And, that is obnoxious.

[Doug Loss]

Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.

As is the automatic insulting of any Texans who disagree with your (not you specifically, but some posters) positions.  And I say that as a Tennesseean, not a Texan.  (Of course, most of the best Texans started as Tennesseeans...  )

[austingirl]

Sorry, you don't speak for all Texans, the "Texas Redneck" bullying act or the "Mr. 2nd amendment" act by some is pretty tiring if I may say so myself.

I never said I was speaking for all Texans. I am speaking for myself and stated that @mirraflake insulted all Texans, which he/she/it did.

You can say any old thing you want if you don't mind looking foolish.

[MACVSOG68]

Wow, insultathons are so much more fun than discussing the legality of secession.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state.  Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty.  As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion.  I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country.  No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.

Please see post #57 wherein this was discussed with documentation.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As is the automatic insulting of any Texans who disagree with your (not you specifically, but some posters) positions.  And I say that as a Tennesseean, not a Texan.  (Of course, most of the best Texans started as Tennesseeans...  )

 

Some of them like Davy did indeed.

Some others like Sam began in Virginia but passed through your noble state. 

My appreciation of them is not nearly as much as the Texians back 180 years ago.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@mirraflake

That is a truly over-the-top insult to all Texans. You should be ashamed. There is nothing narcissistic about trying to return to the Founding Principles.

As I had said before, likely jealousy or perhaps simply fear instead.

[Doug Loss]

Please see post #57 wherein this was discussed with documentation.

I did (it's #56, by the way).  There really wasn't any discussion; you just posted one of the documents from the Avalon Project, but no one commented on it.  I'm trying to get some actual response about it.

[Doug Loss]

 

Some of them like Davy did indeed.

Some others like Sam began in Virginia but passed through your noble state. 

My appreciation of them is not nearly as much as the Texians back 180 years ago.

Bowie was from Kentucky, but that's close.    And 31 Tennesseans died at the Alamo. which was about 1/6 of the total deaths.  There were a lot of ties between Tennessee and Texas in the early 1800's.

[MACVSOG68]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state.  Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty.  As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion.  I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country.  No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.

I did (it's #56, by the way).  There really wasn't any discussion; you just posted one of the documents from the Avalon Project, but no one commented on it.  I'm trying to get some actual response about it.

From a reading of the treaty of annexation and the two joint resolutions of Congress, without a reading of the Texas constitution preceding admission as a state, it would appear that no agreement of Congress is necessary except that no slave states could be created as was agreed to by Congress.  And if somehow, Texas could agree on a split into other states, they would still be bound by the US Constitution.  It would wind up in the courts, but I can't see the courts doing anything but allowing for the new states.  Since Congress can constitutionally create new states and has already agreed in one joint resolution to do so, there would be no constitutional conflict as there would be if either Congress or the courts ended Texas statehood.

[Doug Loss]

From a reading of the treaty of annexation and the two joint resolutions of Congress, without a reading of the Texas constitution preceding admission as a state, it would appear that no agreement of Congress is necessary except that no slave states could be created as was agreed to by Congress.  And if somehow, Texas could agree on a split into other states, they would still be bound by the US Constitution.  It would wind up in the courts, but I can't see the courts doing anything but allowing for the new states.  Since Congress can constitutionally create new states and has already agreed in one joint resolution to do so, there would be no constitutional conflict as there would be if either Congress or the courts ended Texas statehood.

I understand your position, but I have serious doubts that Congress would agree to seat 8 new senators from states formerly part of Texas.  And I strongly suspect the courts would refuse to take any case involving this, as it would clearly be a political rather than legal dispute. 

[MACVSOG68]

I understand your position, but I have serious doubts that Congress would agree to seat 8 new senators from states formerly part of Texas.  And I strongly suspect the courts would refuse to take any case involving this, as it would clearly be a political rather than legal dispute.

It would an interesting process because even though an earlier congress agreed through joint resolution to allow a number of states, they still retain the power to approve the constitutions of each prior to admission.  You may be right that the courts wouldn't intercede.  In any case it would only give Texas a moral rationale for leaving the Union, but certainly not a constitutional one.  But again, it would be interesting...

[Smokin Joe]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention here is the unique event of Texas's becoming a state.  Texas is the only state that was an independent country and became a state via a treaty.  As far as I recall, the treaty allowed Texas to become as many as 5 separate states at its discretion.  I think the argument could be made that if Texas decided to exercise that clause of the treaty and Congress refused to grant Texas the division, the U.S. would have abrogated the treaty, automatically returning Texas to the status of an independent country.  No vote by Congress to release Texas would be needed--it would be automatic.

Not exactly correct. All the original 13 were either independent States (countries) or Commonwealths prior to the Articles of Confederation, and retained Offices, Officers, and an army (Militia) of their own. My ancestors swore an oath of allegiance after the American Revolution to the sovereign State of Maryland, for instance, and such was common among the landed (property owners) at the time. A State was a nation, unto itself, and the meaning had not been watered down by the machinations of the Federal Government of the last 200+ years.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So what?

No one was claiming secession was going to happen tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow. I think pretty much everyone knows it's going to be a years-long effort to achieve.  I'm betting that was the first time the proposal made it out of committee to be voted on. So, progress!   

This is probably the first sober assessment on "your side" that I've seen in here.

Your average Joe isn't a kook. He doesn't think Obama is a tyrant and he doesn't think things are so bad in the US that it warrants the US splintering apart or falling into civil war.

Conservatives consistently overestimate the popularity of their ideas and this is another case of that.

[austingirl]

This is probably the first sober assessment on "your side" that I've seen in here.

Your average Joe isn't a kook. He doesn't think Obama is a tyrant and he doesn't think things are so bad in the US that it warrants the US splintering apart or falling into civil war.

Conservatives consistently overestimate the popularity of their ideas and this is another case of that.

I guess you didn't bother to read  about the years-long ongoing process undertaken by the Texas Nationalist Movement in the link I provided. Those who support secession are not "kooks." The ides is gaining traction. Each extra-Constitutional act by the bloated federal bureaucracy gives us one more reason to want to live independently.

[Free Vulcan]

We can make all the academic arguments about the legality of secession, but the reality is that it's not just an academic argument. Our fiscal position as a nation is severely eroded and it's very possible that the next recession, if deep enough, might result in the Federal govt no longer able to fund all of it's obligations.

If for example tax revenues fell and expenditures were to rise at the same percentage points as the last recession, we'd be running $2T dollar deficits, this time with an ailing oil patch and a China heavily in debt and with a stalled economy. If in any way that balloons up toward $3T and interest rates spike, the interest will begin to eat up the bulk of tax revenues within a few short years if those deficits can't be brought under control.

If the Federal money fountain stops, we are going to see extreme instability and breakdown in civil order. If DC cannot step up, the states will have to. At some point, in order to keep thing from spiraling completely out of control, the states will do what they have to do, and it won't just be Texas breaking away.

[wolfcreek]

Do you see Texas formally requesting that in any manner?

Our TX Gov. Abbott has proposed a Conventions of States to get their attention and try to stop the overreach but, nothing as far as secession.

[MACVSOG68]

Our TX Gov. Abbott has proposed a Conventions of States to get their attention and try to stop the overreach but, nothing as far as secession.

I'm not sure how many applications are still valid (or considered valid by Congress).  An amendment to provide for a state to leave the Union wouldn't have much support within either Congress or the states.  Other possible amendments would be considered in a convention including a balanced budget, voting rights, gun control, term limits, and more.  Mark Levin has been pushing a CoS for a while with a number of proposed amendments.  He argues that it wouldn't be a constitutional convention but rather a convention of states, a distinction rather than a difference.  The Convention of 1787 started out as a convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation and the central government.  Be careful what you ask for.