Texas GOP Website Crashes After Push for Vote to Secede From U.S.

[Elderberry]

Newsweek by Andrew Stanton On 6/20/22

he Texas Republican Party's website went down Monday afternoon following reports of several controversial policy positions included in their official platform.

The party's state convention over the weekend was muddled with several incidents, including a right-wing activist berating Representative Dan Crenshaw as well as backlash over banning a group of gay Republicans from setting up a booth at the convention.

But parts of their policy platform have drawn significant attention—and criticism. The party voted on measures that, if passed, would urge state lawmakers to secede from the United States and support a complete abortion ban.

On Monday, as reports over the controversial policy positions spread across social media, the state party's website appeared to be down. Links to the website only yielded a page that read: "Error establishing a database connection," rather than the website itself. The website was also down for at least part of the weekend, as well.

More: https://www.newsweek.com/texas-gop-website-crashes-after-push-vote-secede-us-1717449

[Elderberry]

Texas Could Vote to Secede From U.S. in 2023 as GOP Pushes for Referendum

Newsweek By Khaleda Rahman On 6/20/22

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secede-us-2023-gop-pushes-referendum-1717254

exas Republicans are pushing for a referendum to decide whether the state should secede from the U.S.

The demand for Texans to be allowed to vote on the issue in 2023 was one of many measures adopted in the Texas GOP's party platform following last week's state convention in Houston.

Under a section titled "State Sovereignty," the platform states: "Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified.

"Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto."

In another section on state governance, the platform states that Texas Republicans want the state Legislature to pass a bill in its next session "requiring a referendum in the 2023 general election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."

The myth that Texas can secede from the U.S. continues because of the state's history of independence, according to The Texas Tribune. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and spent nine years as its own nation before becoming a U.S. state. Texas then seceded from the Union in 1861 before being readmitted following the end of the Civil War in 1870.

More at link.

[Hoodat]

The myth that Texas can secede from the U.S. continues because of the state's history of independence, according to The Texas Tribune.

Myth?   The only myth here is that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits States from leaving the Union.  There isn't.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Texas Republicans are pushing for a referendum to decide whether the state should secede from the U.S.

The demand for Texans to be allowed to vote on the issue in 2023 was one of many measures adopted in the Texas GOP's party platform following last week's state convention in Houston.

Under a section titled "State Sovereignty," the platform states: "Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified.

"Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto."

In another section on state governance, the platform states that Texas Republicans want the state Legislature to pass a bill in its next session "requiring a referendum in the 2023 general election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secede-us-2023-gop-pushes-referendum-1717254

More at https://tnm.me

[GrouchoTex]

Under a section titled "State Sovereignty," the platform states: "Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified.

I can go along with this, wholeheartedly, but it isn't exactly calling for secession.

Secession is a nice daydream to what we think would be a simpler time, but I don't think it would be all that it's cracked up to be.

You never know. If things keep going like they have been lately, I could be persuaded....

[Hoodat]

You never know. If things keep going like they have been lately, I could be persuaded....

At least they would get Ft. Hood out of the deal.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

At least they would get Ft. Hood out of the deal.

Who is 'they"?  Texas or the US?

And I thought Fort Hood was Fort Gonzalez or something akin to that now.

[Hoodat]

Who is 'they"?  Texas or the US?

And I thought Fort Hood was Fort Gonzalez or something akin to that now.

Texas, of course.  And the Republic of Greater Texas can name it whatever they want.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Texas, of course.  And the Republic of Greater Texas can name it whatever they want.

Ok, I was unsure whether you believed the US would attempt to retain its largest base on Texas soil.

[Hoodat]

Ok, I was unsure whether you believed the US would attempt to retain its largest base on Texas soil.

Oh, I think they most definitely would make that attempt.  But my money is on Texas.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

 

Oh, I think they most definitely would make that attempt.  But my money is on Texas.

[Smokin Joe]

Myth?   The only myth here is that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits States from leaving the Union.  There isn't.

If the compact is not voluntary, but compelled, there is no Liberty, only force.

Considering the Federal Government has increasingly violated and ignored the Constitution, either the terms of that Compact should be revived, or dissolution of the entity formed thereby open to consideration.
Dissolution is not the best option, considering the areas most corrupted would provide beachheads for entities and authorities, much as they do now, opposed to this Republic, but at least they would do so with no illusions of being our countrymen.
The insanity and corruption afoot in virtually every Federal entity may not be something the Republic can recover from, and no technology will overcome the ideology and demagoguery present in those halls supporting the unsupportable.

This is how the unwashed swarms with pointy sticks topple great empires--from within.

[Hoodat]

If the compact is not voluntary, but compelled, there is no Liberty, only force.

Considering the Federal Government has increasingly violated and ignored the Constitution, either the terms of that Compact should be revived, or dissolution of the entity formed thereby open to consideration..

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

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.


Or from the Virginia Convention of 1861:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

Now, therefore, we the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain,That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified; and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty, which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare,That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the Citizens of this State.

[Bigun]

For so long as any member of the founding generation lived there was no controversy over this issue at all. It was clear to everyone that states were free to leave a union that no longer served their interests at any time. Massachusetts very nearly did so over displeasure with trade issues very early in the game.

St. George Tucker was very clear on the matter and I have not been able to locate a single instance of what he said being disputed by anyone before the mid 1850's.

Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. It is the supreme law of the land, and as such binding upon the federal government; the several states; and finally upon all the citizens of the United States.... It can not be controlled, or altered without the express consent of the body politic of three fourths of the states in the union, or, of the people, of an equal number of the states. To prevent the necessity of an immediate appeal to the latter, a method is pointed out, by which amendments may be proposed and ratified by the concurrent act of two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the state legislatures: but if congress should neglect to propose amendments in this way, when they may be deemed necessary, the concurrent sense of two thirds of the state legislatures may enforce congress to call a convention, the amendments proposed by which, when ratified by the conventions of three fourths of the states, become valid, as a part of the constitution. In either mode, the assent of the body politic of the states, is necessary, either to complete, or to originate the measure


“Their submission to its operation is voluntary: it’s councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."

Both excerpted from:

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:
WITH
NOTES OF REFERENCE,
TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
IN FIVE VOLUMES.
WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME,
CONTAINING
SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY
TO FORM A CONNECTED
VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,
AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION.
BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,
PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL,
NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET.
ROBERT CARR, PRINTER.
1803.

[Fishrrman]

Smokin Joe blows a big smoke ring with:
"Considering the Federal Government has increasingly violated and ignored the Constitution, either the terms of that Compact should be revived, or dissolution of the entity formed thereby open to consideration."

OK, no disagreement there.

So one more time, I'm gonna proffer:
Is it time for that New Continental Congress yet?

Consider:
Why was the first one convened?
Who attended?
Why?
What followed as a result of it?
What documents?
And what was the final result?

Smokin' Joe, again:
"This is how the unwashed swarms with pointy sticks topple great empires--from within."

See above.
Can what happened on the North American continent once before, not happen again?