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

[RedHead]

It would be great if this thread could address the issue of Texas Secession in 2016. There are more reasons every day why Texas should declare its independence from the corrupt and overreaching National Government.

There is no issue of Texas secession in 2016 or 2017 or 2018 or ever.  The minority who want it may talk a good game but  they will always remain a small minority of the voters.  Almost 42% of your voters cast their ballot for Obama for God's sake.  You think they will want to leave?  And if the SEC threatens to boot Texas from the conference then about another 42 percent will oppose leaving as well.

[catfish1957]

I don't think very many of us Texans think we can legally secede (after 1865 as you stated).  However, with $20T debt and growing, this nation is on collision course of  economic unsustainablity.   At that point the USA will be unable to keep Texas from leaving.  I for one would much prefer to be governed by a conservative fiscally  responsible group than idiots in DC. 

Let the entitlement class starve under the largess of their socialist slave masters.

[catfish1957]

  And if the SEC threatens to boot Texas from the conference then about another 42 percent will oppose leaving as well.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Self-modified to avoid Mod scorn.

[RetBobbyMI]

That's fine...let's stay on topic. Does Texas, or any state, have the right to secede? I believe the question was settled in 1865.
What is both amusing and irritating is the complete disregard the secess advocates have for the past and its implications and their complete misreading of the constitution (specifically the 10th amendment) and the lack of support for secession at will by any of the Founders.
Why they choose to advocate for secession and not rebellion (which would include people from all the states) is not given.
The secess people bring up Britain leaving the EU neglecting to mention that Britain is an independent country. 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.

The "union" was created by the States and We the People.  Too many people thing because there is a national constitution that all power rests with the federal government.  The Constitution is quite clear to the opposite, that only certain delegated powers are delegated to the federal government and all others are retained by the states.  It states that upon petition, that the Congress can grant admission to the Union, but NO WHERE does it say that no state may leave the union.

[RedHead]

The "union" was created by the States and We the People.  Too many people thing because there is a national constitution that all power rests with the federal government.  The Constitution is quite clear to the opposite, that only certain delegated powers are delegated to the federal government and all others are retained by the states.  It states that upon petition, that the Congress can grant admission to the Union, but NO WHERE does it say that no state may leave the union.

It is implied.  If a state cannot be admitted without the consent of the other states, and if once in the union states cannot split or combine without the consent of the other states, then it stands to reason they cannot leave without the consent of the other states.

But you will probably say that there are no implied powers.  Then let me pose you this question: if a state may, at will, leave the union with the other states then can the other states, at will, expel a single state from the union with them?  Could they, for example, kick Michigan out of the U.S.?

[thackney]

It is implied.  If a state cannot be admitted without the consent of the other states,...

Per ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1, New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...

It only takes the feds, not the other state approvals.

[Cowboyway]

I don't think very many of us Texans think we can legally secede (after 1865 as you stated).  However, with $20T debt and growing, this nation is on collision course of  economic unsustainablity.   At that point the USA will be unable to keep Texas from leaving.  I for one would much prefer to be governed by a conservative fiscally  responsible group than idiots in DC. 

Let the entitlement class starve under the largess of their socialist slave masters.

Good point.  With the election of Trump or Hillary in November, the collapse of the federal government is highly probable at which point individual states will simply go their own way or band together in new confederations.  In other words, Texas will not have to 'leave' because there won't be anything to 'leave' from.

On the other hand, if Trump or Hillary become the dictators they want to be then the Constitution is essentially nullified and therefore no consent is required for states to 'leave'.

In either scenario, there's probably gonna be a bit of blood spilled.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Good point.  With the election of Trump or Hillary in November, the collapse of the federal government is highly probable at which point individual states will simply go their own way or band together in new confederations.  In other words, Texas will not have to 'leave' because there won't be anything to 'leave' from.

On the other hand, if Trump or Hillary become the dictators they want to be then the Constitution is essentially nullified and therefore no consent is required for states to 'leave'.

In either scenario, there's probably gonna be a bit of blood spilled.

I consider it most likely a number of states will split off rather than a single state, as the issues against the federal govt are the same in multiple states of like mind. Texas just happens to be the largest and most vocal of those states.

The states that remain will fight vociferously as they will realize they will be 'holding the bag' of the $20T in debt.  But there will not be much they can do about it to keep Texas leaving, whether it does it with consent of others or not.

At least the reduced federal govt will not be on the hook for future SS or Medicare for the citizens of those states which had left.  That is the cost of leaving, which for my money is well spent.

And, as one reads the news today regarding UK once it made decision to leave the EU, countries will line up eagerly to begin trade with the new nation.  Rich in resources and with the temperament of its people,  Texas will do just fine and thrive.

[RetBobbyMI]

It is implied.  If a state cannot be admitted without the consent of the other states, and if once in the union states cannot split or combine without the consent of the other states, then it stands to reason they cannot leave without the consent of the other states.

But you will probably say that there are no implied powers.  Then let me pose you this question: if a state may, at will, leave the union with the other states then can the other states, at will, expel a single state from the union with them?  Could they, for example, kick Michigan out of the U.S.?

False logic. The Constitution expressly grants power to the federal government. All other powers are "reserved" to the states. There is no power to expel.

[Bigun]

I don't think very many of us Texans think we can legally secede (after 1865 as you stated).

I think you are quite wrong about that!

 

However, with $20T debt and growing, this nation is on collision course of  economic unsustainability.   At that point the USA will be unable to keep Texas from leaving.  I for one would much prefer to be governed by a conservative fiscally  responsible group than idiots in DC. 

Let the entitlement class starve under the largess of their socialist slave masters.

And there is that as well.

[Bigun]

False logic. The Constitution expressly grants power to the federal government. All other powers are "reserved" to the states. There is no power to expel.

And there is not one single word in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from leaving the union unless I have somehow missed that word or phrase in which case I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

[RedHead]

False logic. The Constitution expressly grants power to the federal government. All other powers are "reserved" to the states.

Can you tell me where in the Constitution the word "expressly" is used to identify the powers granted to the federal government?

There is no power to expel.

Where is that power denied to the states?

[RedHead]

And there is not one single word in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from leaving the union unless I have somehow missed that word or phrase in which case I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

Which means that there is no reason why a state cannot leave the union, so long as it is done with the consent of the other states.

[Bigun]

Which means that there is no reason why a state cannot leave the union, so long as it is done with the consent of the other states.

BZZZZZZ! Wrong!  They do not need the consent of anyone other the the people of the state wishing to leave.

[RedHead]

BZZZZZZ! Wrong!  They do not need the consent of anyone other the the people of the state wishing to leave.

BZZZZZ!  Wrong!  The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that consent was needed.  James Madison said consent was needed.  That's good enough for me. 

[RetBobbyMI]

And there is not one single word in the Constitution that would prohibit a state from leaving the union unless I have somehow missed that word or phrase in which case I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

That is what I said or tried to say.

[Bigun]

BZZZZZ!  Wrong!  The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that consent was needed.  James Madison said consent was needed.  That's good enough for me.

And the "Ruling" was a political as they come! it has been throughly taken apart on this very thread already.

[RetBobbyMI]

Can you tell me where in the Constitution the word "expressly" is used to identify the powers granted to the federal government?


Where is that power denied to the states?

Now you're being asinine about what I said. The Constitution expressly, not implies, what powers to federal government has. All powers are granted to the states except those specifically granted to the Feds. Is that clear enough for you?

[Cowboyway]

BZZZZZ!  Wrong!  The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that consent was needed.  James Madison said consent was needed.  That's good enough for me.

Bravo Sierra, non-sequitur.  That wasn't a court holding, that was dicta from a highly biased Lincoln appointee.  Leave it alone.  It has zero bearing on todays situation.

ETA:  In other words, quit bringing it up.  Start your own thread in another forum and continue your circular arguments elsewhere.  I think I can speak for everybody on this thread when I say that we've grown weary of your ineffectual attempts to stifle current day discussion of secession with the singular example of Texas v White.

[Bigun]

Bravo Sierra, non-sequitur.  That wasn't a court holding, that was dicta from a highly biased Lincoln appointee.  Leave it alone.  It has zero bearing on todays situation.

  

[RedHead]

And the "Ruling" was a political as they come! it has been throughly taken apart on this very thread already.

The definition of a political ruling being one that you do not agree with?

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?

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. 

[RedHead]

Now you're being asinine about what I said. The Constitution expressly, not implies, what powers to federal government has. All powers are granted to the states except those specifically granted to the Feds. Is that clear enough for you?

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?

[RedHead]

Bravo Sierra, non-sequitur.  That wasn't a court holding, that was dicta from a highly biased Lincoln appointee.  Leave it alone.  It has zero bearing on todays situation.

You really don't have a clue as to what obiter dictum means, do you?

ETA:  In other words, quit bringing it up.  Start your own thread in another forum and continue your circular arguments elsewhere.  I think I can speak for everybody on this thread when I say that we've grown weary of your ineffectual attempts to stifle current day discussion of secession with the singular example of Texas v White.

And yet here you are, responding with your inaccurate posts.

[Cowboyway]

You really don't have a clue as to what obiter dictum means, do you?

And yet here you are, responding with your inaccurate posts.

Quit trolling non-sequitur and stick to the topic.

[Bigun]

The definition of a political ruling being one that you do not agree with?

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 strong vested interest in getting what he said out there!

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?

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

States are co-equals under the Constitution.  No one state has any more rights or privileges than another,

On that we agree!


 

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.

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