Theresa. Be interesting to see what autocorrect switched from to come up with Theresa.LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
thefeds + a typoquash said:Theresa. Be interesting to see what autocorrect switched from to come up with Theresa.LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
Maybe you can go back and read my post about the 10th Amendment, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again.TexasScientist said:Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
Maybe you should actually read the 10th Amendment. There is nothing there that gives a state the authority to change a federal law or the Constitution. If what you believe were true, there would be no need for federal courts. Each state would be on its own.Oldbear83 said:Maybe you can go back and read my post about the 10th Amendment, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again.TexasScientist said:Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
Biedermann tried to crank an engine with an empty tank. Legality has everything to do with it ultimately. The illegality of it was enforced by the military from 1861 through 1864.Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
Do you live under the crown?TexasScientist said:Biedermann tried to crank an engine with an empty tank. Legality has everything to do with it ultimately. The illegality of it was enforced by the military from 1861 through 1864.Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
Once again you have it backwards. There is no specific prohibition in the Constitution to prohibit secession, which makes it a state decision. You can point to law against secession, but that was addressed in that prior post.TexasScientist said:Maybe you should actually read the 10th Amendment. There is nothing there that gives a state the authority to change a federal law or the Constitution. If what you believe were true, there would be no need for federal courts. Each state would be on its own.Oldbear83 said:Maybe you can go back and read my post about the 10th Amendment, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again.TexasScientist said:Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
TexasScientist said:Biedermann tried to crank an engine with an empty tank. Legality has everything to do with it ultimately. The illegality of it was enforced by the military from 1861 through 1864.Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
LIB,MR BEARS said:Do you live under the crown?TexasScientist said:Biedermann tried to crank an engine with an empty tank. Legality has everything to do with it ultimately. The illegality of it was enforced by the military from 1861 through 1864.Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
Sometimes autocorrect is more creative than useful.LIB,MR BEARS said:thefeds + a typoquash said:Theresa. Be interesting to see what autocorrect switched from to come up with Theresa.LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
"May it please the crown..."LIB,MR BEARS said:
Do you live under the crown?
Sure, but that's not the point that was being made.Russell Gym said:Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
It had plenty of gas the first time, and that didn't end well.
Theresa and I agree!quash said:Sometimes autocorrect is more creative than useful.LIB,MR BEARS said:thefeds + a typoquash said:Theresa. Be interesting to see what autocorrect switched from to come up with Theresa.LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
No, thanks to successful revolution.LIB,MR BEARS said:Do you live under the crown?TexasScientist said:Biedermann tried to crank an engine with an empty tank. Legality has everything to do with it ultimately. The illegality of it was enforced by the military from 1861 through 1864.Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
That's been a matter of debate, at least as far back as early 19th century. Appomattox ended the question. If you want to break up the Union, call a constitutional convention, or pass an amendment, or win a revolution.Oldbear83 said:Once again you have it backwards. There is no specific prohibition in the Constitution to prohibit secession, which makes it a state decision. You can point to law against secession, but that was addressed in that prior post.TexasScientist said:Maybe you should actually read the 10th Amendment. There is nothing there that gives a state the authority to change a federal law or the Constitution. If what you believe were true, there would be no need for federal courts. Each state would be on its own.Oldbear83 said:Maybe you can go back and read my post about the 10th Amendment, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again.TexasScientist said:Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
Argue that to the SC.Quote:
"Secession is illegal."
It doesn't have enough gas to get from Biedermann's desk to a committee.Robert Wilson said:Sure, but that's not the point that was being made.Russell Gym said:Robert Wilson said:
"Secession is illegal."
What a silly thing to say.
That's not what will stop it. If it has enough gas, it will go. If it doesn't, it won't. Legality is neither here or there when it comes to such matters.
It had plenty of gas the first time, and that didn't end well.
Now, whether the US would fight a war to prevent a state from leaving this time is a separate interesting question.
We're closer in opinion. Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first. Don't hold you breath.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
If liberals keep raising taxes and burdens on the middle class, it will.TexasScientist said:Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
Maybe. Best not to elect extremists. One man one vote swings the pendulum.Doc Holliday said:If liberals keep raising taxes and burdens on the middle class, it will.TexasScientist said:Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
I have said several times that secession would be a very poor decision, but the ability of Texas to pull off the move may be far more feasible than you think.TexasScientist said:We're closer in opinion. Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first. Don't hold you breath.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
Is it wrong to study the question when the noise from the hub assembly is a dull roar with no corrective action taken or, should we wait until the wheels do come off and we have to figure out how we get home in one peace.TexasScientist said:We're closer in opinion. Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first. Don't hold you breath.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
Or less than you think. We'll never know, because Texas isn't going attempt secession.Oldbear83 said:I have said several times that secession would be a very poor decision, but the ability of Texas to pull off the move may be far more feasible than you think.TexasScientist said:We're closer in opinion. Texas, nor any other state, will never have enough force or political stroke to leave the Union, unless the wheels come off of the Union first. Don't hold you breath.Oldbear83 said:
"Appomattox ended the question"
Nope, it ended that particular war, not the question of Secession overall.
I certainly agree that the government facing the loss of territory, be it the British Empire in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1989, or the EU in 2016, will oppose the loss and call it illegal. The party leaving the union/federation will of course ignore that prohibition, and the matter will be resolved in ways that may or may not involve force, but historically never depend on a courtroom.
Texasjeremy said:
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidthomasroberts/2021/04/20/the-biden-administrations-war-on-texas-n2588241?goal=0_244a299551-fea9c03d11-321222798&mc_cid=fea9c03d11&mc_eid=48f1016e01
The Biden Administration's War on Texas
Throughout the state of Texas since early March, citizens have been piling into meeting halls, cafes and other venues to standing-room only events to vent their frustration at the federal government for what appears to be an open, direct and hostile attack by the Biden administration, the Democrats and the leftists on the state and its residents.
These town hall-type events, typically hosted by establishment Republican groups, have morphed into displays of outward anger similar to what was witnessed in early Tea Party meetings fueled at the time by the opposition to Obamacare except the level of frustration now seen in these current events clearly
eclipse the early Tea Party days.
For many Texans, Washington, D.C. and the federal government are irrevocably and hopelessly broken.
And Texas politicians are beginning to take serious notice of the dramatic shift in the political winds. Texas Republican State Representative Kyle Biedermann filed H.B. 1359 to allow Texans to vote on taking the first step to Texas independence now commonly referred to as TEXIT. TEXIT is popular among Texans and polling proves it. So far, the bill has picked up a legislative co-author and four co-sponsors, driven in large part by the leading Texas independence organization, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) who boast over 400,000 supporters and have feverishly and methodically organized grassroots teams and coordinators by state senate districts. If the TNM were a political party, it would be the third largest in Texas.
Along with the crowds, the money is following, from small donations by individuals to those by business owners and wealthy political donors who are openly frustrated. Efforts to marginalize the TEXIT movement as a fringe element have failed. State Republican Party Chairman Allen West has publicly supported the citizens' right to vote on the issue and even the Texas GOP platform calls for secession in the event the federal government abandons the foundations of a Constitutional Republic.
Texas independence, for many Texans, is considered a birthright and embedded in their DNA, forged by Texas' unique history as a Republic. The grandiose dream of another Republic of Texas has suddenly become very real to many. To TEXIT supporters, the issue is not a legal question but simply a question of political will, pointing to the Brexit movement by Great Britain of a negotiated separation as the model.
TEXIT has gone mainstream. How did this happen?
Most don't need to look any further than the about-face changes in immigration policies that have led to an unprecedented mass illegal migration invasion into Texas on the 1,254-mile Texas-Mexico border. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reported Texas will spend over $850 million per year of Texas taxpayers' money in unreimbursed costs to accommodate the federal open-border policies of the Biden administration for hospital districts, housing, Medicaid, family violence programs, children's health and education for illegal immigrants. For years the Democrats have predicted Texas will turn blue and many pundits believe this is how they accomplish that goal. What better way to make that happen than to flood the state with potential future Democrat voters who were let into the country unencumbered by a Democrat president?
The Biden administration struck at the heart of Texas' oil industry by shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and the sacking of more than 40 outside experts the Trump administration appointed for science advisory services on fracking. The technology of fracking was one of the key components that led to the country's energy independence under the Trump administration but is among the Biden administration's targets.
At the height of the election integrity drama, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General which was joined by multiple other states that claimed federal and state election laws were violated in the November elections by Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. The lawsuit was filed to protect Texas's 38 electoral college votes from being cancelled out by the combined 62 electoral college votes of the four states in the claim who allegedly violated their own election laws. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case based on 'standing' shocked many Texans and some quickly formed the opinion that the perceived threat and potential intimidation by Congress to expand the Supreme Court had more to do with the Court not taking the case than the facts.
The tragic winter storm that impacted Texas only added fuel to the independence fire. Beginning in the Obama administration, the push by the feds to shutter coal-fired generation plants in favor of renewable energy sources proved to be unreliable in the historic winter event. The fact that Texas's grid operator had to officially file a written request to exceed federal emissions standards to ramp remaining coal and natural gas plants to 100% power didn't sit well with Texans. The latest cost estimate to Texas for the winter storm was over $200 billion more than either mega hurricanes Ike or Harvey. At least 125 Texans lost their life directly related to the storm. Was the federal government entirely to blame? No but their interference in grid operations and federal emission standards led to the "perfect" storm.
Added to the average Texan's discontent is the Covid relief legislation approved by Congress that provided more Texas taxpayer funds to bail out the failed fiscal policies of Democratic-run cities and states. After all, Texans are already well aware they on the short end of the federal funds dispensary, receiving only $26.9 Billion in federal aid despite paying in $133.4 Billion in federal taxes.
With every move Congress and the Biden administration take, the chorus for TEXIT becomes louder, enough so that elected leaders in Texas are starting to realize that to be on the wrong side of a simple citizen referendum to explore the independence issue could haunt them in their next election.
Daniel Miller, the President of TNM always closes his TEXIT presentations with the simple question, "If Texas were an independent country today would you vote to join the Union?" to which the crowds emphatically shout, "No!"
I question whether these events are hosted by establishment Republican groups. Please name these establishment groups.Quote:
These town hall-type events, typically hosted by establishment Republican groups,
I guess that's why there is such widespread support in the legislature? One co-author and four co-sponsors leading the ground swell through the committee process, calendars, and votes on the floor of both houses. Abbott's, Patrick's, and Phelan's endorsements are imminent. Yep, that's what I would call mainstream in a wishful narrative.Quote:
And Texas politicians are beginning to take serious notice of the dramatic shift in the political winds.
No matter how uniformed, Texans still don't have standing. I doubt the SC is worried about expansion, although it's slightly more likely than Texit. The pay and term remains the same, regardless of number.Quote:
The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case based on 'standing' shocked many Texans and some quickly formed the opinion that the perceived threat and potential intimidation by Congress to expand the Supreme Court had more to do with the Court not taking the case than the facts.
Texasjeremy said:
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidthomasroberts/2021/04/20/the-biden-administrations-war-on-texas-n2588241?goal=0_244a299551-fea9c03d11-321222798&mc_cid=fea9c03d11&mc_eid=48f1016e01
The Biden Administration's War on Texas
Throughout the state of Texas since early March, citizens have been piling into meeting halls, cafes and other venues to standing-room only events to vent their frustration at the federal government for what appears to be an open, direct and hostile attack by the Biden administration, the Democrats and the leftists on the state and its residents.
These town hall-type events, typically hosted by establishment Republican groups, have morphed into displays of outward anger similar to what was witnessed in early Tea Party meetings fueled at the time by the opposition to Obamacare except the level of frustration now seen in these current events clearly eclipse the early Tea Party days.
For many Texans, Washington, D.C. and the federal government are irrevocably and hopelessly broken.
And Texas politicians are beginning to take serious notice of the dramatic shift in the political winds. Texas Republican State Representative Kyle Biedermann filed H.B. 1359 to allow Texans to vote on taking the first step to Texas independence now commonly referred to as TEXIT. TEXIT is popular among Texans and polling proves it. So far, the bill has picked up a legislative co-author and four co-sponsors, driven in large part by the leading Texas independence organization, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) who boast over 400,000 supporters and have feverishly and methodically organized grassroots teams and coordinators by state senate districts. If the TNM were a political party, it would be the third largest in Texas.
Along with the crowds, the money is following, from small donations by individuals to those by business owners and wealthy political donors who are openly frustrated. Efforts to marginalize the TEXIT movement as a fringe element have failed. State Republican Party Chairman Allen West has publicly supported the citizens' right to vote on the issue and even the Texas GOP platform calls for secession in the event the federal government abandons the foundations of a Constitutional Republic.
Texas independence, for many Texans, is considered a birthright and embedded in their DNA, forged by Texas' unique history as a Republic. The grandiose dream of another Republic of Texas has suddenly become very real to many. To TEXIT supporters, the issue is not a legal question but simply a question of political will, pointing to the Brexit movement by Great Britain of a negotiated separation as the model.
TEXIT has gone mainstream. How did this happen?
Most don't need to look any further than the about-face changes in immigration policies that have led to an unprecedented mass illegal migration invasion into Texas on the 1,254-mile Texas-Mexico border. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reported Texas will spend over $850 million per year of Texas taxpayers' money in unreimbursed costs to accommodate the federal open-border policies of the Biden administration for hospital districts, housing, Medicaid, family violence programs, children's health and education for illegal immigrants. For years the Democrats have predicted Texas will turn blue and many pundits believe this is how they accomplish that goal. What better way to make that happen than to flood the state with potential future Democrat voters who were let into the country unencumbered by a Democrat president?
The Biden administration struck at the heart of Texas' oil industry by shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and the sacking of more than 40 outside experts the Trump administration appointed for science advisory services on fracking. The technology of fracking was one of the key components that led to the country's energy independence under the Trump administration but is among the Biden administration's targets.
At the height of the election integrity drama, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General which was joined by multiple other states that claimed federal and state election laws were violated in the November elections by Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. The lawsuit was filed to protect Texas's 38 electoral college votes from being cancelled out by the combined 62 electoral college votes of the four states in the claim who allegedly violated their own election laws. The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case based on 'standing' shocked many Texans and some quickly formed the opinion that the perceived threat and potential intimidation by Congress to expand the Supreme Court had more to do with the Court not taking the case than the facts.
The tragic winter storm that impacted Texas only added fuel to the independence fire. Beginning in the Obama administration, the push by the feds to shutter coal-fired generation plants in favor of renewable energy sources proved to be unreliable in the historic winter event. The fact that Texas's grid operator had to officially file a written request to exceed federal emissions standards to ramp remaining coal and natural gas plants to 100% power didn't sit well with Texans. The latest cost estimate to Texas for the winter storm was over $200 billion more than either mega hurricanes Ike or Harvey. At least 125 Texans lost their life directly related to the storm. Was the federal government entirely to blame? No but their interference in grid operations and federal emission standards led to the "perfect" storm.
Added to the average Texan's discontent is the Covid relief legislation approved by Congress that provided more Texas taxpayer funds to bail out the failed fiscal policies of Democratic-run cities and states. After all, Texans are already well aware they on the short end of the federal funds dispensary, receiving only $26.9 Billion in federal aid despite paying in $133.4 Billion in federal taxes.
With every move Congress and the Biden administration take, the chorus for TEXIT becomes louder, enough so that elected leaders in Texas are starting to realize that to be on the wrong side of a simple citizen referendum to explore the independence issue could haunt them in their next election.
Daniel Miller, the President of TNM always closes his TEXIT presentations with the simple question, "If Texas were an independent country today would you vote to join the Union?" to which the crowds emphatically shout, "No!"
Fathom the irony of a progressive making an argument premised on a literal/limited interpretation of the Constitution.TexasScientist said:That's been a matter of debate, at least as far back as early 19th century. Appomattox ended the question. If you want to break up the Union, call a constitutional convention, or pass an amendment, or win a revolution.Oldbear83 said:Once again you have it backwards. There is no specific prohibition in the Constitution to prohibit secession, which makes it a state decision. You can point to law against secession, but that was addressed in that prior post.TexasScientist said:Maybe you should actually read the 10th Amendment. There is nothing there that gives a state the authority to change a federal law or the Constitution. If what you believe were true, there would be no need for federal courts. Each state would be on its own.Oldbear83 said:Maybe you can go back and read my post about the 10th Amendment, instead of just repeating the same thing over and over again.TexasScientist said:Only congress or the federal courts can change federal law. States can pass laws in conflict with federal law or the constitution.Oldbear83 said:Pretty much any.TexasScientist said:Which state has authority to change federal law?Oldbear83 said:
The "the states don't have authority" argument is wrong.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th Amendment of that Constitution establishes that powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the States.
There is no clause in the US Constitution which specifically states that states may not leave the union. Ergo, the decision defaults to the states.
Now there is law which says states may not secede, and the US courts have ruled that secession is not allowed, but courts have made wrong decisions before and not a few times, and the US courts have no interest in supporting a state which means to leave the union. Thus, the matter is not settled in terms of constitutionality.
Now with that said, I believe there is no state in the Union which gains from leaving the US, but we are discussing whether it can be done, not whether it would be wise to do so.
Who'd be dumb enough to try? Remains to be seen.
haven't they already broken the "contract" binding us together?LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
You just used the word contract. Guaranteed they're confused now.whiterock said:haven't they already broken the "contract" binding us together?LIB,MR BEARS said:
When cities started calling themselves sanctuary cities, going against federal law and Theresa did nothing about it, did they set a precedent?
i.e. what is left to secede from?
