https://tnm.me/texit/government/does-texas-need-to-draft-a-new-constitution-before-we-texit

There is a misconception that there can be no Texit without first having drafted and ratified a new constitution for an independent Republic of Texas. Given the unwieldy size of the current Texas Constitution, there might be some merit to revisiting it. However, the assertion that no Texit can take place without it is completely wrong. In fact, without some changes to the existing constitution, post-referendum, the Texas government doesn't possess the legal authority or the statutory framework to move to the next step.

The problem is basic. There is no legal framework for Texas to engage the United States on equal footing. The legal framework that currently exists allows Texas to engage the other States within the Union, but nothing that allows Texas to engage them all as a collective entity. As a State of the Union, we are prohibited from entering into treaties under Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution. This is problematic, as a significant portion of the negotiation and transition will require Texas to sit across the negotiating table with representatives of the United States as well as other countries as equals to execute international agreements on a variety of issues.

Luckily, in the wake of an affirmative vote for Texit, Texas has the power to make the needed changes to the Texas Constitution required to start the process without rewriting the entire document. In the 1960s, a complete overhaul of the Texas Constitution was completed through what became known as the Deadwood Amendment. It was a single constitutional amendment that removed redundant or obsolete language from the Texas Constitution. Some of these provisions dealt with land issues related to Spanish land grants. Some dealt with cleaning up language that existed elsewhere in the Constitution or had been overturned by the courts. All these edits and changes were rolled into a single constitutional amendment and placed before the voters of Texas.

In a similar fashion, any substantial constitutional changes required because of the independent status of Texas can be accomplished in this way without requiring a constitutional convention. This would include changing the official name of Texas from the "State of Texas" to the "Republic of Texas," as well as removing references to the United States, the federal government, and the federal Constitution. It should also include changing the names of elected positions in Texas government to reflect its new national character. For example, it could rename the office of governor to president and the legislature to congress. While these are somewhat cosmetic changes, the most significant change will include redefining the role of the Texas secretary of state and expanding the duties of the office to include international relations.

The most important addition, however, will be the addition of a constitutional provision granting treaty-making authority to the Texas government and defining the process under which treaties are proposed and ratified.

At some point early in this phase of the process, Texas will also have to deal with some gaps in current State statutes. While there is an equivalent State-level agency to nearly every federal-level agency, making the transition of executive and administrative functions much easier, there are likely some holes in the legal framework. We see an example of this right now as the UK vigorously debates legislation in this regard because of its exit from the European Union. A by-product of being in a political and economic union for an extended period is that, in many instances, the member states of a political union defer to the laws and regulations of that union in certain areas. Therefore, laws at the state level that are equivalent to those at the federal level simply have never been written and do not exist in the newly independent nation-state.

The UK has chosen to address these gaps through a single, comprehensive piece of legislation that will enact many of these laws and regulations. However, while Texas may wish to follow suit, there is an equally good chance that the low-regulation, small-government attitude of Texas will look at this an opportunity to simply end many of the regulations, laws, and programs that only exist in Texas due to the imposition of the federal superstate.

However Texas chooses to address it, underlying it all is a clean slate. It is an opportunity for Texas to begin to shape its government and policy to address the fundamental challenges that Texans will face in the very early stages of Texit.

Does Texas get more from the federal gvt than citizens pay in? most Southern states would cut off their nose to spite their face if they left the union and God help them if a hurricane hit them.

What all this talk doesn't consider is structures like the energy grid and the transporation grid that assume a permanent uniion, not to mention NASA's Houston operation and military bases. Yall intending just to take those over and expecting the other 49 states to hand them over without a peep? Askin for a friend.

https://tnm.me/texit/can/didnt-the-supreme-court-declare-secession-unconstitutional

The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court's decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, "So what?"

Dr. McClanahan's attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided." The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.

Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, "Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions."

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive "seal of approval" on the federal government's policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.

To reinforce his belief that the United States was a "perpetual union," he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the "perpetual union" allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.

To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.

To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.

In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.

There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase's logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.

Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.

"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."

With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the "silver bullet" that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.

Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase's determination is predicated on the claim that "perpetual union" is the "more perfect union" spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.

The federal government's position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the "end all, be all" of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.

Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.

J.B.Katz said:

---

Does Texas get more from the federal gvt than citizens pay in?

---

Correct.

J.B.Katz said:

---

Does Texas get more from the federal gvt than citizens pay in? most Southern states would cut off their nose to spite their face if they left the union and God help them if a hurricane hit them.

What all this talk doesn't consider is structures like the energy grid and the transporation grid that assume a permanent uniion, not to mention NASA's Houston operation and military bases. Yall intending just to take those over and expecting the other 49 states to hand them over without a peep? Askin for a friend.

---

Texas pays more into the federal government than it receives back. As for the energy grid, Texas has its own, separate from the rest of the nation.

https://tnm.me/texit/energy-environment/will-we-have-to-buy-our-electricity-from-the-u-s-after-texit

The short answer is an emphatic "NO". Here's what you need to know.

Texas both produces and consumes more electricity than any other state. Texas' abundant natural resources, including natural gas, coal and wind, are readily available to fuel our power plants.

Texas is the only one of the contiguous 48 states with its own stand-alone electricity grid, one of the three main grids in the U.S.: the Eastern Interconnection, Western Interconnection and Texas Interconnection. The Texas Interconnection, which covers 213 of the 254 Texas counties, is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. Portions of Texas near the state's borders are covered by the eastern and western grids.

As the independent system operator for the Texas grid, ERCOT connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and more than 650 power generation facilities, providing electricity to more than 26 million customers.

ERCOT's primary responsibilities include maintaining power reliability, ensuring open access to transmission lines and facilitating competitive electricity markets. It's overseen by the Texas Public Utility Commission, which also enforces compliance with the state's utility laws and regulates Texas' electric utility rates.

In Texas, several types of entities are involved in providing electricity to end users. The current structure dates from 1999, when the Texas Legislature introduced retail competition in much of ERCOT's service area. According to ERCOT, about 75 percent of its total power load represents customers in these "competitive" areas.

In competitive areas, power generators produce electricity from fuel and sell it on the wholesale market, where it's purchased by private companies called investor-owned utilities or retail electricity providers (REPs). Texas has about 300 REPs; customers can choose among them based on pricing and various options such as an emphasis on renewable power. Electricity purchased from REPs is distributed to homes, businesses and other facilities by transmission and distribution utilities, which own the actual poles, power lines and meters.

Texans living in areas outside the ERCOT grid or in areas served by municipally-owned utilities (such as Austin Energy), electricity co-ops, and river authorities rely on a single service provider. According to the Legislative Budget Board, as of September 2019, six of Texas' 20 largest cities maintained their own utilities, the largest being San Antonio.

Texas produces more electricity than it consumes and maintains a buffer referred to as the "state's reserve margin". This margin ensures that we never have to suffer from rolling blackouts like California.

Post-TEXIT, Texas will need to transition any non-ERCOT portions of the grid to ERCOT. While the state's reserve buffer could handle it, Texas will still need to increase its power generation capabilities to ensure that we have the widest margin possible between production and consumption.

The good news is that Texas is already expanding electrical production capacity as we speak to accommodate the growth in population and the greater needs of a high-tech society.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

tommie said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

tommie said:

---

How will this work? Secede then want a free trade agreement and shared security.

---

The devil is in the details. That is probably why the committee. You think?

---

I don't need a committee to tell me going bareback on a pornstar is a star is a bad idea. This is worse.

---

one vote for "no". Got it.

You probably should have checked with committee advice on prior decisions... just sayin

---

So, committeman,



Yes or no?

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

Tough decisions require and ABSOLUTELY deserve extreme contemplation. No fault divorce is a bad thing. No fault Texit would be worse.

---

There is no legal mechanism for leaving the union.

---

There is some disagreement as to whether or not Texas had that mechanism

https://tnm.me/texit/can/is-texas-too-integrated-with-the-united-states-to-texit

It is true that Texas is highly integrated with the United States. However, these political and economic ties are not so tight or intricately interwoven that it would be impossible to untangle them. In many instances, it would not be necessary to untangle them at all. There is no part of the relationship between Texas and the rest of the United States that could not be accomplished by utilizing existing State-level institutions and agencies, executing bilateral agreements between Texas and the United States, or by Texas signing onto multilateral international agreements that are already in place.

Is the issue trade? Countries, including the United States, trade with one another every hour of every day and have done so for all of recorded human history. The free trade agreements that the United States already has in place for 20 other countries around the world treat trade with them as though they were one of the States of the Union. Yet no one would argue that any of those countries are inseparable members of the federal Union. Texas could execute a free trade agreement with the United States and adopt the United States tariff schedule with the World Trade Organization for external trade, and no one would even notice the difference.

Is the issue currency? If Texas needed or wanted to, it could adopt the U.S. dollar as its official currency in an informal currency union like many other countries have done. We don't need permission to do it. However, if Texas were so inclined and the United States were amenable, we could enter into an official currency union with the United States. Scotland proposed a similar move for itself and the United Kingdom ahead of its independence vote. This would be similar to the formal currency union that exists throughout the European Union.

Is the issue banking? Foreign banks are allowed to operate in the United States at this very moment with no trouble. That includes large retail banks like Compass and HSBC. In fact, more banks in Texas are State-chartered and State-regulated than those who are federally chartered and regulated.

Is the issue federal pension benefits? People live outside of the United States and collect their federal pensions, including Social Security, every month. The Social Security Administration has an entire section on its website and publishes numerous informational documents on this subject. Through totalization agreements with other countries, U.S. citizens work outside the United States and continue to pay into the United States Social Security system and vice versa.

Is the issue travel? Cars, planes, trucks, and trains move between the United States and other countries every day. Over 1 million people per day legally cross the border between the United States and Mexico for work or travel using only a "Border Crossing Card." No passport needed. This is essentially no different than traveling between Texas and Oklahoma, Louisiana, or New Mexico.

Perhaps the concerns are more about having the money to continue certain functions of government. Not a problem. Simple arithmetic proves the ability of an independent Texas to fund a government at the same level that Texans are currently accustomed to if that's what Texans want.

Texans currently pay, in all, federal and state taxes of $336 billion per year. This represents the total amount of revenue readily available to an independent Texas without increasing the financial burden on Texans one single cent. From that amount, subtract the amount spent by both the federal government and state government in Texas. $228 billion is the total amount of expenditures required to maintain every program, every job (both civilian and military), every department, every facility (including military bases) and fulfill every function (including current federal contract spending to Texas companies) provided by the federal and state governments. This level of government revenue would rank Texas 12th in the world for government revenue collected.

Somehow, since 1945, 140 new, formerly dependent countries have been able to "make it" as independent, self-governing nation-states. The unspoken assertion is that, to be able to do anything that Texas would have to do as an independent nation, it must be a part of the United States. The implication is that Texas, and Texans, aren't as good, as smart, or as capable as other nations.

This requires them to ignore the truth about how Texas stacks up against other self-governing countries in the world. In every category in which nation-states are traditionally compared, Texas overperforms.

• Texas has the 10th largest economy in the world.
• Texas ranks 40th in the world in size.
• Texas ranks 47th in the world in population.
• Texas ranks 40th in the world in the size of its labor force.
• Texas is a net global exporter ranking 22nd in the world and leading all other States in the United States.
• 93 percent of Texas exports are manufactured exports.
• Texas is the 12th largest technology exporter in the world.
• Texas ranks 19th in the world in the size of its active farms and ranches.
• Texas is the largest energy producer in the United States, accounting for more than half of the entire United States energy production and one-quarter of the refining capacity with over 26 petroleum refineries.
• Texas has the 7th largest coal reserves.
• Texas is the 6th largest producer of wind energy in the world.
• Texas has its own power grid.

These statistics, while impressive, don't tell the whole story. Texas not only does well in spite of the federal government, Texas is already structurally capable of doing everything that is traditionally done by a national government. In Texas, you will also find a state-level analog for every single cabinet-level federal department.

Texas even has its own military. The Texas Military Department is composed of the three branches of the military in the State of Texas. These branches are the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. All three branches are administered by the state adjutant general, an appointee of the governor of Texas, and fall under the command of the Texas governor. The State Guard, which is exclusively under the command of the governor, is divided into six army regiments, two air wings, three maritime regiments, and three medical battalions. The Texas Army National Guard consists of the 36th Infantry Division, 71st Troop Command, and the 176th Engineering Brigade. The Texas Air National Guard consists of the 149th Fighter Wing, 147th Attack Wing, and the 136th Airlift Wing.

Contrary to the opinion of some, Texas' attachment to the federal system is not a special case. There was no union in recent history with more power aggregated into a central government than the Soviet Union. Within an even tighter integration and under extreme economic stress, its constituent republics were able to extract themselves and become fully functioning nation-states. If the United States has truly become more centrally controlled than the Soviet Union, then it is no longer the United States. It has become the United State and no longer represents the vision of its founders.

If those who believe that separation is too difficult are to be believed, and today it is too complicated, tomorrow it will be more so and the day after harder still. If this argument is true, then Texas is destined to fall ever deeper into the depths of the federal system until Texas is only a distant memory that exists in a history book.

It is a false argument and one that strikes counter to everything Texans have historically believed about themselves. It runs contrary to the reputation gained by Texans around the world. It is the same argument made by "helicopter parents" for why their children should still live at home well into their thirties. And it's the excuse used by socially stunted adults, well into their thirties, as to why they still live with mommy and daddy.

Ultimately, Texans bristle at the suggestion that we simply aren't good enough to govern ourselves. We reject the idea that independence can't be done as we remember the old adage that, "If you want something done, tell a Texan that it can't be done."

The real question is this: Given all our natural advantages, if Texas can't make it as an independent nation, then who can?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

I've chosen to stay a Republican. I've been one all my life and I'm old. My party needs moderates whether the Trumpers want us or not.

I'm watching the fallout from the stunt Kelli WArd pulled in AZ with censuring Cindy McCain, jeff Flake and Doug Ducey. I was hoping Ward wouldnt be reelected and it was close but not enough.

---

Tough decisions require and ABSOLUTELY deserve extreme contemplation. No fault divorce is a bad thing. No fault Texit would be worse.

---

There is no legal mechanism for leaving the union.

---

There is some disagreement as to whether or not Texas had that mechanism

---

https://tnm.me/texit/can/is-texit-unconstitutional

There is no prohibition in the United States Constitution that forbids any state from exiting the union. The Constitution of the United States actually defines the specific acts States are forbidden from committing in Article 1, Section 10. Nowhere in the remainder of the Constitution is the issue of a State leaving the Union explicitly forbidden, nor is power ceded to the federal government to prohibit one from doing so. In this silence, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution rings loudly.

Constitution of the United States, Tenth Amendment said:

---

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

---

This deafening constitutional silence, coupled with the definitive reservation of power by the States, leaves the decision to the people of a State and to those people alone. For this, we have to look to the Texas Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 not only expressly reserves all sovereignty not granted through the United States Constitution, but it also sets the conditions upon which Texas will remain in the union.

Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 1 said:

---

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

---

In the very next section of our governing document, the power to determine how Texans govern themselves is clearly declared to reside in the people of Texas alone.

Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 2 said:

---

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

---

https://tnm.me/texit/international-relations/will-texans-need-a-passport-to-travel-to-the-united-states-after-texit

Negotiating travel between the United States and an independent Texas should be relatively easy since there is already an example of how the United States handles regular travel between itself and a contiguous foreign country. All we have to do is look south toward Mexico.

Starting in 2014, the number of people legally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border topped one million daily. Passports aren't even required, as the U.S. government allows Mexican citizens to use "Border Crossing Cards" to enter the United States from Mexico "by land, or by pleasure vessel or ferry."

There is a very good reason that motivates the federal government to lower the barriers to travel between contiguous countries and itself. It's good for the economy.

Noe Garcia, president of the Border Trade Alliance, singled out the economic motivator. "Legal border crossings at the dozens of ports of entries located along the U.S.-Mexican border significantly benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which is why the numbers continue to rise."

However, anyone concerned about the use of passports to travel from State to State within the United States should hope they don't live in one of handful of States that haven't implemented the federal guidelines in 2005's REAL ID Act. Starting in January of 2018, residents of Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington will need a passport to board any flight, domestic or international, according to new TSA guidelines. However, the States not listed have state-issued IDs that are compliant with the TSA guidelines. In addition, government-issued Border Crossing Cards and Global Entry Cards can be used.

This is all to point out that travel agreements between self-governing independent nations are common, as is the desire of nations to ease travel restrictions between those countries while maintaining high standards for security.

A great example of this is the federal Visa Waiver program that allows the citizens of certain countries to travel to and through the United States for up to 90 days for tourism or business without having to obtain a visa. That program includes Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, with nine other countries in the process of being certified.

It is reasonable to assume that Texas would readily qualify for all existing programs instituted by the federal government that lower the barriers to travel and speed the process for those who travel. This would have to be discussed, and final agreements would be part of the negotiations.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

---

You'd probably need a passport and see your buying power in New Mexico halfed.

Well, you are wrong about the 'energy grid'. ERCOT is just Texas. We can send oil and gas out lots of ways, but it gets interesting if the border becomes international.

As for NASA, most of the money left Texas by the time Obama was done. JSC is a very empty place.

tommie said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

tommie said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

tommie said:

---

How will this work? Secede then want a free trade agreement and shared security.

---

The devil is in the details. That is probably why the committee. You think?

---

I don't need a committee to tell me going bareback on a pornstar is a star is a bad idea. This is worse.

---

one vote for "no". Got it.

You probably should have checked with committee advice on prior decisions... just sayin

---

So, committeman,



Yes or no?

---

Talk about your horns of a dilemma...

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not at all.

This is not MY Republican Party

This is not MY Democratic Party

This is not MY Episcopal church

This is not MY Baylor University

This is not MY drug-addicted spouse

This is not MY America

All of the things listed above provide opportunities to change or influence them in a positive manner and while in a position of deeper involvement. However, at a certain point, individuals will decide for themselves that the point of positive influence no longer exist and it is time to exit that relationship. It doesn't mean that the love is gone but, it may mean that the disgust outweighs that love.

---

1,3, and 6 on your list really resonate for me. Good point.

You would hold dual citizenship.

tommie said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Last time we tried this they shot two of my great uncles at Shiloh. I am for it
but not enough to die like they did. Damn Grant and Ape.

---

Not to derail this thread (although it could probably use it), but have you ever read Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic? He has a great chapter about being at Shiloh before dawn on the anniversary of the battle.

My wife's uncle had a farm about 5 miles from Shiloh. The government leased out some of the land within the military park to him and other local farmers. I've walked that battlefield many times.

---

Not to further derail this thread, but if Texas did somehow become independent, would I now be an illegal alien if I tried to drive into the United States.

That would be a bummer, I really like NM and other states nearby.

---

You'd probably need a passport and see your buying power in New Mexico halfed.

---

What is there to buy in New Mexico?

This might give Colorado an opportunity to keep out of control Texans of the slopes by refusing to let them cross the border.

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Who would be president of the Lone Star Republic? Trump? Would he rule from his estate in Florida?

---

Nope. Trump is now a private citizen that considers himself a Floridian. You people should really let him go. The hold he STILL has on Democrat psyches is truly amazing.

---

You might point out that he seems to have an extremely strong hold on Republican psyches, too.

I'm thinking of the Republican congresswoman from Pennsylvania who said that she had no choice but to vote against certifying the electors unless she wanted to have her house bombed by Trump supporters.

---

Donald Trump is gone. He has left office. Let him go.

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Who would be president of the Lone Star Republic? Trump? Would he rule from his estate in Florida?

---

Nope. Trump is now a private citizen that considers himself a Floridian. You people should really let him go. The hold he STILL has on Democrat psyches is truly amazing.

---

You might point out that he seems to have an extremely strong hold on Republican psyches, too.

I'm thinking of the Republican congresswoman from Pennsylvania who said that she had no choice but to vote against certifying the electors unless she wanted to have her house bombed by Trump supporters.

---

Donald Trump is gone. He has left office. Let him go.

---

The Republicans can't let him go. This seems to be an accurate depiction of their relationship.

---

Ummm. this thread was started by an anti-Trumper as well as several others started BY HIM...

Who can't let go?

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Who would be president of the Lone Star Republic? Trump? Would he rule from his estate in Florida?

---

Nope. Trump is now a private citizen that considers himself a Floridian. You people should really let him go. The hold he STILL has on Democrat psyches is truly amazing.

---

You might point out that he seems to have an extremely strong hold on Republican psyches, too.

I'm thinking of the Republican congresswoman from Pennsylvania who said that she had no choice but to vote against certifying the electors unless she wanted to have her house bombed by Trump supporters.

---

Donald Trump is gone. He has left office. Let him go.

---

The Republicans can't let him go. This seems to be an accurate depiction of their relationship.

---

Trumpback mountain. Damn, son.

bubbadog said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Who would be president of the Lone Star Republic? Trump? Would he rule from his estate in Florida?

---

Nope. Trump is now a private citizen that considers himself a Floridian. You people should really let him go. The hold he STILL has on Democrat psyches is truly amazing.

---

You might point out that he seems to have an extremely strong hold on Republican psyches, too.

I'm thinking of the Republican congresswoman from Pennsylvania who said that she had no choice but to vote against certifying the electors unless she wanted to have her house bombed by Trump supporters.

---

Donald Trump is gone. He has left office. Let him go.

---

The Republicans can't let him go. This seems to be an accurate depiction of their relationship.

---

Trumpback mountain. Damn, son.

---

Just more evidence that you can't pray away the gay.

---

You been trying to do that?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Midnight Rider said:

---

There's a certain contradiction between loving your country and wanting to secede from it.

---

Not really.

A political union of New York and Texas was always artificial and unnatural.

And everything artificial and unnatural eventually collapses.

USA, EU, and the USSR.....all doomed by the relentless laws of nature and mankind.

The USSR is gone first to the ash heap of history....soon the others will follow.

---

Your saying a state of entropy is unavoidable?