This is the kind of nonsense Republicans spend their time on in Texas. According to these folks, it is a "legislative priority."

https://www.newsweek.com/texas...p-backs-vote-1911678

"The Republican Party of Texas is calling for a referendum on whether the state "should reassert its status as an independent nation" as a "legislative priority" in the next session of the Texas legislature.

The call was included in the party's 2024 Legislative Priorities and Platform document which was released on June 7, after its component parts were voted on by Texas Republicans at the party's convention in San Antonio, which took place between May 23 and 25.


Texan nationalists have long been pushing for a vote on whether the Lone Star State should secede from the United States and become a fully independent country, as it was between 1837 and 1845. Their cause has been helped by a surge in tensions between Texan authorities and the federal government over the past few months, particularly over illegal migration and education.

Plank 203 of the Texas GOP's official legislative platform, under the title of "Texas Independence," states: "The Texas Legislature should pass a bill in its next session requiring a referendum in the next General Election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation. This referendum should be a legislative priority."

Another idiot trying to be favor 5 minutes!

If they do secede, the world will see what happens in a country gone full-on Christofascism.

I'm all for a moat a mile wide, stocked with alligators and water moccasins, and a concrete wall with razor wire surrounding the state, for the sake of purity of those inside, including the hogs.

One good side-benefit is MAGA Mike, Cruz and many more can just go home and foment within the walls.

Another benefit is to the fed budget.

And Texas can print their own currency, with a picture of how they imagine Christ.

Interesting article on what the impact would be on Texas in the event of secession....aside from Ted Cruz losing his job which would be at least one good thing that would result from it.

Loss of billions in federal infrastructure funding, loss of social security benefits, loss of Medicare, loss of Medicaid, no more Border Patrol, no more DEA, loss of the economic benefits of military bases like Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and on and on and on.

It really is a genius idea.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas...ng-secession-1866046

The party of head up ass.

We fought a civil war over this. It’s settled. They can’t, without federal agreement.

This is pure political posturing made due to the current administration ignoring the border and its local residents desires.

It appears to me that the modern Texas secessionist movement started about 2009.

When then-governor Rick Perry was asked about the subject during the tea party protests of 2009, he didn’t rule it out, saying that “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that?”

It appears Texas does not like the fact the Fed government has supremacy under our system of Federalism.

That Texas is just another state when being a state revolves around authority vested by the Constitution to the Federal Government.

This, the current Federal administration has not a lot to do with the movement.

The Administration is not deciding these cases based on decades of precedent.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Interesting article on what the impact would be on Texas in the event of secession....aside from Ted Cruz losing his job which would be at least one good thing that would result from it.

Loss of billions in federal infrastructure funding, loss of social security benefits, loss of Medicare, loss of Medicaid, no more Border Patrol, no more DEA, loss of the economic benefits of military bases like Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and on and on and on.

It really is a genius idea.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas...ng-secession-1866046

How about tariffs on everything that comes out including migrants.

How about sanctions for when the Nation of Texas violates human rights by prosecuting gay, persecution of religious minorities, people and treatment of migrants?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
How about sanctions for when the Nation of Texas violates human rights by prosecuting gay, persecution of religious minorities, people and treatment of migrants?

Maybe Texas could sanction the US Gov't for not protecting our border and our citizens?????

You are a complete moron!

Well, the Supreme Court has said no.

Because the Trump wing blocked the federal legislature from changing Fed legislation that Kroger Trump from doing what you want.

I have posted the case bf that you are not competent to read and have not tried to read.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It appears to me that the modern Texas secessionist movement started about 2009.

nope -- this has been "the buzz" in Texas for decades - I recall people trying to force feed secession and sovereign citizens back in the 70s/80s, stating that Texas could "Legally" become it's own country again - which was weird, because while the Treaty of Annexation contained language around Texas being able to split into several states, there was no backout clause BUT - this was taught in our required Texas History courses (required for middle schoolers), the youths receiving that course are likely too young to understand the complexities of the agreement. Further, the treaty was passed by simple majority rather than 2/3 required for treaties as outlined in the Constitution, and this issues was raised as a concern back in 1844 (it's not a new/modern concept).

HOWEVER - readmission post-Civil war LEGALLY is a new agreement, which contained none of the provisions of the treaty. (though there is an interesting thought experiment that if a state couldn't leave the union, then the re-admission of a state back into the union was unneeded... i know, i know, but that's what was taught in the colleges in the 70s and 80s)

BUT, those sovereign citizens' pushing for secession were all also considered to be fringe/weirdos at the time - certainly not mainstream, and those members of the legislature that PUBLICLY voiced this opinion were also considered to be "out there"

i admit, it's an interesting thought experiment, along with other whacky geopolitical mind games, and has been the basis of quite a few books

and i have to admit that Daniel Da Cruz's Texas fantasy books are jingoistic and amusing (Ayes of Texas, Texas on the Rocks, and Texas Triumphant)

and the first one was published in like 1982, which means it was written "awhile" before then, right at the ramp up of of the sovereign citizen bs.

I expect that "TEXIT" supporters will have a weak minority of votes.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I have posted the case bf that you are not competent to read and have not tried to read.

Where's that MJines quote about taking things personal? If i thought it would do any good, i'd bother looking it up

I am not competent to operate on a horse.

Jtex has cussed me, insulted my profession, insulted my role in my profession.

He has stated he refuses to read precedent and precedent is not law.

The fact is he is not competent to read and apply caselaw. He enjoys being ignorant of the matters.

I good example is his Lakota thread.

Ah, you let others control your speech and demeanor? you have done many of those things, yourself, to me, and I consider us friends -

there's others, including the thread the prompted MJine's quote, that have done that and a bit worse to me, and have proven to my satisfaction that they aren't worth the trouble of replying - yet, just for fun, from time to time, I do reply. I have to tell you that when the mocking irony and logic are beyond their capability to understand, i feel like it was a pointless effort, though several of my posts today are intentional "stink bombs" .. and i knew it when typing them


i DO understand your POV, however,
but precedent is NOT law, it's stare decisis (as i poorly understand that concept) - it's a refinement of a Law and ONLY within the jurisdiction of that court, and CAN CHANGE - by the same or higher court --
see Dred Scott and Plessy for stellar and critical examples... and Dobb's for a stupid one

refusing to read something .. ummmm, you don't think you have the authority to command/compel a single person to do ANYTHING, do you?

judging his competence by his non-compliance with your will is a pretty weak argument, IMO

Heck, how many times of you be "told" to proofread, and what was your reply? I have no authority to compel just about anyone, all of my kids are well past majority, and my grandkids aren't mine to command, and my wife? I was foolish enough to once think i could 'command' her, back our 20s .. when i came to, and she was still holding the frying pan, i decided she was right

- A wise friend once told me "you can coach, but you can't command" employees ..

If he had read the cases, understood the cases, he would not be saying half of what he says.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If he had read the cases, understood the cases, he would not be saying half of what he says.

Sure thing --
but aren't there "always" two sides required to make a court case?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If he had read the cases, understood the cases, he would not be saying half of what he says.

You're a whiney little illiterate fella

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If he had read the cases, understood the cases, he would not be saying half of what he says.

You're a whiney little illiterate fella

DUDE! .. really?

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Without all the federal $$$ pumped in there they'd sell destruct in two years...

Do the residents of other states get a vote on Tejas secession?
Do illegal immigrants get to vote on the matter?

Texas by a Supreme Court decision cannot and never did leave the Union.

The last time Texas government rebelled, a whole bunch of US citizens got to vote on their rebellion from the Union. That was the Civil War.

The only way Texas can leave the Union, save its state government ripping its citizens from the Union by violence, is if a Constitutional Convention was called. The other states could then approve Texas withdrawal from the Union.

Neither of the those two options bring war or Convention is going to happen.

The Supreme Court case that declares a state cannot, and never did, unilaterally leave the Union is Texas v White.

Sm aside, everyone here should go read the secession articles from each state that rebelled. All but Virginia place the protection of Slavery and racial superiority as the reason for secession.

I say, let them go, and don't let the door hit them on the backsides as they do.

Read the case.

The state government sought rebelled.

The citizens remained citizens of the General Government.

Reconstruction was the process the state government was remitted to membership status.

There are citizens and then there are governments.

The treaty has been nullified by the Texas v White and the Civil War.

It would take a Convention as no state can leave unilaterally.

Maybe a treaty ratified by the Senate, which is the body that represents the states, would suffice.

Only with the consent of the Inion, made up of the states, can Texas leave.

Texas is not leaving the Union.

Only through a Constitutional Convention can the will of the states be expressed. Similar to that of an Amendment where either by Convention or 2/3rds vote of the states can the basic constitutional framework be changed.

As with the Incorporation Doctrine that drastically changed our constitutional relationship between state and Federal government, an amendment is still necessary to make that change.

This, I will hold that a Constitutional Convention, a ratification of 2/3rds of the state permitting the dissolution of Texas from the Union, or maybe a ratified treaty are the means.

Yes, in practice the Texas state government can by force rip its citizens from their right as citizens of the Federal/Government. That does not mean such an action is just.

Funny, when you read Texas v White and President Lincoln’s position on the states in rebellion, it is not just slaves that stand to benefit. It is every citizen that is being severed from the Federal/General Government.

Secession now only stands to remove from the citizen of Texas even more drastically. Citizens in Texas enjoy rights as through the Fundamental Right Doctrine, Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine, and modern Commerce Clause/Dormant Commerce Clause protecting citizens from state action.

The rationale of Texas v. White is more real today than 1869.

Texas legislators cannot sever, destroy those rights unilaterally.

Here a stupid question for a stupid position

Did the 13,14,15 amendments require a concon?

I think you need to reread how amendments are made. Then how treaties are approved...

They required 2/3rds vote of the States.

I agree we can let Texas go by an Amendment. I done said that.

Texas whacko Republican secessionists now working with other whackos from other states on secession.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas...-leader-says-1915788