S. Ct., reinstates injunction against Texas Immigration Police Bill.

https://www.reuters.com/world/...tion-law-2024-03-18/

That did not last very long.

Justice Alito’s stay is lifted.

As much as it is vaxing. The option of the majority is most correct. The Texas State courts have/need to be exhausted before running to federal court. The matter simply is not ripe for Supreme Court or federal court intervention.

If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

In terms of a global economy Texas and California are the two that could pull it off. Obviously willl never happen nor should it. Weak is a bit of a short sell though

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

In terms of a global economy Texas and California are the two that could pull it off. Obviously willl never happen nor should it. Weak is a bit of a short sell though

"Weak" in terms of withstanding a few Armored and Infantry Divisions after a couple weeks of air campaign; you know, our standard playbook for places with oil, sand and brown people.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
.. brown people.

i know, i know, in peckerwood county, this kind of talk is okay .. you'll call it "descriptive", won't you, ?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

In terms of a global economy Texas and California are the two that could pull it off. Obviously willl never happen nor should it. Weak is a bit of a short sell though

"Weak" in terms of withstanding a few Armored and Infantry Divisions after a couple weeks of air campaign; you know, our standard playbook for places with oil, sand and brown people.

I see you have a point to make but Texas would be somehwhere in the top 10 economies. On par with Canada. If you are in such a hurry to bomb Mexicans why not just take the Valero fields from Mexico? Lets be honest though, this is all a excercise. Texas will never seceed. If they did the US wont roll the 1st armored in. there are alternate history forums for this type of thing

All moot, bc the Supreme Court has ruled a state cannot leave the Union.

Also, Texas does not want to leave no matter what a few say.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

In terms of a global economy Texas and California are the two that could pull it off. Obviously willl never happen nor should it. Weak is a bit of a short sell though

"Weak" in terms of withstanding a few Armored and Infantry Divisions after a couple weeks of air campaign; you know, our standard playbook for places with oil, sand and brown people.

I see you have a point to make but Texas would be somehwhere in the top 10 economies. On par with Canada. If you are in such a hurry to bomb Mexicans why not just take the Valero fields from Mexico? Lets be honest though, this is all a excercise. Texas will never seceed. If they did the US wont roll the 1st armored in. there are alternate history forums for this type of thing

"Top ten economy" is like "fourth largest army"...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
If we're lucky, they'll kick us out!

I'm sure ya'll would enjoy life as a weak, independent Country with deserts, oil and lots of brown people within road march distance of most of our major bases.

Usually we have to travel halfway around the world for that.

In terms of a global economy Texas and California are the two that could pull it off. Obviously willl never happen nor should it. Weak is a bit of a short sell though

"Weak" in terms of withstanding a few Armored and Infantry Divisions after a couple weeks of air campaign; you know, our standard playbook for places with oil, sand and brown people.

I see you have a point to make but Texas would be somehwhere in the top 10 economies. On par with Canada. If you are in such a hurry to bomb Mexicans why not just take the Valero fields from Mexico? Lets be honest though, this is all a excercise. Texas will never seceed. If they did the US wont roll the 1st armored in. there are alternate history forums for this type of thing

"Top ten economy" is like "fourth largest army"...

Thats about right but I'm not sure I see your point.

That being a “top ten economy” is not sufficient for Texas to try to separate from the real economic power that is the U.S. in addition, how does one think Texas economy would manage uncoupled from the United States?

I do not think it would do top ten business. I assume that of course.

They would be a smaller, economic Mexico so the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That being a “top ten economy” is not sufficient for Texas to try to separate from the real economic power that is the U.S. in addition, how does one think Texas economy would manage uncoupled from the United States?

I do not think it would do top ten business. I assume that of course.

They would be a smaller, economic Mexico so the United States.

Of course you are right. Uncoupling from the US does not move to 1 to 1 for Texas anymore than it would California. Either State if they actually left would be much more on par with an Italy. Theres some hot women there but no one really cares what the Italians think. I think thats a reality that the Seceed movement in Texas dont grasp.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That being a “top ten economy” is not sufficient for Texas to try to separate from the real economic power that is the U.S. in addition, how does one think Texas economy would manage uncoupled from the United States?

I do not think it would do top ten business. I assume that of course.

They would be a smaller, economic Mexico so the United States.

Of course you are right. Uncoupling from the US does not move to 1 to 1 for Texas anymore than it would California. Either State if they actually left would be much more on par with an Italy. Theres some hot women there but no one really cares what the Italians think. I think thats a reality that the Seceed movement in Texas dont grasp.

Oil, 42% of the US supply is done in Texas (Half - including the only backup for Cali's gas) oil refineries, other petro chemical plants, second-only-to-NYC financial services, more fortune 500 companies than either NY or CA, and more than 10% of them, huge ports, including 5th largest, manufacturing, mining, fishing, and High Tech -- Oh, and not to mention foodstuffs and livestock, second only to cali in the country.

Yeah, we'd suddenly go into freefall, suddenly becoming less viable than Malta ...

Joshua, you've said it a couple times, though repetition doesn't create proof, that Texas isn't special -- I think it's largely due to you being underinformed in hat actually happens here ... oh, well, i need to ride my horse across Dallas to my cattle ranch/oilfield, with my 10 gallon hat and boots, carrying my 30-30 ... yeah, no, that's just the stereotype

I have never questioned how special Texas is, every single Texan I have met has told me Texas is special without ever being asked

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I have never questioned how special Texas is, every single Texan I have met has told me Texas is special without ever being asked

two jokes are inherent in that -
1 don't ask a man if he's from Texas .. if he is, he'll tell you, if he's not, don't embarrass him

2 you can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much

Speaking of California's gas - they require a special admixture, with nil tolerance allowed - there's two plants in cali that make it, full time, and neither can produce, even during a "shut down" (that's an important phrase), they can't schedule for 1 to take over for the other to produce 100% - that require coordination with 1 of 2 Texas plants willing to take it on, and requires a full process cleanout and then RAIL shipping of the product -

so, every 2-3 years cycle (effectively 18 months due to both plants on cycle), when a plant in cali requires to go through a shut down (see above) and the second can't produce enough, gas prices spike....

It's kinda weird, ya'll -- all the STAY people in the UK (mostly in London btw) predicted doom and gloom from Brexit -- while not perfect, it's not like London suddenly was ruined and out of the international finance market --

Almost like "it worked" ..

Can Texas just IDENTIFY as Independent? then all the Left HAS to support that

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I have never questioned how special Texas is, every single Texan I have met has told me Texas is special without ever being asked

two jokes are inherent in that -
1 don't ask a man if he's from Texas .. if he is, he'll tell you, if he's not, don't embarrass him

2 you can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much

I was in Paris trying to get to the Arch de triomphe. There are no crosswalks and few traffic lights. The traffic lights are ignored by Parisian drivers.

I was asking various people how to get across. I heard someone running up from behind me. Turning, a very large man placed his arm on my shoulder, “ Where are you from?”

“Kentucky.”

“I thought so. I am from Texas.”

He then proceeded to tell me how to get across to the Arch by going under the road.

As for Texas leaving the Union, it is 1) unconstitutional, 2) not going to happen, and 3) no one wants it regardless of what a few dopes say.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


As for Texas leaving the Union, it is 1) unconstitutional,

Uhm, show me, chapter and verse, in the Constitution where it's forbidden ... It eluded Lincoln's eyes, and he thought he didn't have the power -- where is it?

Oh, it's unlikely to happen, though I'd rate it higher than me winning the lotto --

But, hey, if Texas "isn't special" (which infers indifferently important) we'll swap you for PR, and there can still be 50 Stars on the Flag -- We'll Keep the Lone Star on ours

Say, speaking of special and flags -- Why is it that Texas is the only State that can fly the State Flag equal to the US flag?

Might dig a little deeper

I have posted the binding Supreme Court precedent multiple times now.

Texas v White.

Here it is again. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...4700/usrep074700.pdf

It is unconstitutional. You are living in a fantasy.

In addition, the Supreme Court has made it clear w the Dormant Commerce Clause that we “succeed or failure together.”

You need to do your own reading on the Dormant Commerce Clause. The basic principle is that a state may not regulate an area of interstate commerce when the Feds have refused to regulate that specific piece of commerce. The power rest w Congress to use or not use. A state cannot take on the power to regulate in absence of Congress not so regulating.

Texas cannot lawfully leave the Union unilaterally. That is a conversation ender.

Texas is a state like any other state when it comes to its legal status, what the Constitution says it can and cannot do.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


As for Texas leaving the Union, it is 1) unconstitutional,

Uhm, show me, chapter and verse, in the Constitution where it's forbidden ... It eluded Lincoln's eyes, and he thought he didn't have the power -- where is it?

Oh, it's unlikely to happen, though I'd rate it higher than me winning the lotto --

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


It is unconstitutional. You are living in a fantasy.

You know there's miles between have a little thought experiment and "living" a fantasy --

I didn't ask you to quote a court case to me, I asked you where it is at in the Constitution .. "binding SC precedent" is a bit of a laugh --

Dred Scott and Plessy are just two amazing examples of how "binding" and yet "wrong" a "landmark" case may be --

Judging from your dependence on precedent, if the Scotus, Say, over turned Roe v wade, or Texas v White, you'd be 100% behind that, right?

You know what also used to be illegal? Divorce - You know what also used to be legal? slavery -- both having affirmed precedence in the SCOTUS

if you are going to be insulting "living in a fantasy" then allow me to remind you about glass houses

I can appreciate the thought experiment. Forgive for over reading.

I will moderate, “ Those who think Texas would, could, or should secede are living in a fantasy.”

Oh, in my darkest secret heart, I'd love the IDEA of Texas to be free -- but I also know our state government would screw it up, biggly

I think one should be careful what they wish for. I much prefer union.

I also think given the Constitution such an idea is antithetical to our founding principles.

Texas is better off part of the U.S. The U.S. is better off with Texas.

I know it hurts but Texas cannot take for itself that which the Constitution gave to the Federal, General Government. I do not want states empowered to deny rights that we have incorporated as fundamental and necessary to our vision of freedom. We have a solution to at least address
questions of which rights through the 14th Amendment.

I do suggest you read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause (economic unity, sovereignty of the Feds over interstate commerce even when the Feds do not use the power).

Ferguson may have been morally wrong, but under the ideas of Federalism at the time, I cannot say it was legally wrong. Congress could have passed a law making slaves feee upon reaching a feee state. Or Congress could have passed a law ending slavery. Congress did not. The South feared Lincoln would see Slave States representation on the Senate and lessor degree the House be overwhelmed by new Free States. This would allow such legislation to pass.

Congress had the authority all along to address the Ferguson opinion. The abolitionists simply at the time did not have the votes. The South intended they would never be in a position to get out voted.

The controlling case Texas v White is most correct. Just like the now near double digit cases that have told the states they cannot take regulation of immigration unto themselves. I would use Justice Alito’s expression of when stare decisis applies to a case for support of that statement. I have given those words before.

Before condemning the case, I would read it.

Therefore, based on numerous cases that underscore unity. I do not like a lot of decisions, but I have to accept the matter rest w the Supreme Court. Using Justice Alito’s words of when stare decisis, the matter of Texas leaving the Union is foreclosed.

Now, I can using the case create a scenario allowing Texas to leave the Union constitutionally. That would take a constitutional convention and consent of the states at the convention for Texas to so leave. If Texas can pull that off, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just like the now near double digit cases that have told the states they cannot take regulation of immigration unto themselves.

hell, just read the law
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlod...is/html/SB00004I.htm

it's about FORCING "sanctuary" cities to comply with federal efforts AND illegal trespass into Texas, which is due process around freedom of travel, under the 5th and the passport act

If *I*, a American and Texan, stepped across the Rio grande outside of a port of entry, I can be tried under the passport act -- and, as most federal laws, there are frequently parallel state laws...

You know what actually is illegal? State to State embargos ... funny how those aren't leading news...

you've been duped... again

Now, understand, that when you "prove" freedom of movement and association, you, in effect, are affirming the right to LEAVE ... weird how that plays into Texas leaving the union

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just like the now near double digit cases that have told the states they cannot take regulation of immigration unto themselves.

hell, just read the law
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlod...is/html/SB00004I.htm

it's about FORCING "sanctuary" cities to comply with federal efforts AND illegal trespass into Texas, which is due process around freedom of travel, under the 5th and the passport act

If *I*, a American and Texan, stepped across the Rio grande outside of a port of entry, I can be tried under the passport act -- and, as most federal laws, there are frequently parallel state laws...

You know what actually is illegal? State to State embargos ... funny how those aren't leading news...

you've been duped... again

It is about Texas making state courts and state law enforcement state de facto border patrol and migration ALJs. The courts will decide it eventually.

You are applying individual rights to states. States are not individuals. States do not have association rights. States cannot make treaties. States cannot control or regulate commerce among or between various states.

A state cannot leave the Union unilaterally under our Constitution. It is a dead premise.

Frankly, it is a stupid conversation.

However, we want to have it. So here we are. Texas still in the Union.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just like the now near double digit cases that have told the states they cannot take regulation of immigration unto themselves.

hell, just read the law
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlod...is/html/SB00004I.htm

it's about FORCING "sanctuary" cities to comply with federal efforts AND illegal trespass into Texas, which is due process around freedom of travel, under the 5th and the passport act

If *I*, a American and Texan, stepped across the Rio grande outside of a port of entry, I can be tried under the passport act -- and, as most federal laws, there are frequently parallel state laws...

You know what actually is illegal? State to State embargos ... funny how those aren't leading news...

you've been duped... again

Who is trying you under the Passport Act? Hint it is not a state. That is a Federal law.

You have been duped, brainwashed that Texas enjoys some special status. You refuse to accept the Constitution does not agree with your propaganda/dogma. So says the arbiter of these questions the Supreme Court.

If you do not like it, you have two options:
War
Or
Call a constitutional convention.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


A state cannot leave the Union unilaterally under our Constitution. It is a dead premise.

\

Okay,
let's flip this -- show me where, in the Constitution, that a State can leave the Union, with the consent of Congress. ..

Wait, it's entirely silent on the matter, what?

Let's be factual and honest - The Constitution is SILENT on the matter of leaving the Union, and even Lincoln thought he was overstepping his authority by calling troops to force the South back into the Union - and ONLY the Force of Union troops made it happen...

This is a case of might makes right, as there is zero legal basis for the action.

Oh, and it's not ONLY a con-con that could reshape this, simplify a 2/3 vote to ratify an amendment, either way.

You are WAY out on a limb, i advise you to not back-saw the limb you are standing on.

Then again, divorce was unheard of in 1860, outside of limited and extreme case - but at least the law was NOT silent on the matter.

Oh, let me throw this into play - Lincoln would NOT have supported military occupation and domination of the Reconstruction.

I am not a lost cause person, I do believe the Civil war was fought over slavery - i canNOT abstract it to property rights, as people can't morally be property

But Lincoln himself didn't believe he had the constitutional authority to take up arms to force the South back into the Union, so decided to do so anyway .. and yet, weirdly, no amendment saying "you can't leave the Union" came out of it ...

Let's keep it simple ..

Quote the art/sec or amendment/sec the says no state can leave the union


or hold your tongue and state "it doesn't" ..

not some derived, 32 principals before we get there...

where does the CONSTITUTION say it?

I am willing to learn, are YOU?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


A state cannot leave the Union unilaterally under our Constitution. It is a dead premise.

\

Okay,
let's flip this -- show me where, in the Constitution, that a State can leave the Union, with the consent of Congress. ..

Wait, it's entirely silent on the matter, what?

That is not what I gamed out for you. It would take a constitutional convention where the states agree to let Texas or any other state out of the Union. Congress does not have the power to let Texas leave. Texas v White is clear the Federal Government including Congress has the power through war to stop or bring Texas back like a parent bringing home a child. Really, what it says is to replace the government that becomes hostile to Union as the state cannot and does not leave the Union by such actions of its political leaders. This, Congress may decide not to use its constitutional authority to replace that government, and allow that government to remain in place taking the Texas out of the Union.

Read Texas v White that is the constitutional position concerning a state and unilaterally leaving the Union. Go read the Dormant Commerce Clause cases for economic unit, and the states not being permitted regulation of interstate commerce when Congress does not act to do regulate.


The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and
Page 74 U. S. 725
arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that
"the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,"
and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [Footnote 12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
Page 74 U. S. 726
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The above is the answer. You will loud consent of the States. Thus, I identify the constitutional convention (not Congress) where the states consent, agree to Texas leaving as the means or war (being revolution).


Therefore, you may not like it, but your only options are 1) war or 2) a constitutional convention that Texas cannot unilaterally call either. Texas has to have a 2/3rds majority of the states call a convention before Texas can get permission to leave.

You are starting to sound like ME arguing President Trump is not qualified to be on the ballot, and Colorado’s ruling President Trump an insurrectionist survived the Supreme Court.

Colorado cannot pick who goes on a Federal ballot and Texas cannot unilaterally leave the Union.