Skip to comments.If Obama wins: Will Texas secede from the union?
Posted on 07/15/2012 3:46:27 PM PDT by cap10mike
Could Texas once again become the Republic of Texas?
Without question, the Nov. 6 election will be a do-or-die, make-or-break, Rubicon-crossing event. If the presidential election goes one way, we get a do-over. Well be given the opportunity to take the first step on a long, arduous journey back to our political and economic roots. If it goes the other way, federalism and balance of power will continue to be edged out by an overreaching federal government and an imperial presidency. Socialism will have an unbreakable hold on the economy, and a centralized government, rather than a free market, will determine business winners and losers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Who is this "rest of the nation"??? If it refers to me in any way, then I WILL.
I suppose so, I was thinking more along the lines of from the western edge of the Sierra Nevadas to the eastern edge of the Appalachias with some exclusion zones for Chicago, Dearbornistan and Austin.
Although I'm considering fencing off Austin and charging admission as an amusement park...
I do not endorse the use of nuclear weapons on Texas.
But if Texas was fighting the union, wouldn’t the union use the weapons necessary to win?
And why did you leave George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Israel Putnam et al. off your list for liquidation by the state?
Per your logic, it is unlawful by the supreme law of the land (treaties) to explode nukes in the atmosphere.
To be practical, it's logistically stupid, and politically stupid, and no one will follow that command.
You aren't getting the 'consent of the governed' part of government.
Jeff Davis bravely begged for a trial but one was never granted.
OK. Good. And those three places can all be amusement parks. A man’s gotta hunt.
Did Truman let MacAuthur use nukes in '51?
Ain't gonna happen Billy Boy.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.
We can pull out of the Limited Test Ban Treaty at any time, which would make using nuclear weapons perfectly legal and constitutional.
and no one will follow that command.
I served many years on ballistic missile submarines. Our job was to follow orders and that was what we did. If the call to release nuclear weapons ever came we would execute that order. No questions asked.
hee hee hee
Where were you educated? That is about the dumbest statement I ever heard about the State of Texas. The Confederacy was beaten, a short attempt was made by the Feds to "occupy" Texas. That did not work out very well and did not last long.
Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may. Sam Houston And he refused to take Texas out of the United States, went to live with the Indians in OK.
Ok, we have been in three wars with a communists, and 2 wars with muzzies. How many nukes have we fired so far? You’re telling me a President is going to order a former state nuked. ? Are you high?
I refer you to James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution:
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of 98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
The difference between commitment and involvement is best illustrated by the contributions to breakfast between the pig and the chicken.
The pig was committed, the chicken was involved.
I'm committed to freedom and self governance.
If you can't wrap your brain around that, and realize that you can let me be free, or you can kill me, and that's your only two choices, that's your problem.
Wonderful, the things they teach at culinary school. ;)
The sad part?
I believe he would.
The sadder part?
I don’t doubt for one millisecond Obama would order it.
Quickgun, what Moonshot925 is saying is that if Obama is re-elected, issues all sorts of unconstitutional excutive orders, and one or more States secede over it, then Moonshot 925 will become private Moonshot925 in Obama's army. After basic training (lots of bayonet practice, and not a lot on distinguishing civilians from combatants), he'll then follow orders to march on Texas, and likely follow orders to commit the massacres it'd take to pacify the rebels.
Because, you know, some pro-union SCOTUS dude said it wasn't allowed in 1861, and - by golly - might makes right. I WISH this was sarcasm, but you'll find a lot of folks around here who would kill to keep the Union in place, with no regard to what the Union then represented.
Has justice failed?
There are worse things than secession.
If Romney wins, he’ll probably try to sell Texas to China. A “strategic divestiture” he’ll call it.
He just does what the voices in Obama’s head tell him to do...
Looked at your bio. Nice moon shot, Apollo 11.
Friend of mine walked on the moon on Apollo 17.
Miss those days.
We had no idea where the targets were. Only the higher ups in the chain of command knew that. Many of the SIOP war plans are still classified.
"This is my mom..."
I dont doubt for one millisecond Obama would order it.
I don’t think it’ll happen. But if it does, I think we’ll hear a lot of folks quoting Davy Crockett ... “you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.”
But this isn’t a cold war discussion of the what ifs on what to do about russkie or chi-com plans to dominate the world and how to stop them.
Did they EVER, in your military experience, discuss the possibilities of targets inside the U.S.?
The enemy is in D.C. Not Texas.
I already explained that a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land.
Texas v. White was a SCOTUS case which decided that unilateral state succession is illegal.
Shoot, Moonshot, looks like you'll be able to join Obama's army as an officer then. Which is sooo cool, since those sorts of guys get snazier uniforms, the higher up in the organization they go. I bet you'd cut a fine figure of a man all in black with stylish silver and red accents to impress the ladies. Maybe they'd even let you press the button to nuke your favorite Texas city! Though they'd probably run that via a lottery for every Obama donation, so you'd better get hussling and send him some.
All kidding aside, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
If I owned hell and Texas I would live in hell and rent out Texas.
Is it hard to sit at a computer with a Federal boot stuck up you keester?
If I remember correctly, England said that it was illegal for the US to secede .... how did that work out for them .... even considering all the English court decisions, etc. I suspect there will be another civil war if the communist Food Stamp President is re-elected.
The constitution is the supreme law of the United States.
In my opinion it is the greatest legal document humans have ever created.
It must be followed.
Raising a pig in city limits is illegal as well.
Guess who bootlegged a pig until it was 100 lbs.
You can quote or make all the laws you like. Unless you get the public to go along with it, you are urinating up a rope.
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
No. In fact, contained within the Constitution are instructions on how to change it.
Liberals, like you, have let courts change it without going through the process.
The Constitution can be abrogated and made null and void. The entire federal system can be abolished.
Personally, I think that needs to be done.
When "Affirmative Action" withstood Constitutional muster I knew then it was a joke to think that it wasn't bastardized to the point of no return. How can reverse discrimination be Constitutional? Robert's just confirmed my view, again.
It is that kind of crazy time.
This has been Michael Medved’s argument for the last few years. And, it makes sense.
But, sometimes, there’s just the appeal, of cold steel.
Yes. And pumpkin pie.
I don't know what you're smoking but no court can change the constitution.
The Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution, or decide how the framers intended for the Articles and Amendments to be applied.
The actual document itself does not change.
Our interpretation of the constitution changes over time.
You are the liberal who want to abandon our constitution which has lasted 223 years.
Yikes! Why did you have to post the picture of that bi-polar closet queer?
So what you are saying is the we as citizens of individual states have to stay in the USA under threat of nuclear decimation. Even the USSR was less bellicose. Thuggery. You are a punk statist tool.
Once upon a time the Constitution was something to respect. Read in plain english, it still is.
As interpreted by the feral gooberment? Forgetaboutit.
Time to dissolve the FedGov, per the Declaration of Independence.
I would appreciate it if they go without a fight.
Like I said, the Supreme Court can only change our INTERPRETATION of the constitution. The constitution itself never changes.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal power or authority today
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States.
We killed a pig on Friday. Cooked and ate him on Saturday (big family reunion) and today I actually rested ALL day for the first time in weeks. It has done WONDERS for my constitution. Epiphany...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.