Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Texas legally secede from the United States?
WFAA.COM ^ | 24 JUNE 2016 | ANERI PATTANI

Posted on 06/24/2016 6:15:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist

Hey, Texplainer: Britain voted to leave the European Union. Can Texas secede from the United States?

In the wake of Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union - nicknamed "Brexit" - speculation of a Texit on the horizon have cropped up once again. The secessionist movement has a long history in the Lone Star state. Delegates for the Texas Republican Party even recently debated adding secessionist language to the party's platform. But is it actually legal for Texas to leave the United States?

Simply put, the answer is no. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not pull off a Texit - at least not legally.

(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-226 next last
To: morphing libertarian
I have an old copy of the constitution and I’m not up-to-date, please lay out the process by which states may secede. Thanx.

Let's see. Secession is not mentioned. Is there something to address things not mentioned? Ah, there it is.

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.

121 posted on 06/24/2016 8:56:01 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too... @Onelifetogive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

“Of course, you and all are welcome to disparage my present state of residence - the People’s Republic of Maryland”

Shoot if you must this old grey head, but spare my union suit.


122 posted on 06/24/2016 8:56:55 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

It doesn’t matter.

There is only one way to have freedom, and that is to eliminate those who wish to take it.

That’s it, that’s all, there is no other way.

We are on that threshold right now, and we have been there for a good bit now.

Do you want your freedom badly enough to die for it?

That is really the only question worth asking, because I guarantee you that the others are asking themselves do I want your freedom badly enough to kill you for it, and their answer is yes.


123 posted on 06/24/2016 9:02:25 PM PDT by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

By who’s law and enforcement?

Hell ... that is why we want to leave, the Banana Republic has too many selectively enforced and ignored laws ...


124 posted on 06/24/2016 9:07:25 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Idiocracy used to just be a Movie... Live every day as your last...one day you will be right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Nope! 26 states tried in 2012. Went nowhere. Not sure why people waste time. This was tried 200 years ago. Big failure!


125 posted on 06/24/2016 9:26:22 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Trump/Hunter, jr for President/Vice President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrumpTrain_VS_TheClintonToilet

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. >>> I think God and John Locke think differently. I doubt any of the pussies i DC would be able to actually put up a fight over that decision today.


126 posted on 06/24/2016 9:41:24 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

Thank you. Having been in a Texas school during that time frame the same pertinent memory is remembered here as well.
TEXAS is the ONLY state that has a flag as pertinent as our US flag and not placed on the flag pole in the same location as other states. This is because Texas entered the United States under a treaty instead of annexation. This gives Texas the same priviledges on flag flying as the United States.


127 posted on 06/24/2016 9:43:40 PM PDT by V K Lee (u TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to TRIUMPH Follow the lead MAKE AMERICA GREAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Any state can legally secede from the union. Period.

According to three states that ratified the Constitution (NY, VA, RI) they could, as stated in their official convention documents ratifying the Constitution. Those statements about reassuming or resuming the powers of govenance were voted for by three experts on the Constitution, the authors of The Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.

Here, from the New York Ratification document, are the words voted for by John Jay (later first Chief Justice of the United States) and Alexander Hamilton:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

In addition, four other states (SC, MA, NC, NH) proposed amendments in their ratifications similar to the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights that basically left powers that weren't delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively (i.e., individually), or to the people.

And here is a summation of what future Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Marshall said during the Virginia ratification convention:

The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away?

The three state ratification documents and the Tenth Amendment-like statements from 4 other states means that 7 states out of 13, a majority, wanted an out if the government under the Constitution didn't work out. The Constitution did not prohibit secession. The Constitution did not give the power to stop secession to the Federal Government or to the states that did not secede.

How is the Constitution supposed to be interpreted? The following statement by James Madison said how the Constitution should be interpreted, something the liberal justices on today's Supreme Court should remember (Source: Letter to M. L. Hurbert, May 1830.):

But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.

The ruling in Texas V. White by Chief Justice Chase (who had been in Lincoln's cabinet helping conduct the war against the seceding states, yet he didn't recuse himself) in a weak argument used Article IV to say basically that the Union was indestructible, and thus states, like Texas, never seceded. His ruling has been characterized as an ipse Dixit decision, asserted but not proven, or it is so because I say so. His decision has the force of law, but it ignored what the founders said the Constitution meant. I suppose Chase was a politician in favor of what today is called a Living Constitution, changeable to whatever you want it to mean.

128 posted on 06/24/2016 9:55:10 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

The Constitution says nothing about secession, but under John Locke’s theory of natural law there is a right to rebellion against tyranny. Jefferson cited the theory in the Declaration of Independence. Secession is rebellion, or at least Lincoln thought it was. The only relevant question, therefore, is whether or not the U.S. Government has become tyrannical or not. If it has then secession, rebellion, or just generally kicking the government’s ass is proper under natural law, regardless of whether it is legal or not. Government can make anything illegal, but that doesn’t mean the people must obey the government’s dictate. I know you asked a rhetorical question, but I hope some poor, dumb, federal prick is assigned to sit up all night reading these posts and taking notes. Government needs to be worried.


129 posted on 06/24/2016 10:08:07 PM PDT by Jay Redhawk (Diversity for the sake of diversity is just flat out stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Yes, I stand corrected. Aftwr researching it further, appears there is a xlause in their statehood documents that allows Texas to divide itself into 4 separate states due to it’s size which is where the misconception is derived from.


130 posted on 06/24/2016 10:12:17 PM PDT by Roger Kaputnik (Just because I'm paranoid doesn't prove that they aren't out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

So really, the definition of state was changed by the federal government.


131 posted on 06/24/2016 10:28:09 PM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

From the TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/tdoi.htm

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.


132 posted on 06/24/2016 10:31:57 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Marcella

LOL. I thank you so much for that offer. If shtf, I make you the same deal. Whichever state looks best for survival!


133 posted on 06/24/2016 10:37:11 PM PDT by greeneyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Roger Kaputnik
Aftwr researching it further, appears there is a xlause in their statehood documents that allows Texas to divide itself into 4 separate states due to it’s size which is where the misconception is derived from.

Actually, any state can do this. New states may be formed out of an existing state provided all parties consent.

no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1


134 posted on 06/24/2016 10:41:22 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: odawg
I wonder if the head man over in Brussels, whoever he is, will, like Lincoln, declare a criminal rebellion and send in troops to quell the English resistance.

Not likely. The Eurocrats have no army of their own, at least, not yet, and its entirely possible the whole enchilada will come crashing down before they can obtain them.

Frau Merkel might consider sending German troops, but then all the British have to do is hold out until half-past teatime, when the overtime rules kick in, and the Bundeswehr would have to go home (no overtime allowed, don't you know...)

The Eurocrats is Brussels actually need to leave Britain alone, and concentrate on right outside their own front door. They claim they are solving all of Europe's problems, but the fact of the matter is, how 'stable' is Belgium? Not very at all. In fact, so unstable that a few years ago, the Flemings and the Walloons were so unable to agree on a government for Belgium as a whole, that there effectively, was no national government in Belgium. The situation hasn't gotten much better...

the infowarrior

135 posted on 06/24/2016 10:42:16 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: V K Lee; Marcella

Marcella has confirmed this as well - it’s in the statehood documents. If Marcella says it, then I believe it!


136 posted on 06/24/2016 10:44:34 PM PDT by greeneyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

how bout this. i have somewhere a reworked copy of this as i believe it is a necessary precurser to the independence one

A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.(1)

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. - Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. — Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. —Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. — From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. — The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. — The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. — Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the “murderers” of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.

But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can “of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.” What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. — This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty’s speech; our petition, tho’ we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that “a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty’s subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature.” — Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. — equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. — The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to “declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.” — His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carelton[Carleton], the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We(2) are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. — Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. — Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. — We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it — for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.


137 posted on 06/24/2016 10:48:36 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

In 1803 went Jefferson was president the federal government bought a vast territory west of the Mississippi from France. That land belongs to the federal government, the feds paid for it. Alaska was bought from the Russians in 1867 so the feds own Alaska too. As a result of the Mexican American war the federal government "bought" from Mexico most of the US south west that too belongs to the federal government.

Texas is unique in that it has a legitimate claim to the right of secession since it entered the union via treaty as an independent republic.

138 posted on 06/24/2016 10:49:32 PM PDT by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

If Texas truly made up its mind to leave the union, Washington DC wouldn’t do more than issue a bunch of stern letters.>>> agreed and i would stand up as the pennsylvania committee of correspondence and assist in taking up arms to assist the texas delegation in it cessation.


139 posted on 06/24/2016 10:51:28 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Smittie

If a state, why not a county? A city? A block?

If they can govern themselves, why not?>> and fight off the money grabbers


140 posted on 06/24/2016 10:53:40 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson