Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cincinatus' Wife; SoJoCo
Give what a rest? The truth? SJC is correct all Sates entered the union on the same footing and rights. Besides if you want Texas to secede you have to climb over Texas v. White.

In the 90’s I paid some Constitutional lawyers a lot of money to tell me if there was ANY path where Texas could secede. There is no path and all the “rights” the secessionists are claiming were given up at the end of the Civil War.

Perry is just pandering and bordering on treason.

13 posted on 09/11/2011 6:28:04 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: mad_as_he$$
where Texas could secede. There is no path

That is incorrect and since you posted the Texas-v-White case (which wasn't about secession) then you should know that.

24 posted on 09/11/2011 6:50:32 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: mad_as_he$$
Perry is just pandering and bordering on treason.

You seem to want to perpetuate the idea that the racists are pushing.

Interesting.

40 posted on 09/11/2011 7:10:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: mad_as_he$$
In the 90’s I paid some Constitutional lawyers a lot of money to tell me if there was ANY path where Texas could secede.

Get your money back you were had.

108 posted on 09/11/2011 3:22:59 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: mad_as_he$$; SoJoCo; South40; Condor51; org.whodat; cripplecreek; TADSLOS; BobL; raybbr; ...

WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL
(this makes the Perrydactyls wild--no mention of Ron Paul driving Perry's numbers down)

116 posted on 09/12/2011 2:18:46 AM PDT by Liz (The rule of law must prevail. We can’t govern ourselves by our personal point of view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: mad_as_he$$; Cincinatus' Wife; SoJoCo; Ditter; basil
If *treason* means fighting back against a tyrannical fedgov...which we border on now?

Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A: No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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 obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

“...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union.”
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in “readmitting” a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived “interpretation” of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a “constitutional” argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.



133 posted on 09/13/2011 4:37:17 AM PDT by wolfcreek (Perry to Obama: Adios, MOFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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