Posted on 04/02/2013 7:23:06 PM PDT by bestintxas
Texas can legitimately claim to be holding an unusual ace up its sleeve,
a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution." Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.
the division clause remains on the books. Its legality has been discounted by some and defended by others, but the issue has never been put to rest in any authoritative, legally binding way. (Snopes.com is uncharacteristically wishy-washy on the matter; newly minted liberal demi-god Nate Silver, hardly the gullible sort, seems far more credulous.) Until that day comes, dreamers and dissidents will continue to view it as a sneaky way to ensure Texas' political supremacy in this era of the closely divided Senate and the opportunistically wielded filibuster.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
It doesn’t need to be true in the Supreme Court, just in the courts in Texas and the hearts of its citizens.
Actually... cruces
Exactly. Why bother with greater representation when you can keep Texas whole.
We’ll secede first.
As in Las Cruces (NM).
Didn’t you read any of this???
Texas 1, Texas 2, Texas 3 and Texas 4 each get 2.
They can have it.
Since when can the SCOTUS nullify an international treaty ratified by Congress?
Says the new states would be ENTITLED to be states of the United States.
Seems like the Texas legislature could designate one of the four new states to be independent and sovereign. A real free trade zone, a place where wealthy patriots could move and set up businesses unencumbered by the socialists in DC.
:-)
Texas will be solid blue in 10 years.”
No more than 5, particularly if they can’t get rid of Strauss. Old Joe just loves to appoint Democrats as Chairmen of some of the most influential committees.
On top of that, the Texas Federation of Republican Women is having their annual Belles & Boots Ball in April and the keynote speaker is none other than Dewhurst. Running for Lt. Gov. in 2014 is Jerry Patterson, current Land Commissioner, who is pushing increased guest worker permits as part of his campaign. Running for Land Commissioner is none other than Jeb Bush’s son, George P, whose mother is from Mexico.
Houston is a sanctuary city with a gay Democrat mayor and Democrat Chief of Police, Dallas and San Antonio are also sanctuary cities and Austin is becoming very blue. Conservatives live in the outer areas but there just aren’t enough of us to counter the huge population centers.
If Bush, Patterson and Strauss are running the show after the 2014 election, we’re toast and it won’t matter who is Governor.
Roberts will say it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement, or something. Facts don’t matter, words don’t matter, the will of the elite is all that matters.
Cut loose the Southernmost state; "Rio Grande Del Norte", it's a lost cause. The dem's gain one state, the rep's gain three.
If you split up Texas into 5 different states geographically, you’d get an 8-2 to 6-4 split. in the US senate delegation. At 6-4, that would only be a net of +2 Republican. That’s what we have now with just one state.
In non-presidential years it's competitive for Republicans. We picked up 2 congressional districts there in 2010 and held 1 of them in 2012. Blake Farenthold won TX-27 in 2010 and nobody in Ausin or Washington thought anyone could beat Solomon Ortiz in a district drawn in 2002 to be safe for him.
I could see that map producing a 2-8 split favoring DemocRATS in the Senate.
Be nice if you had to prove your political position before moving to a state and the state could deny your move.
So if a man’s name is Mouse, his children are Mice?
LOL
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.