Posted on 04/16/2009 8:34:49 AM PDT by lewisglad
Speaking at an anti-tax protest yesterday, the Texas governor brought up the fact that Texas had the right to secede from the union if thing in Washington got bad enough.
Now before we go further, let's set a little background:
Texans are fiercely prideful. You've probably seen the phrase "Don't Mess with Texas" before. It was originally meant to be an anti-littering slogan, but Texans have turned the phrase into a catch-all statement of the state's independent spirit.
Texans like to talk about independence and the fact that it's been part of six countries in its history.
That being said, it might be fun to daydream about what an independent Texas state would be like.There's a whole host of great country songs that could be its national anthem. Like, perhaps, Waltz Across Texas or All My Exes Live in Texas.
If it did secede, we hope that they can come up with something regarding Texas atheletics, so that the football teams can still participate in the NCAA. It'd be boring for the University of Texas (disclosure: my alma matter) to just beat up on Texas A&M every Saturday.
Here's one thing we do know. An independent nation of Texas would be energy independent.
Specifically, with respect to the supply of Oil and Gas. Would an independent Texas be able to produce enough oil and gas to serve its own population, with some left over for export ? Indeed it would. In fact, Texas produces more oil than any other state and accounts for 19.7% of total US output. Texas also produces more than 30% of US natural gas supply. Texas does consume a goodly portion of its own oil output, about 75% of what it produces. But, it only consumes half of its own natural gas production.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
We’re already growing faster than any other state. I’m sure we could make room for one more! ;-)
My son was born in Austin, does he qualify as an anchor baby?
My husband thinks that the clincher for war will be if Obama wins an election with 70+% of the popular vote. I don’t think any that any president has won with more than 65% of the popular vote, especially one presiding over difficult economic times.
If that happens, we’ll know for sure that the election process is rigged and that there’s no way to get out of this mess with peaceful, legal means.
At that moment, all bets are off.
From Wikipedia:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.
From Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton):
. . . It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .
I am not going to get into the debate about use of foreign law in Supreme Court decisions (there are whole books on the subject), but suffice it to say the Supreme Court has looked at foreign law for guidance (but not controlling interpretation) throughout US history.
There would be a LONG line in front of him - including the Big 0.
Too bad. he sounds like a globalist phoney.
Sec.A1.AAFREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Here's part of Article 1, Section 2.
The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
The way I read this, if the Federal Government violates the Constitution or ceases to be a Republican form of government, we can leave.
I think that it's clear that the feds are violating the Constitution (and have been for some time). The big argument will be, do we still have a Republic? If it's proven that we do not, then we can go our merry way.
Now, will they let us go without a fight... ?
I believe that, for ever dollar we send to Washington, we get back something like 92 cents.
I do know that it actually costs *us* money to be part of the Union.
“There would be a LONG line in front of him - including the Big 0.”
You think so? I haven’t heard any clear cut treason come out of Obama’s mouth, not yet anyway, but we all just did from the governor of Texas.
“That’s most of Austin!”
Where’s that? Oh, Now I get it!
You mean Babylon on the Colorado!
Simply amazing, so logical and by [that] I mean that while Texas agreed to joining the Union, it sure doesn't sound like Texans trusted much more than themselves.
"All other transgressions aside, I’d say that the Obama Stimulus Package pretty much violates Art. 1, Sec. 1. as the right of local self-government has now been abrogated by the Feds."
Be impossible to disagree with you there, for sure.
Thanks for taking the time to post the articles, my friend. I honestly never knew Texans protected Texas' interest(s) so well, so legally, so long ago. ;^)
Sorry, you must not have actually read Gov. Goodhair's actual statement, which was:
"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
Treason is a breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381.
Curious how you see Gov. Perry's statements as satisfying any element of treaon, much less both.
He’s only doing it for votes. He’s a RINO and we’re trying like hell to get rid of him.
Now Ted Nugent... there’s an idea...
It is pretty obvious to me it is speaking about the right of the people of the state of Texas in regards to their state government. Let's go through it.
The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
If it were talking about the Federal government as you read it, it would mean that the people of the State of Texas would have the unilateral right to "alter or reform" the Federal government without any consultation or agreement with the people of other states.
I'm sure you would agree that would be pretty absurd.
Sure! LOL!
Here’s the operative clause of Art 1, Sec 1:
“...the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.”
I read that as “Screw with local self-government anywhere in the US, with any State, and we have the right to leave.”
The Obama Stimulus Plan abrogates local self-government.
I'd interpret [it] the same way, my friend.
"I think that it's clear that the feds are violating the Constitution (and have been for some time)."
AMEN!!! {BIG applause}
"The big argument will be, do we still have a Republic? If it's proven that we do not, then we can go our merry way."
Might even take less than that, Marie.
"Now, will they let us go without a fight... ?"
No, socialist like spending other people's money as much as other people dieing so they may continue their shenanigans.
Thank you kindly for posting the articles Marie, and, posting your wise opinion!
One riot, one Ranger.
You can read it that way if you choose, but there is no right to unilaterally leave. There is only our Natural Law Right to Revolution.
Think about it from a practical standpoint. If such a right to unilateral secession actually existed when Federal authority oversteps it constitutional bounds, why would an oppressive Federal government respect that particular right to secession when it chooses to ignore the rest of the Constitution? It's just silly to think they would.
If you really want out for just cause, you are going to have to fight your way out just as our Founders did.
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.