Posted on 06/24/2016 8:19:23 PM PDT by Trump20162020
If I remember correctly, it was more of a case of the federal government not having exclusive jurisdiction at the seat of government.
Ironically, few people realize the way the Founders left the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is that they succeeded from it.
Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII, 1803
So, I would love to see Welfare stopped but what about senior citizens that depend on SS benefits. Regardless of how we feel about SS, there are a lot of good people that worked hard and contributed all their lives and depend on the Federal check. Would that stop or does Texas have a plan for that.
I’m all for succession but would hate to see good people (not moochers and deadbeats) starve.
It would be the opposite. If the feds shut down the army bases, air force bases, naval bases, depots it would be a large economic hit to the Texas economy.
Add to that the shut down of the US border patrol, NASA, federal court houses, the Mint, Pantex, etc, etc.
Texas has been thru this before during the 1990s and the Republic of Texas movement, when Bush was guv. That didn't turn out very well. The movement split into two groups and it became an internal war.
This is what no one is talking about with Brexit. Leaving EU will create a power vacuum and many conflicts will arise among those seeking to fill the vacuum.
Hold a state referendum and see what kind of support they have.
I would move there so fast . . .
I think a better plan is:
UNexit!
Hopefully Trump will be elected, and second, that he will have a major impact on ending the rampant corruption and dramatically shrinking the Federal Government.
If Trump loses, or if Trump is not effective in office, then it is clearly way past time for Texit.
By all means please post the Constitutional art. and sect. regarding secession or not allowing secession?
Wendle is right. You OTH are a state-ist thug.
None of the issues you raised even holds a candle to gaining independence. You are using socialism to uphold the status quo which is - socialism.
Would you advocate invading a seceding Texas?
In any state of our Union, you can find a handful of supporters for any notion under the sun. Undoubtedly, you can find a few people in Nebraska who would like to see the US sell Nebraska to the Chinese. The first important question is, how many dozen Texans want to cancel their American citizenship?
People who can't succeed in the United States won't succeed anywhere else.
I'm pretty sure some of that has already happened. The good thing is, the Chinese can't pick up the prairie and move it.
If Texas does go out—more threat than fact— other states will join her. Texas will not be alone. A new CSA would form—A Constitutional States of America—Focus on following the founding fathers and their vision of the American State. But, things will have to get much worse for that to happen.
“Texas did this once before, in 1861. That didn’t work out too well for Texas.”
And we did it before that in 1776. That worked out very well.
It is not a matter of what I do or do not advocate.
The question is: Do you think the Federal government would stand idly by while the second largest state in the nation attempted to erect international borders between itself and bordering states, raise an army, seize (or attempt to) seize Federal property, and do all the other things an independent nation would attempt to do?
As noted in my original post, if this very unlikely event was ever to be attempted, it would be an existential question for the Federal government. Attempted secession is an event it has faced and successfully answered before.
As for invasion, that implies a substantial degree of separation would be permitted to occur prior to decisive Federal action. I personally don’t think it would ever get that far. I think the Federal government would allow sufficient actions to occur to support successful prosecutions and then swoop in to make enough arrests to extinguish the movement. If resisted aggressively, Federal armed force sufficient to overwhelm that resistance would be deployed and utilized.
It would actually be more like TexAKOLa.
.
Flavious_Maximus wrote:
“Texas has nuclear weapons now.
DC won’t do squat and no other state will send their national guardsman to fight Texas troops.”
http://texasalmanac.com/topics/government/major-military-installations
Isn’t the TNM a rather minor movement?
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.