Posted on 09/15/2015 5:24:50 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
Texas already seceded once — in 1861, by popular vote in a statewide election.
But the Texas Nationalist Movement wants a repeat a century and a half later, and thinks the March GOP primary is the place to start.
The Nederland-based Texas independence group is circulating a petition aimed at getting a non-binding vote onto the GOP primary ballot over whether "the state of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."
Their goal? 75,000 signatures from registered voters by Dec. 1 — more than the 66,894 the Texas Secretary of State's office says the group needs to get the language on the ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at valleycentral.com ...
I don't know how many times I've tried to agree with you that this isn't a prison. If you want to "leave," you can leave.
Governments are created by people. Plants don't create governments. Animals don't create governments. There is no known earthly force other than people that creates governments. It follows that people have the power to create governments. They have the power not to create governments. They have the power to create new governments. They have the power to stop having governments. THERE IS NOTHING PROFOUND ABOUT ANY OF THESE FACTS. It is the details that trip you up.
There is a distinction between you and the people as a whole. The fact that you may want a particular type of government does not mean that the people as a whole want the same type of government that you do. When different people want differing forms of government, it is pointless to say that the people as a whole want any particular form of government because we have just stipulated that they disagree about the particular form of government that is desired.
Maybe you just can't accept that other people may have different interests than you and if you can't, then this presents an impossible situation for you to understand. But, the interesting questions concern what should be done when different people have different notions about what kinds of government they want because that is the way the world has always been. There has never been a unanimous people when it comes to these questions.
Politics concerns how we resolve these differences. Should they be resolved by war? By vote? You just skip all of this by saying that people are entitled to the government that they want and you just ignore the reality that they want different things. You pretend that there is a "people" that is unanimous in what it wants and your question is always, "So, why can't the people have what they want???"
I want you to just try to hypothesize the existence of a group of people who are not unanimous in what they want when it comes to government. What should be the result? This is the question that you need to start addressing because that is the reality of our world. You can ignore that question if you wish, but the rest of the adult world is going to continue to deal with that question, with you or without you.
Beyond all that, if you never get around to considering political questions about what to do in a world that is not unanimous in thought, there is something in the Declaration that is important for you. There is the reference to the "pursuit of happiness." The document does not grant you a right to happiness, but it claims for you a right to pursue happiness. I encourage you to do that. If that really requires that you leave, then you should probably leave. But, look around first. I don't think you're going to find a better place to go.
To the contrary. It takes a vivid imagination to come up with an assertion that the Constitution is a higher authority than the document upon which the nation was founded.
That is truly Orwellian double think.
The founders didn't "leave." Therefore "Leaving" is not a requirement to assert the right to independence. Stop taking the side of Statist government against the rights of the people to decide their own course.
I'm picturing a husband and wife deciding to purchase the family car. He wants one that's all red and she wants one that's all green. And, there you are screaming at the car dealer that the couple is entitled to the car that they want - why won't the dealer just give them the car that they want??? ;-)
You mean like the British Loyalists? So what are you saying here? That the presence of the British Loyalists should have prevented secession from England?
Please clarify your point using the example of British Loyalists.
They resolved their differences with what we call the War of Independence.
Meaning the side which said "Independence is a God Given right" won. Meaning *THAT* is the standard which was adopted by this country.
In the 18th century, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union," adopted a Constitution for the people of the United States. In the 1860's, some of the people of the United States wanted to split the nation into two separate countries and some of the people of the United States wanted to maintain the integrity of the United States as it then existed. In short, it was another one of those cases in which there was not a unanimity of opinion among "the people" of the United States. That being the case, it merely begs the question to insist that the desires of "the people" should have been accommodated.
Unfortunately, the question (over which "the people" disagreed) was not resolved peacefully. Once again, a question was decided by a war. This time we called it the Civil War. And, once again, the United States won.
I think it's best that when there are differences of opinion among "the people" that "the people" find a way to resolve the differences peacefully. Usually, we do. But, we have discussed two times (the War of Independence and the Civil War) when peaceful politics failed.
In the 18th century, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union," adopted a Constitution for the people of the United States. In the 1860's, some of the people of the United States wanted to split the nation into two separate countries and some of the people of the United States wanted to maintain the integrity of the United States as it then existed.
And in 1776, some of the people of the United Kingdom wanted to split the nation into two separate countries and some of the people of the United Kingdom wanted to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom as it then existed.
In short, it was another one of those cases in which there was not a unanimity of opinion among "the people" of the United Kingdom. The group that asserted a Natural and God given right to leave the Union won the conflict, and thereafter established this moral principle as valid.
Four score and seven years later, the Government had forgotten this principle upon which it was founded, and proceeded to adopt the principle of "Perpetual Allegiance" which they had fought against four score and seven years earlier. The then existing government rebelled against the previous history and principles of Independence, and embraced the position of King George III, but with a lot more bloodshed and fanaticism.
And you are still side stepping the issue of British Loyalists. I want to hear you say that the existence of the Loyalist Minority should have trumped the right of the colonists to secede from the United Kingdom.
The power to leave is not explicitly delegated to the federal government, therefore it is retained by the states, according to the bill of rights.
How can you read the ninth and tenth amendments any other way? In light of Patrick Henry’s involvement in crafting the Bill of Rights and his authorship of the ratification agreements of New York and Virginia, which explicitly retain the right to withdraw from the USA, it is a slam dunk. These States would not have ratified with these guarantees in the BOR, and there would have been no ratified Constitution.
PS - Did you know the original articles confederation were written as perpetual, but this feature was removed from the Constitution?
In short, it was another one of those cases in which there was not a unanimity of opinion among "the people" of the United Kingdom. The group that asserted a Natural and God given right to leave the Union won the conflict, and thereafter established this moral principle as valid.
No, there was never established any moral principle that in the case of a dispute among "the people" where some of the people want to divide a nation and some of the people want to maintain the integrity of the nation that the people who favor division of a country should automatically win.
There might be a very wealthy little zip code in this country that would like to secede and create a separate little nation. After all, they wouldn't need to spend anything on national defense because they could just let the taxpayers of the United States provide them with a natural national defense, etc. They wouldn't have any problems with poverty. It might make sense for them. So, what if some portion of the people of that zip code wanted to secede? And, if you think that they have some sort of a God-given right to secede, how about the people on my block? How about just my family? I don't want to pay taxes anymore. How do Americans get around normally if they have to cross seventeen different borders to cross town? The American people have no right to establish limits to this God-given right?
If you believe that every person or every group of like-minded persons has some sort of God-given right to secede and split the United States into numerous units, I think you have an obligation to provide some definition to that God-givern right. And, I can assure you that you will not find these principles in the Declaration of Independence. You're just making them up.
I'll say it again: There was never established any moral principle that in the case of a dispute among "the people" where some of the people want to divide a nation and some of the people want to maintain the integrity of the nation that the people who favor division of a country should automatically win.
In fact, in both of the cases we have discussed, the disputes were settled by war. But, don't listen to me, give it a try. Declare yourself to be a free and independent nation. So long as you limit it to a declaration, nobody will even bother you. But, don't mess with the postman.
When those people are a majority they can. *That* is the principle which was established in 1776.
But the power to admit a state is a power granted to the United States. Once allowed in, approving any change through splitting, combining with another state, or any change in territory regardless of how small is also a power granted to the United States. That implies that approving a state's leaving entirely should also be a power granted to the United States.
In light of Patrick Henry’s involvement in crafting the Bill of Rights and his authorship of the ratification agreements of New York and Virginia, which explicitly retain the right to withdraw from the USA, it is a slam dunk.
A couple of points on that. Nobody is saying a state cannot leave; it's just a question of how. And also in the ratification agreements of New York and Virginia is a sentence that says that they assent to and ratify the Constitution as passed. And just because they assume something to be true doesn't mean that it is.
NY and VA did not assume anything to exist - their ratification is contingent on the ability to leave. Are you claiming these ratification documents are faulty? They were surely accepted, contingencies and all, at the time.
Since the power to control leaving was not granted explicitly in the Constitution it is retained by the States. Try actually reading the ratification documents (NY and VA) and the ninth and tenth amendments.
It is actually fairly clear cut when you read the relevant documentation.
I doubt that is correct because as James Madison pointed out in his July 1788 letter to Hamilton, a conditional ratification is no ratification at all. New York and Virginia ratified the Constitution as it was passed out of Congress. If the Constitution does not allow states to leave at will then they can't, regardless of what they assumed in their ratification documents.
Since the power to control leaving was not granted explicitly in the Constitution it is retained by the States. Try actually reading the ratification documents (NY and VA) and the ninth and tenth amendments.
I've read them all, plus the Constitution as well. And one thing I've noticed is that the word "explicitly" is not contained in any of those documents. So if you can show me that only powers explicitly reserved to the United States are allowed then I'd appreciate it. And if you can find that anywhere, then can you explain how there can be a NASA or a U.S. Air Force or a national air traffic control system or an interstate highway system since the Constitution does not explicitly authorize any of them?
It is actually fairly clear cut when you read the relevant documentation.
I have, as I said, and apparently it isn't as clear cut as you think.
Majority? I can't find that word anywhere in the Declaration of Independence. And, I have never read about any elections or polls in 1776.
Majority of what? Majority of the country, majority of my state, majority of my county, majority of my zip code, my city, my block, my home? Or, does this just apply to colonies? Boy, there are no end to the uncertainties here. No wonder we keep having wars over this principle.
I'm confident that you see the problems with this moral principle. Sure, "the people" should get what they want. But, what do we do when "the people" disagree? How do we resolve differences? These are very old problems.
But, there is one thing that we can all do. We can pursue happiness. Don't give up yet.
Or stated alternately:
Texas: What America could be
Interesting that you would cite the example of Israel: Where do you suppose they found their "new soil?"
Right under their feet, as it happened.
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 - BoR, 10
Could it *be* any more clear. If the Federal government does not have a delegated power in the constitution, then the power is reserved to the States.
Now, where is the federal government’s delegated power to control the secession of States?
Virginia Ratification (Thank you Patrick Henry):
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:
We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:
(A copy of the Constitution was included in the ratification document.)
On motion, Ordered, That the Secretary of this Convention cause to be engrossed, forthwith, two fair copies of the form of ratification, and of the proposed Constitution of Government, as recommended by the Foederal Convention on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.
Source: USConstitution.net
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.