Texas nationalist Would Like to Secede Now

Sure they do.

 

Exactly. The reason they don't like it is because..

1) Most red states are very productive and not in deep holes like Cali or NY

2) They want to retain control over the people. Less people=less control.

 

So you think that someone in California really gives a hoot whether Texas is a member of the federation or not? If they are that petty and have such a lust to dominate others, it makes me feel pretty bad about having people like that in our federation in the first place. Holding entire states captive is a pretty jerky way to be, if you ask me.

 

Of course, I don't think it's going to happen. But what's to keep Texas from simply saying (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU, we're seceding, and don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your approval?

 

Forcing people to buy a service or face jail time is pretty jerky also, but they did it.

 

When are foamers going to stop talking about secession and implement a plan that will actually lead to the north ridding itself of the south. Get it done, people, you're holding up progress.

 

Please provide a link to where in the United States Constitution that explicitly states that a state can't leave the union. Furthermore, that wasn't even my point. I simply stated, that if a majority of Texans voted by referendum to leave the Union, why would you feel compelled to use force of arms to keep them from leaving.

I've viewed some of the post by these weekend warriors, talking about blockades and invasions. Really?

 

Because, we'll get in our pickups and go kill you for not wanting to be in our club anymore. Gotta love childish thinking.

 

There is nothing in the Texas Constitution to suggest that Texas can sucede. They can try to put a Constitional referendum, approved by the people, then probably go through federal court to place an injunction. But the point is it is unconstituional, from a state level, to sucede.

 

In order for any state to leave the union, it has to be done first through the State Constitutional process. Thus, there is no provision, implictly or explicitly, allow the State of Texas to succede. To do so would require a constitutional referendum with a majority approving it, passed by the state legislature, and signed by the governor, assuming no legal injunctions are implement throug the federal court system.

If you want armed violence by not going through the legal process, well that was done before with devestating results.

 

I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I meant to say that I am unaware of any federal constitutional prohibitions against a state leaving the union. Someone said that doing so violated the constitution, and I assumed he meant the US constitution, not that of any particular state.

 

Then smarten up and don't mess around. I don't appreciate the death threat.

 

You do not have the authority to leave, period. Throwing a temper tantrum over an election is hardly a reason. You have no states empowerment to leave, grow up.

 

Lol, that wasn't a death threat. I was mocking your war mongering rhetoric. Try again.

 

Although the Federal Constituion does not implicitly or explicitly state whether or not a state can suceed, a state must do it first through their legislative process first to make it legal, or a possibility to prove a constitional interpretation of the 10th amendment.

 

Says who, you? Please.

You need to grow up kid, you're the one talking about bombing people who no longer want to be apart of the United States. I was debating the merits of succession, and not the results of the election. You tell people are getting desperate when they start throwing assumptions around.

 

If that is the case, then all is forgiven.

If you are going to trump your bravado and try secession, that itself is an act of war. Putting that aside, your ilk is seriously underestimating the capabilities of the US military. I am quite confident it has not revealed its true capability, even with both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

 

I never said bombing people, never said it. I said you would never be that unhappy if you were to take up arms against the US.

Listen, go ahead with your secession plans. I will watch and enjoy the show.

 

Who said anything about taking up arms against the US? Do you even know what succession means? And, where did I ever say I was on board with Texas leaving?

Stop while you're ahead.

 

Texas is just an extension of Mexico. If Texass were not with the USA, it would just be another Mexico with white people.

 

You do mean secession or succession. If you are playing words, have your fun.

 

Even if the State legally succede, it will still require armed conflict to ensure the action is sustained. Every succession has gone this route of armed conflict. Some are successful and some are not.

 

Yep, I'll see if he's still a secessionist the next time a hurricane or tornado comes through.

 

Apparently you've never heard of the velvet Revolution, it was a peaceful separation of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Armed conflict is not a guarantee, nor does it have to be. There is always a peaceful solution, if the two parties reach consensus.