It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sigh, so I said that secession is an act of a sovreign State, and you "correct" me by saying that secession is act of a State.
Why should American citizens be removed from or denied their property by an act of a foreign State?
You're passing over this the same way Punisher did, and that's fine.
originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: Talorc
Ahh see that is why I did not respond, because as a colony we were still considered citizens if I understand correctly. Just with little in the way of representation.
One day were were citizens and then the next day we were not.
I was not sure what he meant exactly or were his thoughts were on the matter. so I did not want to assume that he did not know something.
originally posted by: Violater1
This is an updated story from earlier in The Huff Post and is dated today Aug 01, 2015. I had earlier this morning found this story in an AOL link, but it has now disappeared.
Texas Nationalist Movement has a petition for Texas secession an now qualifies for a response from the White House. www.huffingtonpost.com...< br /> The The Texas petition reads:
"Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's (sic) citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."
originally posted by: Talorc
Anyone who's interested in the ongoing ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland should watch this documentary:
www.youtube.com...
"Unity in the UK", what a f*cking joke.....
originally posted by: Terminal1
originally posted by: Violater1
This is an updated story from earlier in The Huff Post and is dated today Aug 01, 2015. I had earlier this morning found this story in an AOL link, but it has now disappeared.
Texas Nationalist Movement has a petition for Texas secession an now qualifies for a response from the White House. www.huffingtonpost.com...< br /> The The Texas petition reads:
"Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's (sic) citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."
I wonder what Texas would do with the 15 military posts and the economies that go with them?
I know Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss are large. Not mentioning the airfields and armor?
If Texas were to break... would they have to give those up or would it be considered seizure...
Just curious....
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: Terminal1
originally posted by: Violater1
This is an updated story from earlier in The Huff Post and is dated today Aug 01, 2015. I had earlier this morning found this story in an AOL link, but it has now disappeared.
Texas Nationalist Movement has a petition for Texas secession an now qualifies for a response from the White House. www.huffingtonpost.com...< br /> The The Texas petition reads:
"Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's (sic) citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."
I wonder what Texas would do with the 15 military posts and the economies that go with them?
I know Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss are large. Not mentioning the airfields and armor?
If Texas were to break... would they have to give those up or would it be considered seizure...
Just curious....
IMHO US troops would probably leave and we would re purpose the bases to be used by our own military......
They would take whats theirs or negotiate for what to keep , and then we would continue to build our own equipment and deliver to bases that were formerly US military bases
The European Union parliament meets in an emergency session, and votes to send peacekeepers to the Washington Metropolitan Area to secure international interests and protection of European citizens in the United States. As secessionist sentiment rises in America, the governor of California declares home rule, and California secedes from the Union on April 15, 2013. Texas follows a few days later, taking neighboring states with it and re-forming the Republic of Texas. Other factions form in the following months, and by 2014, all hopes for a peaceful resolution are gone and the Second American Civil War begins.
ARTICLE I.
The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories. This cession includes all public lots and squares, vacant lands, mines, minerals, salt lakes and springs, public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbours, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments and accoutrements, archives and public documents, public funds debts, taxes and dues unpaid at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty.
ARTICLE II.
The citizens of Texas shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and admitted, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
ARTICLE III.
All titles and claims to real estate, which are valid under the laws of Texas, shall be held to be so by the United States; and measures shall be adopted for the speedy adjudication of all unsettled claims to land, and patents shall be granted to those found to be valid.
Texas v. White, United States Supreme Court, (1869)
In 1869, the Supreme Court ruled that secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901)
Annexation via a joint resolution of Congress is legal. The Supreme Court wrote, "A treaty made by that power is said to be the supreme law of the land, as efficacious as an act of Congress; and, if subsequent and inconsistent with an act of Congress, repeals it. This must be granted, and also that one of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory, and that the territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress."
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: StoneFace
1. Line breaks are your friend.
2. 90% of your post is negatively critiquing other responses in the discussion and general musing about how you'd like the conversation to go with little added evidence.
3. You do not have a corner on The Truth.
4. Have a great day yourself!