Bill on Texas Secession presented to Texas Legislature

Reply to post by g146541

That is exactly the M.O.

heh


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Read what was said. This has never gone before the legislature since 1861

And you are taking them dead serious. Yep, because this time, yep, this time, this is it, right? Because its gone through the legislature, it must be it!

Until you, Perry, and the rest of the pro-secessionist texans actually walk the talk, these declarations amount to nothing.

As if Texans don't face the same issues the country does

Exactly. I mean what is Texas exactly going to do? Lets not forget that:
It was a Texan president that introduced the patriot act, with full support from Perry's state government.
It was a Texan president that decided to wage the $700 billion Iraq war with the full support from Perry's government.

Lets not also forget the millions of Texans on medicare and medicaid, yep, it'd be quiet something when the pro-secessionists come out an declare a new socialist free texas, right?

So I'd suppose you'd be taken Bush and Ron Paul with you right? Goody.

Look, we can sit here all day and argue about the facts, and then you can go to sleep and head of straight to work again the next day knowing full well that the Texas secessionist talk is just whole lotta bluffin'

Reply to post by Southern Guardian

Again, Southern Carolina took 40 years from the first time their legislature voted on it until secession actually was passed.

Just the fact that it has even made it this far shows that the sentiment is building. It will not happen overnight.

As for the patriot act, one Senator voted no. 357 reps in the house also voted for it. To pin that solely on TX is twisting facts at its finest.

Regarding Bush, he is from Connecticut. A Yankee violating the Constitution. My, my is that a rare sight.

He actually did a lot of good for Texas, though he also did some bad things. It might have been just for the resumé, though. Who knows.


As for Ron Paul . . . I suppose so, if he is still alive. Just by you wanting to get rid of him shows your true view on our liberties and rights, though. As if we did not already know what your views are.

Oh, and you are not arguing any facts. You are throwing # against the wall (along with the others), hoping it will stick, and I am dismantling your inane points by giving undisputed facts.

I guess you like egg on your face too



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0

After the civil war the requirement for all states that were in the Confederacy were required to change their state constitutions in order to regain statehood.

Seems a bit extortionist to me.

If I have this straight, they had just fought a 4 years long war "to preserve the Union", but now were levying additional requirements to REJOIN the Union? What do you suppose the alternative was, just stay in the Confederacy and the Union would just leave them alone? No, they were forced back into the Union, which means that this requirement was ALSO forced.

One has to question the validity of "agreements" made under duress...

Now, I'm not questioning the factual nature of what you said here. I'm sure it's so, and falls right into line with all the other abuses of power that were rampant during the Reconstruction Era and the attendant martial law and military (that would be UNION military - foreign occupation and rule) governments in place at the time.

I'm aware of this because I live in Military District 10, which oddly enough was never dissolved or rescinded. Technically, we are still under "foreign occupation", Martial Law, and Military rule.

Technically.

Originally posted by dalan.
The problem of secession being clarified in the Constitution is irrelevant.

So in the case of secession, the constitution is irrelevant, in your arguement. That's a new one to me.

And there is something against what Lincoln did. Lincoln needed Congress' approval to go to war.

Lincoln needed approval from congress to go to war against a foreign nation, you are assuming that the confederate states was a sovereign nation, which was not the case.

You are absolutely right, it would be much better than the police state that we have today.

See, you are assuming that states are not or less capable of being corrupted than the Union as a whole, that is a whole lotta belony.

If you want an example, look right back to Perry and his administration of Texas during the Bush administration. Where did he stand with many of the policies the Bush administration pushed for? What about other Southern state governments.

It is that simple,

If it is, why is it, after so many years, that Texan secessionists are still talking?

If it is that simple, you would not be here debating this with me, the OP would not be here debating this with me.

You cannot force someone to stay in a contract when you have been abusing it.

You seem to be under impression that Texan Republicans the likes of Perry are in your best interests, you really must have selective memory.

This is an absolute fallacy that people throw around constantly, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with a power struggle between the rights of the states,

It's not a fallacy because it is fact, it just takes afew seconds on google to go to the actual declarations made from Southern states. Now I can't force you to take those declarations as evidence, but can point them out as fact. And regarding states right, the right for states to decide on slavery was seen as a states right issue at the time.

Yep.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Again, Southern Carolina took 40 years from the first time their legislature voted

Why on earth are you on this forum throwing this out to us? Who are you trying to convince? If "this is it" for you then whatever rocks your boat I guess. Reality will hit afew years down the track.... unless ofcourse you forget and insist once again that 2016 is the year of secession again, or 2020, or 2025.

Regarding Bush, he is from Connecticut. A Yankee violating the Constitution.

I am well aware he was born in Connecticut, doesnt change the fact he lived and served and is considered widely as a Texan, has for a long time. Bush was voted governor by an overwhelming majority of Texans, had Perry as his vice governor and loyal support, was voted in by the majority of texans in 2000, was voted again by the majority of texas in 2004, held overwhelming support from texans for years. Then there is also the fact he is living right back there in Crawford Texas, he had a big welcoming when he left the presidency in 2009 back to crawford. So don't throw that "he was born in connecticut" BS, because most texans had no issue backing the man and his actions, and still don't to this day, including Perry, one of the leading figures behind Texan secession.

I guess you like egg on your face too

Right. Good luck with that secessionist movement of yours, I'll catch up with you again down the road.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

And there is something against what Lincoln did. Lincoln needed Congress' approval to go to war.

Lincoln needed approval from congress to go to war against a foreign nation, you are assuming that the confederate states was a sovereign nation, which was not the case.

If, as was pointed out above, the Confederacy was not foreign nation, WHY would they have to change their constitutions in order to be admitted back into the US Union?

Either they were part of the US, in which case their would be no need to be admitted to the Union, since they were already a part of it, OR they were a foreign nation.

Which was it? Does it depend on which points one wants to argue, whether the support for the argument comes from one view or the other, and is thus changeable according to whims of the argument at hand?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

And there is something against what Lincoln did. Lincoln needed Congress' approval to go to war.

Lincoln needed approval from congress to go to war against a foreign nation, you are assuming that the confederate states was a sovereign nation, which was not the case.

If, as was pointed out above, the Confederacy was not foreign nation, WHY would they have to change their constitutions in order to be admitted back into the US Union?

Change their consitutions? The states constitutions are irrelevant in this case, what is important is the US constitution, and the part of it that was changed as the result of the civil which was the 13th ammendment.

Now, if you still insist otherise, kindly reference me a link, thanks.

Texas has most of the natural gas in the US.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I stand corrected. It's not extortion at all to require ratification of an amendment before a state will be admitted to the Union. That's just business as usual for DC. Now, if a FOREIGN country were to be admitted, I can see where they'd have to accept the Constitution in it's entirety. Hard to fathom the Federals REQUIRING a pre-existent, already member state to ratify an amendment. Seems to nullify the purpose of ratification, doesn't it?

So what do you suppose would have happened if the Confederate states had just said "naw, I ain't ratifying that"? Do you suppose the Federals would have just said "oh, ok, just go on back to your Confederacy, and we'll leave you alone from now on"? Surely they wouldn't have been coercive by threatening force, now would they?

It's also good to know that the President isn't required to gain the approval of Congress before waging war on his own people, and that stipulation only applies to making war on foreigners. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I know I'll sleep a lot better with that knowledge under my hat.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I stand corrected. It's not extortion at all to require ratification of an amendment before a state will be admitted to the Union. That's just business as usual for DC. Now, if a FOREIGN country were to be admitted, I can see where they'd have to accept the Constitution in it's entirety. Hard to fathom the Federals REQUIRING a pre-existent,

Again I asked you for a reference, a link, a source, thanks.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

LEAVE the union or shut up, it's pretty simple, it's moan, moan, moan all day long, do it.

I told you what I don't like about Texas culture, you clearly don't like the rest of the nation, so leave.

Two years of threats, where was Texas when their asshole ex governor was busy wiping his ass with the constitution??? Oh ya, busy manning his reelection campaign for part two...

The non stop, holier than thou self stroking of Texas is as tiering as the smell of hairspray in a Dallas honkytonk -

Originally posted by macman
Who ever said i hated America? (Looks around)
I am just tired of the Fed Govt taking and stealing.

Backpeddling already? "That's not exactly what I was saying, honest, I swear."
You wanna leave, leave. You do not need to convince me you have a good reason. Just go.

If Texas were to go this route, most Non-Texas born persons would not be allowed in, and some may be booted out.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa

If the US would go back to the original creation of how it was supposed to be governed, this would not even be an issue.

If any of you really meant any of this crap, you would be packing your bags right now. You are not. You are all sitting in the US, pining away for any good chance to leave the US. No one is stopping you.

Please save your excuses and attempts to rephrase statements to maybe, perhpaps, kind of, mean something else. I am not asking anyone to justify to me why they are still in the US when they want to leave it so badly. I am just waving goodbye. Your turn.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Texas has it's own Stealth Fighters as well, Texas Air National Guard. They also have just about everything else that the Fed Govt has in the Military. They also have part of NASA.
Texas holds a lot more cards then most people think.

If they left the US, I am almost positive that 90% of people in Texas and/or Texas by birth would stay there or travel back.

Do you know who the civilian Commander in Chief of the Texas Air Guard is?

Barack Obama.

Who is their military leader?

BRIGIDIER GENERAL JOHN F NICHOLS. This man is a Coloradian.

Your point was?

Um, no.
The National guard and the Air Nation Guard belongs to the state and are at the control of the Governor of said state.
The Active duty and Reserves are under the control of the President.

Originally posted by all answers exist
WOW reading some of these comments....not much of a union .........if you consider yourself American please educate yourself


pretty sad how quickly others will condemn a part of the union that is trying to fight the same giant elephant in the room that no one else is addressing AT ALL

Fight?

No, they are trying to run away. How brave.

I'm for the people and behind the people we must ALL stand...........WOW divide and conquer is seeming easier for them by the day

deny ignorance.

edit on 8-3-2011 by all answers exist because: spelling

Taking a stand against tyranny would be noble. Threatening to take your ball and run AWAY every couple of years because you do not like the way the game is being played is whiny and cowardly.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by nightbringr

 

The adjutant general is commander of the Texas Military Forces, and subordinate only to the governor in matters pertaining to the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard and Texas State Guard.


Furthermore . . .

--The Preamble to the United States Constitution contains the basic mandate for the
maintenance of military forces: "to provide for the common defense." Regarding the
National Guard, Congress is authorized in the Constitution "to provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining the Militia” – reserving to the States respectively, the appointment
of the Officers, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress" in Article I, Section 8. The Constitution further specifies that the
President is Commander-in-Chief of the Militia "when called into the actual Service of the
United States." The Texas Constitution makes the Governor "Commander-in-Chief of the
military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United
States."[TX Govt. Code, Title 4, Chap. 431, Sect. 002.]-- (Page 6)

edit on 3/8/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: Clarity

Precisely. If you read that it shows that the divisional commander is in charge UNTIL they are called to arms. Then the President takes over. Read it carefully you just proved my point.

The day that Texas declares independence is the day the president takes complete control. Even if he didn't, I'd wager the current commanding officer would still do Washingtons bidding.

If Texas were to separate, then the US President would not be the person to hand control over. You prove the point that Cesar Obama would try, but would fail. The fact is that the National Guard and Air National Guard belong to the State, period. When they are activated for Fed duty, then the Fed Govt in a sense takes control. Why would Texas hand them over?

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by nightbringr

 

How can he take control if they are not part of the US anymore?

It's really going to come down to where the commanding officer, whoever that may be, and the soldiers loyalties lie.

I know your very proud of Texas, but I'd still wager on them siding with the US of A. Especially again since most COs' will be from other states originally and will feel more loyalty overall to the union.

Wrong again. Those that are in the Guards are residences of Texas, not persons stationed there from a larger pool of people throughout the US, like active duty personnel.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

You do realize that if Texas did secede from the Union EMP bomb's would be dropped across the State and either cruise missle would be used to eliminate the state government or special op's forces would arrest the state government.

+ Texas only has two nuke plants and a small national guard. Texas Air National Guard is a joke, only able to field:
C-130 Hercules United States Tactical Transport
F-16C/D Fighting Falcon United States Air Superiority Fighter
MQ-1 Predator United States Remote controlled UAV

The battle would be over before Texan's even seen it coming.
------
P.S even if Texan's in the federal military defected to the Texas Republic it wouldn't matter. Washington D.C would just phone Harrisburg, and a few F-22's from the Pennsylvania National Air Guard would eliminate any Texan or pro-Texan air force(our air force have an air refueling capability) or army units.

+ with reinforcements from the California National Guard(they have the most ground units of any National Guard I think)and from various Midwest states National Air Guard, it wouldn't last long.

edit on 8-3-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)

So why would the fed Govt attack Texas, if all they did was separate?
Isn't that unprovoked war?

Originally posted by Janky Red


LEAVE the union or shut up, it's pretty simple, it's moan, moan, moan all day long, do it.

Again, it took SC 40 years to do it from the time it was first put before the Legislature.

How dare the people show their disgust at the federal government, and give the government time to change. Let's knee-jerk everything!

I told you what I don't like about Texas culture, you clearly don't like the rest of the nation, so leave.

No, you gave a bunch of BS, which I easily refuted.

I love America. I do not love the federal government.

Two years of threats, where was Texas when their asshole ex governor was busy wiping his ass with the constitution??? Oh ya, busy manning his reelection campaign for part two...

Do some research. You will find that the secessionist movement did not like what Bush was doing, and did not approve, as it infringed on the rights of the people and of the states.

But keep living in your dream wold.

The non stop, holier than thou self stroking of Texas is as tiering as the smell of hairspray in a Dallas honkytonk -

And another "disguised" attack on "Texas Culture."

Funny how you get so bent out of shape and start spewing vitriol over people wanting to assert their rights.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
and no forced health ins. no forced redistribution, I ve heard they do have high property tax, lesse where did I hear that, oh yes it was that gal everybody dissed who ran against Rick Perry.

No military. No access to major shipping corridors. No federal relief for the next drought, hurricaine, tornado, swine flu outbreak. Texas should be ripe for the picking.