The 5 states of Texas (live, military, moving)

[airboat5]

catman is right this whole thread has turned silly and shoud be deleted. maybe someone should go buy a small island and run it there way.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by topcat1377

Texas vs White 1869 ........no sucession.

Just as a matter of historical trivia, the Texas vs. White case is often cited as "proof" a state has no constitutional right to secede. However, there is more to it than that. I am no legal/constitutional scholar, however, it is important to remember that the said case was not about secession per se. Rather, it involved a dispute over bond sales.

A friend of mine passed on to me what he himself got from a lawyer buddy of his as concerns the issues involved with Texas v. White. The gist of it went like this (some parts below come directly from my friend, some are my own words for clarification):

The actual issue before the SCOTUS was about the rights of the State of Texas in handling the bonds and whether they had legal standing to sell those bonds through contract to two men in the northeast.

The court held in favor of Texas and the Chief Justice, in writing the opinion for the majority, stated rather parenthetically and peripherally that part of his logic was based on the fact that states had no right to secede and that Texas had remained a State of the Union throughout the period following her secession.

The Chief Justice, writing for the majority, opined about secession and statehood. However, this matter was not the one before the court. The court was not asked, nor has any subsequent court been asked, to hear and rule whether or not states had legal rights to secede. Nor was the court asked to rule on whether Texas had legally left the Union when she seceded.

Nor does a court have a legal basis to decide, mid trial, that they are going to switch or add horses and take up other matters not before it. The judge can opine all he likes, but, the law is the law and the specific matters before the court are what will be legally concluded by the court.

The 'holding' of a case is what the court decides about the issue presented to it. Any other pronouncements or explanations by a court are what is known as 'dicta', which, although it can be persuasive, is essentially the term for extraneous explanations or commentary that are not directly related to the issue before the court. The specific issue at trial is the only issue affected by the resolution of the court. The 'dicta' that emerge from a hearing or during trial are of no legal consequence."

Thus, as it is, no court has ever addressed the issue of secession directly.

[Jrsgun]

QUOTE: The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[Jrsgun]

QUOTE: Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the United States of America" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called "The United States of America." The "United States" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861–1865. Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (In sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union).
ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[theloneranger]

The fact is that, regardless of what ought to have been their status before the War Between the States, the War pretty much settled the fact that states cannot seceed. If they do, they have to be prepared for the fact that the Federal Army will crush the rebellion and return the state to the Union.

[Rocket Power]

Anything east of Houston and Dallas should be given to the secede people. Far East Texas will be best suited for them and their mentality. After they all move there, we can then wall it off.

We can then name southwest/south Texas Newer TexMexico. I'm thinking anything just a little south of San Antonio all the way west to El Paso.

We'll call central Texas commie-social-liberal-I hate American land, because who the hell cares if I'm exaggerating with the title or not.

All that's left after that will be northern Texas. We'll call it Dallas Cowboy land in honor of them one day winning a playoff game. Seriously, it's gonna happen! Really!!!

[Jrsgun]

theloneranger,
The Civil War/War Between the States never settled anything,it just put it in the closest.
QUOTE:
This myth plays right into the very notion of tyranny and governmental control. If the Federal government were to invade a state seeking to establish self-determination using the very same justification found in the Declaration of Independence would that act in and of itself not be enough to convict the Federal government of tyranny? Governments are supposed to do what the people allow, not the other way around.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[airboat5]

Originally Posted by Rocket Power

Anything east of Houston and Dallas should be given to the secede people. Far East Texas will be best suited for them and their mentality. After they all move there, we can then wall it off.

We can then name southwest/south Texas Newer TexMexico. I'm thinking anything just a little south of San Antonio all the way west to El Paso.

We'll call central Texas commie-social-liberal-I hate American land, because who the hell cares if I'm exaggerating with the title or not.

All that's left after that will be northern Texas. We'll call it Dallas Cowboy land in honor of them one day winning a playoff game. Seriously, it's gonna happen! Really!!!

[Jrsgun]

airboat5,
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand,it will be all right.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by ladihawkae

texas was already broken up into other states. and as for being patriotic. yep we are. we just don't like giving ourselves away to the highest bidder!

Or the winner of a democratic election.