Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are also 15 US military bases in Texas. Half of them should be closed, and have only been kept open as pork barrel spending, to keep the local economies from crashing. The rest could be supplied from other areas, freezing out all local contractors. There goes Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Corpus Christi.
In 2012;
Houston voted for Barak Obama by 51%,
Dallas County voted for Obama by 57%,
El Paso County voted for Obama by 65%,
Bexar County that comprises San Antonio voted for Obama by 51%,
In fact even in defeat Obama garnered 41% of the Texas vote in 2012.
It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that a vote for secession in Texas would be opposed at the very least by 41% of the population and if history is to be our guide, that 41% along with those counties that voted overwhelmingly for Obama would undoubtably mount a secession movement of their own seeking reinstatement into the union as the western counties of Virginia did in 1860.
So what would be the response of the secessionist government of Texas do? Let these vast and economically viable counties go? Would the secessionist government cede the Port of Houston to the U.S. or would it enforce it's majority rule on a minority? Inquiring minds want to know.
A strange and historically ignorant question considering that the question was answered over 150 years ago.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances...
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
...From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. 23
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? 24
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
A strange and historically ignorant question considering that the question was answered over 150 years ago.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances...
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
...From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. 23
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? 24
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
Lincoln knew that, by law, the south had a legal right to secession.
He just didn't care. Right or wrong was so blurred in that conflict.
Lincoln was responsible for the single largest executive power grab in the history of our nation. We settled the secession question in April of 1865. We also ended any legal dispute when the 14th amendment was ratified.
There are those who will argue that we didn't have 3/4 of the state's ratify it. But to the winners belong the spoils, and they also write history.
Every person today has grown up with a government that doesn't allow secession.
Bexar County that comprises San Antonio voted for Obama by 51%,
In fact even in defeat Obama garnered 41% of the Texas vote in 2012.
It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that a vote for secession in Texas would be opposed at the very least by 41% of the population and if history is to be our guide, that 41% along with those counties that voted overwhelmingly for Obama would undoubtably mount a secession movement of their own seeking reinstatement into the union as the western counties of Virginia did in 1860.
So what would be the response of the secessionist government of Texas do? Let these vast and economically viable counties go? Would the secessionist government cede the Port of Houston to the U.S. or would it enforce it's majority rule on a minority? Inquiring minds want to know.
Good questions. I only use Texas as an example, but it could be any state for that matter, and I think that your question still stands, regardless of the state, and regardless of the states current political affiliation. I think secession based on existing party lines is a recipe for disaster. I personally think that secession based solely on fiscal obligations could work, as long as it did not follow party lines. I don't know all of the details of how it could work, but that is the background that I am coming from.
Wow, you and Linda are on a roll today aren't you!
Is it my financial situation that upsets you? The only reason I bring it up is that I could leave if I wanted, though I would rather see a peaceful compromise here in the US. Will I see that compromise? Probably not…not with people like you or Linda spreading hate and propaganda. But that is OK, at least I am not stuck here. Will I leave? Most definitely.
Arrogant "upper cruster? Nah, I was raised in a very poor family, I had to work hard to get where I am today. Nut case? Aside from my prediction of the Lions in the SuperBowl, I am perfectly sane. Drunk? Nope, I stopped drinking a few years back. So I guess that just makes me a normal guy who happens to disagree with you. Huh, imagine that, someone who disagrees with you, but is still willing to accept you and your views even if I don't agree with them. There is a lesson to be learned here in human interaction and humility for you and Linda.
Understand something, dude: Unlike you who bravely spouts sedition anonymously on the internet because you can't have your way politically, I love my country. Warts and scars and bad behavior and all. Right or wrong. Left or right. I love my country whether Al Gore or George Bush or John Kerry or George Bush or Barack Obama or John McCain or Barack Obama or Mitt Romney had been elected POTUS. As I said in my original post in this thread, allowing secession is the path to national suicide and anarchy, and I will support my country in dealing with any disgruntled wingnuts who think to go down that route however the US feels necessary. If you don't like that, well I really don't care. Get it?
There is and can be no compromise on secession. There wasn't in 1861, and there isn't today. The issue was settled in 1865, so your choices are stay and make the best of it or leave peaceably for some place that suits you better. If you try something else, then c'est la vie. I hear smart bombs are quick and relatively painless.
Lincoln knew that, by law, the south had a legal right to secession.
He just didn't care. Right or wrong was so blurred in that conflict.
Lincoln was responsible for the single largest executive power grab in the history of our nation. We settled the secession question in April of 1865. We also ended any legal dispute when the 14th amendment was ratified.
There are those who will argue that we didn't have 3/4 of the state's ratify it. But to the winners belong the spoils, and they also write history.
Every person today has grown up with a government that doesn't allow secession.
Nope.
There was absolutely no mention of the right to leave the Union in the Constitution nor any process to legally allow a state to leave. If the Union was NOT meant to be perpetual, why wasn't there a process to allow that to happen? Did all those great thinkers figured out how to allow new states to join the Union just forget???
There was also no court case supporting the right of any state to leave the Union.
Furthermore, since there was no process specified, the only way the Union under the US Constitution could be dissolved was by the will of "the people", ie some kind of national referendum or a vote in the US Congress. The total non-slave population in the US in 1860 was 27.5 million, of which 5.5 million lived in the states that voted for secession. "The people" weren't voting for secession even if it had been put to a vote.
Where, exactly, did this ephemeral unilateral right to leave the Union come from?
Understand something, dude: Unlike you who bravely spouts sedition anonymously on the internet because you can't have your way politically, I love my country. Warts and scars and bad behavior and all. Right or wrong. Left or right. I love my country whether Al Gore or George Bush or John Kerry or George Bush or Barack Obama or John McCain or Barack Obama or Mitt Romney had been elected POTUS. As I said in my original post in this thread, allowing secession is the path to national suicide and anarchy, and I will support my country in dealing with any disgruntled wingnuts who think to go down that route however the US feels necessary. If you don't like that, well I really don't care. Get it?
There is and can be no compromise on secession. There wasn't in 1861, and there isn't today. The issue was settled in 1865, so your choices are stay and make the best of it or leave peaceably for some place that suits you better. If you try something else, then c'est la vie. I hear smart bombs are quick and relatively painless.
I can't have my way politically? What does this have to do with politics? Have you read any of my posts? To me, this is all about MONEY, not politics. It is not a democrat or a republican thing, it is a government and future planning thing that crosses ALL party lines! So no I am not sitting on the internet anonymously spouting sedition, however I can point you to someone who is on the internet anonymously spouting their opinion with hostility.
And as I said in my original post, this is all your opinion, which you are entitled to. Just because you think something that does not make it fact. You think it is a path to national suicide, and you are entitled to that line of thinking. Do you know for a fact that it will be national suicide? No, you don't. Just like I don't know for a fact that secession will work the way that I would like it to work. I have my opinion and I share it, but I don't go around spewing it like it is fact because I realize that 1) I don't have all of the answers, and 2) I cannot predict the future so I can in no way state my opinion as fact. If my posts have come off as me stating fact, then reread my last sentence and understand that it is not my intention. The thread was based on secession. I peacefully provided my opinion, and your forcefully provided yours.
And for the record, "dude", I do not need to "understand" anything from you. You love your country, good for you. Guess what, I love my country too, and to imply otherwise shows your ignorance as you know noting of me, my situation, or any sacrifices that I may have made for my country.
It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that a vote for secession in Texas would be opposed at the very least by 41% of the population and if history is to be our guide, that 41% along with those counties that voted overwhelmingly for Obama would undoubtably mount a secession movement of their own seeking reinstatement into the union as the western counties of Virginia did in 1860.
So what would be the response of the secessionist government of Texas do? Let these vast and economically viable counties go? Would the secessionist government cede the Port of Houston to the U.S. or would it enforce it's majority rule on a minority? Inquiring minds want to know.
When the South attempted to secede, portions of several states refused. That's how we got West Virginia, but even in places like North Carolina there were counties that refused to join the confederacy. Tennessee was literally brother against brother, as members of a single family enlisted in opposing armies.
Lincoln knew that, by law, the south had a legal right to secession.
He just didn't care. Right or wrong was so blurred in that conflict.
Memphis, they say that hope springs eternal but waiting for you to substantiate one of your post is getting as close to an eternity as I can stand.
Lincoln was responsible for the single largest executive power grab in the history of our nation. We settled the secession question in April of 1865. We also ended any legal dispute when the 14th amendment was ratified.
Do I need to point out the red herringness of your post?
Quote:
Every person today has grown up with a government that doesn't allow secession.
I hate to break this to you, but every person who has ever grown up with "this government" knows that secession there is no mechanism for secession under the U.S. Constitution which must be based upon the Compact Theory of Union, a theory that was rejected by three Supreme Court decisions, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); was dismissed in Justice Joseph Stories Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Sen Daniel Webster during his debate with Sen Robert Hayne; rejected when Jefferson and Madison submitted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution to the other states, and was close to be put to the sword by Pres. Andrew Jackson all long before the South's futile attempt 150 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
