Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2012-11-14 1:08 PM

User image

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

Apparently Texas does not have a "right to secede" unilaterally as Rick Parry thought. But they DO have a right to split themselves into as many as 5 separate states.

I think they should exercise their right, at least in part, and create 4 new states, for a total of 53 states in the United States. Why 53? Because 53 is a prime number, and after all, the pledge of allegience is to "one nation, indivisible....."



2012-11-14 1:17 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
dp

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-11-14 1:19 PM
2012-11-14 1:19 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
To these folks, I say, "Don't let the door hit you..."




(farewell.JPG)



Attachments
----------------
farewell.JPG (42KB - 9 downloads)
2012-11-14 1:29 PM
in reply to: #4498230

User image

Member
5452
50001001001001002525
NC
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-14 2:17 PM dp

You only click the submit button once.

 

 

2012-11-14 1:45 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
nm

Edited by kevin_trapp 2012-11-14 1:46 PM
2012-11-14 1:49 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Champion
6999
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
Texas tried something like this before in 1995.  setup a government for there Republic of Texas.  Never really went anywhere. 


2012-11-14 2:44 PM
in reply to: #4498231

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-14 1:19 PM To these folks, I say, "Don't let the door hit you..."

8 seconds in photoshop and I can make that say "obama!!"  

  Actually the 5 states thing is only partially true as the US Constitution would prevent it from being a reality. 

2012-11-14 3:17 PM
in reply to: #4498343

User image

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
mdg2003 - 2012-11-14 3:44 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-14 1:19 PM To these folks, I say, "Don't let the door hit you..."

8 seconds in photoshop and I can make that say "obama!!"  

  Actually the 5 states thing is only partially true as the US Constitution would prevent it from being a reality. 

While true for most other states and would-be states, Texas has a clause that allows it to do so, independently of the US congress:

Joint Resolution of the Congress of Texas, June 23, 1845

 

Joint Resolution Giving the consent of the existing Government to the Annexation of Texas to the United States.

 

Whereas the Government of the United States hath proposed the following terms, guarantees and conditions on which the people and Territory of the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, and admitted as one of the States of the American Union, to wit: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a Republican form of Government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First, said State to be formed subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments, and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption, by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and forty six. Second, said State when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navyyards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said Republic, and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct: but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third, new States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the Federal (constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. And whereas, by said terms, the consent of the existing Government of Texas is required,-Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas in Congress assembled, That the Government of Texas cloth consent that the People and Territory of the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a Republican form of Government to be adopted by the People of said Republic, by Deputies in Convention assembled, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of the American Union; and said consent is given on the terms, guarantees, and conditions set forth in the Preamble to this Joint Resolution.

Section 2. Be it further resolved, That the Proclamation of the President of the Republic of Texas, bearing date May fifth eighteen hundred and forty five, and the election of deputies to set in Convention, at Austin, on the fourth day of July next for the adoption of a Constitution for the State of Texas, had in accordance therewith, hereby receives the consent of the existing Government of Texas.

Sec. 3. Be it further resolved, That the President of Texas is hereby requested, immediately, to furnish the Government of the United States, through their accredited Minister near this Government, with a copy of this Joint Resolution, also to furnish the Convention to assemble at Austin on the fourth of July next a copy of the same. And the same shall take effect from and after its passage.

JOHN M. LEWIS
Speaker of the House of Representatives
K. L. ANDERSON
President of the Senate
Approved June 23 1845
ANSON JONES
2012-11-14 4:09 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
I believe readmission after the Civil War made that treaty a moot point. Sure we can do it, but not without approval of Congress. We can't just say "chuck it, let's form up 5 states" and immediately be recognized by the US as new states with 8 new US Senators.
2012-11-14 4:10 PM
in reply to: #4498231

Iron Donkey
38643
50005000500050005000500050002000100050010025
, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-11-14 1:19 PM To these folks, I say, "Don't let the door hit you..."

Dat's funny right thar!

2012-11-14 5:57 PM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
gearboy - 2012-11-14 1:08 PM

 "one nation, under god, indivisible....."

you missed a part there.  :-P



2012-11-14 8:50 PM
in reply to: #4498456

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
mdg2003 - 2012-11-14 5:09 PMI believe readmission after the Civil War made that treaty a moot point. Sure we can do it, but not without approval of Congress. We can't just say "chuck it, let's form up 5 states" and immediately be recognized by the US as new states with 8 new US Senators.
Actually, the Civil War has nothing to do with it. The United States never recognized the Confederacy, so no "readmission" would be necessary. There were numerous surrender agreements signed by the different armies of the confederacy. But no official surrender or agreement that the confederacy was readmitted.Texas can't secede, not because of some agreement or contract (the Constitution is not a contract) but because the US Military is stronger than the Texas Rangers...
2012-11-14 10:28 PM
in reply to: #4498741

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

GomesBolt - 2012-11-14 9:50 PM
mdg2003 - 2012-11-14 5:09 PMI believe readmission after the Civil War made that treaty a moot point. Sure we can do it, but not without approval of Congress. We can't just say "chuck it, let's form up 5 states" and immediately be recognized by the US as new states with 8 new US Senators.
Actually, the Civil War has nothing to do with it. The United States never recognized the Confederacy, so no "readmission" would be necessary. There were numerous surrender agreements signed by the different armies of the confederacy. But no official surrender or agreement that the confederacy was readmitted.Texas can't secede, not because of some agreement or contract (the Constitution is not a contract) but because the US Military is stronger than the Texas Rangers...

You tell that to Mr. Chuck Norris!   ...I'll watch from a safe distance when you tell him.  


2012-11-15 9:29 AM
in reply to: #4498741

User image

Expert
962
5001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

GomesBolt - 2012-11-14 8:50 PM
mdg2003 - 2012-11-14 5:09 the US Military is stronger than the Texas Rangers...

You go ahead and tell Josh Hamilton that whilst he wields his mighty Louisville Slugger

2012-11-15 10:04 AM
in reply to: #4498218

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
Can we just dump California & NY State and then merge N&S Dakota.  Bam: 47.  Another prime.
2012-11-15 11:07 AM
in reply to: #4499225

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise

TriRSquared - 2012-11-15 10:04 AM Can we just dump California & NY State and then merge N&S Dakota.  Bam: 47.  Another prime.

 But, but...but... what would we ever do without the two centers of the universe?



2012-11-15 8:04 PM
in reply to: #4499327

User image

Pro
4292
20002000100100252525
Evanston,
Subject: RE: Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise
mdg2003 - 2012-11-15 12:07 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-11-15 10:04 AM Can we just dump California & NY State and then merge N&S Dakota.  Bam: 47.  Another prime.

 But, but...but... what would we ever do without the two centers of the universe?

Weren't they "East & West Snobberia" on that map posted here last week?

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Not secession, but Texas has an option I think they should exercise Rss Feed