isadore;1321568 wrote:..."Forget the Alamo"

Is that a question or a statement? Either way, I'm calling dibs on the basement of the Alamo!!!

ps: Alamo is a crossword puzzle staple. Just saying!

Con_Alma;1321162 wrote:When Texas was a Republic the agreement to join the U.S. was inclusive of their ability to leave at any time they chose.

Umm. no.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1321589 wrote:Umm. no.

Both the convention of 1845 and the final land resolution of 1850 make Texas subject to the Constitution of the UNited States of which does not explicitly or implicitly disallow secession. The ability to leace the UNion or not be restricted from doing so was of importance at the time of the resolution.

Both the U.s and Texas constitution does grant the people the ability to alter or abolish such constitutions which the above agreements acknowledged. Joining the UNited States was voluntary rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option with the intent of providing new guards to their own future security.

Con_Alma;1321607 wrote:Both the convention of 1845 and the final land resolution of 1850 make Texas subject to the Constitution of the UNited States of which does not explicitly or implicitly disallow secession. The ability to leace the UNion or not be restricted from doing so was of importance at the time of the resolution.

Both the U.s and Texas constitution does grant the people the ability to alter or abolish such constitutions which the above agreements acknowledged. Joining the UNited States was voluntary rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option with the intent of providing new guards to their own future security.

I believe the civil war disagrees with you.

IN addition the raitification of the Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island were unanimously accepted as valid. Those states’ claims to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington who presided over the Constitutional Convention and served as a delegate from Virginia.
Many many lawyers believe that the acceptance of these three ratifications (New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island) as valid guarantees all states the right to secede. This conclusion is based on the principle that whatever rights are held by some states must be held by all states. [Exceptional rights have been granted to some states in order to encourage them to join the Union. But those special rights were understood by all states already in the union at the time the states granted special rights were accepted.

It will be interesting to see what the judicial interpretations will be seeing how this constitutional interpretation has been created long after the Civil War has taken place.

Con_Alma;1321607 wrote:Both the convention of 1845 and the final land resolution of 1850 make Texas subject to the Constitution of the UNited States of which does not explicitly or implicitly disallow secession.

I'd argue that since the process to join the union is specified in the constitution while any process to leave it is not, the founders' intentions were pretty clear in that regard.

Would be neat to see if Texas is still such a low tax jurisdiction after the United States......

began ripping down its portions of the Border fence, immediately denied Texas Banks access to Fedwire and the ACH system without correspondent banking relationships, closed down its military installations, denied federal student loans to students wishing to attend Texas universities,

and on and on and on and on....

Please proceed Texas :laugh:

TX receives less than $1 for every $1 in federal revenues it contributes. I'm guessing they would do just fine mainting the current state & federal rates, especially with all the energy resources.

cruiser_96;1321583 wrote:Is that a question or a statement? Either way, I'm calling dibs on the basement of the Alamo!!!

ps: Alamo is a crossword puzzle staple. Just saying!

a statement

everyone laughs, but Texas was a country before and they're the one state that would do the best as a sovereign country again, even above California. If this were ever put to a vote in Texas, I bet a large % would be for it. Might not be majority, but 20-30%. Maybe if Texas goes it alone, they can finally secure their borders. Something the Feds are lothe to do.

queencitybuckeye;1321615 wrote:I'd argue that since the process to join the union is specified in the constitution while any process to leave it is not, the founders' intentions were pretty clear in that regard.

The point is that it's not clear and there are many opinions and views on what the intentions were. If and when a State every decides to push the judicial branch into the decision making process it will be very interesting to see it unfold.

gut;1321650 wrote:TX receives less than $1 for every $1 in federal revenues it contributes. I'm guessing they would do just fine mainting the current state & federal rates, especially with all the energy resources.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that only accounts for transfer payments. You take into account the cost of setting up a central bank, running a large scale statement department, developing a large scale military, etc. etc. and they get much more benefit from the Feds.

If this happened all of their banks would instantly be subject to OFAC and AML protocol. Texas residents would lose their United States Passport. It would not be this great thing nostalgic Texans imagine it would be. Mexico-lite is more like it.

BoatShoes;1322023 wrote:I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that only accounts for transfer payments. You take into account the cost of setting up a central bank, running a large scale statement department, developing a large scale military, etc. etc. and they get much more benefit from the Feds. .

Umm, all the things you mentioned are paid for by federal taxes, and so TX could pay for those things by continuing to assess the same sort of federal taxes. The fact that TX is not going to spend on defense at a rate greater than the next 15 countries combined would leave them plenty of cushion.

The number, which I'm sure varies a little year-to-year, was like 94% they get back. Now theoretically they come up a little short since the govt is running $1T deficits, but I bet you'd be surprised.

gut;1322125 wrote:Umm, all the things you mentioned are paid for by federal taxes, and so TX could pay for those things by continuing to assess the same sort of federal taxes. The fact that TX is going to spend at a rate greater than the next 15 countries combined would leave them plenty of cushion.

The number, which I'm sure varies a little year-to-year, was like 94% they get back. Now theoretically they come up a little short since the govt is running $1T deficits, but I bet you'd be surprised.

More like he'd be pleased.

gut;1321650 wrote:TX receives less than $1 for every $1 in federal revenues it contributes. I'm guessing they would do just fine mainting the current state & federal rates, especially with all the energy resources.

Last I looked they were at $0.94 and rising. I think secession for Texas and the Southern states is great. Don't let the door hit ya...

stlouiedipalma;1324164 wrote:Last I looked they were at $0.94 and rising. I think secession for Texas and the Southern states is great. Don't let the door hit ya...

That's the number I saw, 2010 I think. But when you consider they don't have to pay for all the govt bloat, or as much on military, they would probably be just fine without raising taxes.

gut;1324266 wrote:That's the number I saw, 2010 I think. But when you consider they don't have to pay for all the govt bloat, or as much on military, they would probably be just fine without raising taxes.

also when you consider they do that WITHOUT a state income tax.