What If Texas Decides To Exercise It's Rights?

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,281
Before Texas was a state it was a separate country. In the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, which was approved March 1, 1845. The United States Congress granted rights to Texas no other state has. Texas, without the approval of Congress, can on its own, separate itself into five separate states. Yes, that's right. Imagine Texas adding 8 new Senators to the Senate and a number of new Representatives to the House. It's all in the resolution:

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, 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 government, --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 navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the 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 provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the 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 shall 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.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

I wonder how far out of her ass Nancy and the Squad will jump on the news?:D
 
^^^
Translation: I'm gobsmacked by my lack of historical knowledge.:D:rolleyes:

Real Translation: you're a whiny bitch who wants to change the country completely because you don't like who's in charge
 
Texans love being Texans. Absolutely LOVE it. Why would they voluntarily choose to become residents of "One-Fifth Texas" instead?
 
Real Translation: you're a whiny bitch who wants to change the country completely because you don't like who's in charge

Translation: I'm still gobsmacked, and have to attack the messenger for suggesting a possible opportunity to create four new Red states, which would cramp my anus beyond repair.:D:rolleyes:
 
Texans love being Texans. Absolutely LOVE it. Why would they voluntarily choose to become residents of "One-Fifth Texas" instead?

Possibly in order to protect their freedom from totalitarian communists posing as Americans.
 
Translation: I'm still gobsmacked, and have to attack the messenger for suggesting a possible opportunity to create four new Red states, which would cramp my anus beyond repair.:D:rolleyes:

Lol.....sure
.that's what your doing.

Werent you bitching about Democratic power grabs?


Yet here you are....wanting to do the same fucking thing because youre a whiny little bitch

#grievancePorn

It would break up the country.....rather than actually do what you're suggesting.
 
Lol.....sure
.that's what your doing.

Werent you bitching about Democratic power grabs?


Yet here you are....wanting to do the same fucking thing because youre a whiny little bitch

#grievancePorn

It would break up the country.....rather than actually do what you're suggesting.

We have to play by their rules.

#FightFireWithFire
 
"We must make America Great by destroying it and everyone I don't like inside it!"

Trump 2024(tm)
 
No state holds a legal right to secede from the union. That Texas holds such a right is a common trope, but untrue.

Texas v White, 1869.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

(Texas v. White is also interesting because it clarifies the relationship between the "State" and the "State Government" and established Federal dominion as a "State" being a perpetual part of the "United States" regardles of any act by the "State Government".)

They (along with several other states) do hold the right to divide themselves into up to for smaller entities, but again, with approval from the Federal government, and that approval is more around the method, boundaries, and the division of assets and liabilities. (i.e. Texas couldn't split into West Texas and East Texas and stick East Texas will all the federal obligations/liabilities.)
 
No state holds a legal right to secede from the union. That Texas holds such a right is a common trope, but untrue.

Texas v White, 1869.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

(Texas v. White is also interesting because it clarifies the relationship between the "State" and the "State Government" and established Federal dominion as a "State" being a perpetual part of the "United States" regardles of any act by the "State Government".)

They (along with several other states) do hold the right to divide themselves into up to for smaller entities, but again, with approval from the Federal government, and that approval is more around the method, boundaries, and the division of assets and liabilities. (i.e. Texas couldn't split into West Texas and East Texas and stick East Texas will all the federal obligations/liabilities.)

I can find nothing in the resolution that requires Texas to obtain the permission of Congress to separate into individual states. The language in the resolution when written cedes to Texas the right to do so.
 
Real Translation: you're a whiny bitch who wants to change the country completely because you don't like who's in charge

Says the "progressive" who wants to "progress" the USA into a unitary state run by simple majority democracy so that it may shit can all those pesky civil liberties you can't stand and Venezuela the place. :D
 
I've never wanted that.

1) Kinda hard to be an ardent partisan Democrat and claim you never wanted Democrats or Democrat policy.

2) You're pro-Electoral College, Senate with a filibuster and states rights?? Since when were you a Republican supporting the power of the minority against democracy of the majority?? :confused: Your posting history STRONGLY says otherwise. You've very openly been against states rights and pro-federal authority and control, even if it's a POTUS giving congress/SCOTUS the finger and issuing edicts he has no authority to.
 
It's definitely a healthy and confident political party that's so skeptical about its mass appeal that all of its energy is directed towards gimmicks designed to enhance its ability to run things without actually getting a majority of people to agree with them.
 
It's definitely a healthy and confident political party that's so skeptical about its mass appeal that all of its energy is directed towards gimmicks designed to enhance its ability to run things without actually getting a majority of people to agree with them.

^ another lefty pretending the USA is a unitary state.

They won the majority of people in a lot of places.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/multistate.us/production/landingpages/lZO9YmOKYwcsgtGY8/body/upload-6b2219.png

Just because you don't respect American Democracy at ALL doesn't make that go away.
 
Last edited:
1) Kinda hard to be an ardent partisan Democrat and claim you never wanted Democrats or Democrat policy.

2) You're pro-Electoral College, Senate with a filibuster and states rights?? Since when were you a Republican supporting the power of the minority against democracy of the majority?? :confused: Your posting history STRONGLY says otherwise. You've very openly been against states rights and pro-federal authority and control, even if it's a POTUS giving congress/SCOTUS the finger and issuing edicts he has no authority to.

I've been for certain aspects of increasing standardizing election on the federal level and I've supported some Democratic policies which may have gone a bit too far in some aspects, but that I was ok with.

I've never advocated for removing the EC or the fillibuster.

I'm not extreme in my views. You believing I am says more about you than me.
 
I've been for certain aspects of increasing standardizing election on the federal level and I've supported some Democratic policies which may have gone a bit too far in some aspects, but that I was ok with.

Soooo you're anti-states rights. :D

I've never advocated for removing the EC or the fillibuster.

HOLY ALT-REICH WHITE NATIONALISM there Hitler.

You understand that makes you a racist white nationalist right??

I'm not extreme in my views. You believing I am says more about you than me.

Bullshit, that's why you had to come out and say so. You're a "progressive" who supports pedo-terrorist right to rampage and get violent so long as they are the same radically anti-American and authoritarian as you.


Yea it says I'm not a radical leftist authoritarian.... PROUD liberal :D
 
Soooo you're anti-states rights. :D



HOLY ALT-REICH WHITE NATIONALISM there Hitler.

You understand that makes you a racist white nationalist right??



Bullshit, that's why you had to come out and say so.

Yea it says I'm not a radical leftist authoritarian.... PROUD liberal :D

Did you have an aneurysm? you've never been anything but a dipshit.
 
Back
Top