Well, yeah, Texas would have to recognize the gay marriages from Mexico City if they joined Mexico :)

Hey! I love Florida too....and my county also went blue. :)

Not all of Florida is backward-thinking (although evidently we all have trouble counting :blink: )

You know, when I wrote it, I have to confess, it reminded me of my porn-writing days! ;)

However, my official position is that you should get your mind out of the gutter.

Porn writing... yes please, lol :blush:

Actually...
 

Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A:
No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.

"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

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.

Source: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#texvwhite

Now, I don't want to secede, we wouldn't survive. :fastdraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2184782.html

I have to admit that this is making me rethink the idea of moving to Austin in the future. I'm curious for those that live in Texas how likely are you to stay if they really get serious about this. Quebec experienced some economy challenges when it became a near possibility (huge exodus of people and business and greatly depressed housing market for a while). I wonder how many businesses would remain in Texas if the threat of secession became more and more of a closer reality than just after hours armchair politicking.

For me, it's very reflective of the "taking my toys and going home" attitude that is popular in Texas. We lord the threat of secession over the US every time we don't like the nation's political leanings. With social media, this threat has taken on a new life. I seriously doubt half the people signing truly understand what secession means. The removal of government dollars and setting up our own infrastructure is daunting. Our economy is too global and entwined to consider this seriously. It's interesting because it seems like news media and social networks are fueling this fire. I've heard very little about it from local sources in Texas. Perhaps because the idea of secession is nothing new in Texas, so people here laugh it off. Or maybe I need to pay closer attention.

As for me, it's not going to happen so I plan on staying.

It isn't going to happen.

I love Texas - it's my home and it's a part of me. I don't like much of the politics or the christian fundamentalism, but I do love my state and feel connected to it.

It's not going to happen, but if it did, I'd have a hard time moving away.

With its huge chunk of electoral votes almost inevitably going to the Republican candidate every Presidential election, I have to say I am all for it.

Buh bye!

"Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment."


With all due respect, if I am not severely mistaken, the powers not reserved to the federal government go to the states, OR the people. Personally, I favor giving the least power to the government or governments as possible.

I agree, though, I don't want Texas to secede. I don't think that it is a good idea, to say the least.

As for Texas being solidly Republican, it is, and has been for a number of years, however, that may well be about to change, due to the demographics of the population here. I think that it is going to be a nice change, given the policies of the Republican Party towards GLBT people, and others that are not like them.

Catalonian independence vote is seen as a litmus test (Die Welt)
 

It will be a glorious day when demographics turn the state blue again. It did go for Jimmy Carter.