Texas to monitor U.S. military, fears hostile takeover!

Post Reply New Topic

The states chose to relinquish thier independence to the federal government through pursuing statehood, this is an implicit part of statehood, there doesn't need to be a law-- to succeed would be to assume autonomous authority, which has already been nullified by agreeing to statehood in the first place. Proof: the Civil War-- you want to secede, the federal government doesn't have to allow it. That's the precedent and therefore the de facto law. Don't like the terms, then don't agree to statehood in the first place.

As for Texas specifically, if they want to go it alone so be it-- the combined economic weight of the remaining 50 states (*wink* to u Puerto Rico, we just had an opening on our roster) would crush them. No need for war, pure economics would hobble them to a minor blip of a nation. It behooves no one in Texas to agree to that, it's a fantasy for politicians to bandy about when they need red meat. Likewise, it's not good for the other 49 states either, but much less significant for the combined United States than it is for Texas. I'd give it 20 years and you'd either have Texas begging to come back or a flood of illegal Texans crossing the borders. Texas is far from what makes America great, we merely tolerate it.

And before I get wild ass claims about what Texas is like-- I lived in Texas for about a year, a year too long. You're right, it's friendly, like cavemen could be friendly-- once you get past the primate chauvinism you understand they're actually trying to be nice, they just haven't evolved the empathy tools yet.

The existence of the United States came about by American colonists seceding from the Kingdom of Great Britain. The principle of secession is part of the U.S. identity. Moreover, the United States and its government were a creation of the states to serve them and their citizens, not the other way around. It would appear, then, that the states hold the moral high ground absent a constitutional provision against secession. So, is there such a provision?

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is explicit insofar as it provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supremacy Clause provides that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The key phrase within the Supremacy Clause is "[l]aws […] made in pursuance thereof[.]" In other words, laws must be constitutionally permitted or required. The Constitution delegates enumerated authorities and powers (Art. I, Sec. 8 ) to the federal government. The matter of secession, let alone the word appears nowhere in the Constitution. So, it is not a constitutionally delegated matter, and any simple laws enacted about it would exceed the delegated authority of the Congress. Consequently, the various U.S. Supreme Court opinions about the fringes of secession (not the matter itself) would, likewise, appear to argue constitutionally moot points. So, no. There appears to be no such provision against (or for) secession. See negative-rights in my previous post.

So, not only does explicit law trump implicit law, the Tenth Amendment would need to be repealed or amended beyond the only interpretation it has ever known before its provisions could be ignored.


"The Civil War did not 'settle' the issue. [...] Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment" ( https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/3- ... -secession ). It is interesting that the Congress never adopted a formal Declaration of War during the Civil War. Doing so would have recognized the legitimacy of the seceded Confederate States of America; something the Congress was loathe to do for legalistic reasons. You might actually want to read my references as they really do relate to the discussion.

Another very good description of this matter suggests that "[n]either the Framers nor the ratifiers believed that the Constitution created a 'consolidated nation' as [U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph] Story suggested. It was argued in all state ratifying conventions that the opposite was true. The Union was made 'more perfect' but never consolidated. The States still had all powers not delegated to the general government, as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly illustrates, and every State proposed a 'Tenth Amendment' in their suggested bill of rights in the months after ratification. John C. Calhoun wrote that, 'I maintain that sovereignty is in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square, or half a triangle, as of half a sovereignty.' In other words, delegated powers were still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation. Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part. If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... sion-legal ).

First, your initial argument that the federal government arose from the original states is correct, they all agreed to hand over their power to the new federal authority-- they chose to hand it over, they can live with it. Second, every other state in the nation could have stayed a territory if they so chose, but they all chose to cede their autonomy to the federal government because of the perks and benefits. As for a little history, the states tried independent autonomous government, it was called the Articles of Confederation. It failed....miserably. Hence the reason they all chose to cede their autonomy to the federal government, by ratifying their statehood bill.

Also, the 10th amendment can't be applied in the case of secession since to secede assumes autonomous powers, i.e. powers of diplomacy and negotiation with foreign states which is implicitly given to the federal government. Therefore it's not covered by the 10th amendment, never was, never will be, but keep smoking that pipe cause it sounds like it has some high quality chronic in it.

As for the Civil War, it did settle the argument, conclusively I might add. You can tout all the legality you want, when the tanks start rollin' the laws you're touting are just pieces of paper and will not provide enough protection from the drones, tanks, and ground troops. That's what de facto is: regardless of everything else, this is what happens. That's why the Civil War was conclusive-- it doesn't matter what legality the federal government has or doesn't have, it matters on how they act and they've set precedent that they will invest every resource available to preserve the union, right or wrong.

As for anything with a John C. Calhoun quote in it, I don't need to read it, just like I don't need to read anything by Thaddeus Stevens. Once you've read a single paragraph from either man you realize that they're not concerned with right/wrong, legality, etc, they're concerned with rabble rousing which has no place in an honest discussion.

Personally I think Texas should give it a go, but that's just for my own personal gain: so when they get their asses handed to them I could come back here and say, "see I told ya so".

^^^ Do you really think they would send in the army to shoot at their own people, in this century?
If the people of Texas or another state have a referendum and they vote for independence, why stop them? I think if people from a region or state vote for independence it would be undemocratic to stop them. Look at the Scotland refendum, I'm pretty sure the English would not have sent in the tanks if the vote had gone the other way. If you cannot even democratically leave the union, you are more or less a colonial in your own country.

Exactly. Apart from insulating a seceded state's laws from U.S. influence (the only real reason secession would actually occur), what would change? With what nation would that state most likely do business? That's right: the United States, both collectively and individually. Just like trade with the Kingdom of Great Britain continued after the Revolutionary War, trade between a seceded state and the United States would be a known market and a ready customer. And, with NAFTA being what it is, there would, over time, be little nor no excise tax applied to the trade transactions. So, again, what would change? Sure the U.S. government would lose some taxes from the state which would otherwise pay to it. That is all.

As with your Scotland example, there were plans within the U.K. and the Scottish government to change little of its status quo. Sure, there was talk about Scotland's oil reserves, but shifting ownership of those reserves to Scotland wouldn't have changed much because the existing primary customer (the United Kingdom) would probably remain. The same is true with any seceded state in the United States.

Depending who is in leadership yes I do. They might do it to prove to the Russians or ISIS or Iran that the US is not going to fall apart or to send a message that the US leader is tough or insane. Also you may get leaders that loathes libertarians. It would take the trend towards zero sum game politics to its logical conclusion.

END-GAME REALITY: More than 100 million Americans own more than 300 million firearms. To phrase it another way, we surround them. Unless the anti-secessionists were to use drones and missiles against their own citizens (thereby unmasking their real intentions and provoking a multinational war with those nations that would likely oppose such actions against indigenous citizens), any likely military action would be limited to light arms (a "shooting war"). In that case, the secessionists, their supporters and their arms would quickly and easily dwarf the U.S. military with its 1.4 million active-duty military service members (which includes all the Pentagon desk jockeys). Even if some U.N. service members (who have never been very numerous) were included, the total number might (generously) double to 2.8 million though the real figure would likely be a fraction of that number. That is still a far cry from the number of those who would likely defend the right of a state to secede. In fact, only 1 in 20 firearm owners would need to stand with the seceded state for it to be adequately defended. It would be a turkey shoot. U.N. member nations would certainly know that and find a reason to be busy that weekend. The U.S. military knows this, too. And, we haven't even mentioned the percentage of law-enforcement officers and military services members who would refuse to engage their own citizens. Anecdotal evidence suggests it could be as much as two-thirds of active-duty officers and service members. And, yes, the U.S. military knows this, too.

If the US government wanted to put pressure on the seceding state, they could refuse to do business with them, thus starve them out.

That situation might change, if the seceding state lays siege, then attacks federal property, as the Confederacy had done with Fort Sumter. Never underestimate the power of nationalism. Then there's the simple matter that not every American is going to support secession, and in fact would be p*ssed off to no end that a disgruntled state would want to leave the union.

Quite right. But, we are very likely debating angels, pinheads and such, after all. There are, indeed, many permutations of outcomes should the federal government choose, once again, to attempt to annihilate some of its own citizens (employers). Those who believe that their very existence (and that of their precious iPhones) is owed to the state will likely oppose those who read the Founders and understand their intent was clearly otherwise. The American firearm owners I described would, almost to a person, be members of the latter camp. That is significant, and those who oppose such a political reality know it well. They knew it especially at Bundy Ranch last year when their armed federal officers turned tail and ran. Remember that the officers were pointing their rifles at the protestors, but the protestors, while armed, were not presenting their firearms. That is huge in this contemplation.

Absolutely they would, and for the same reasons they did in the Civil War-- to affirm federal authority over the states. From a purely political standpoint any sitting president that had a state secede would be required to reign in said state or show complete weakness and ineffectiveness as head of state. Furthermore if one seceded it could embolden more, and if we know anything about the federal government we know they love to fight wars based on domino theory. As far as public outcry I don't think you'd see much of it-- said state would immediately be branded as traitorous and dangerous, just as in the Civil War. When a populace is scared they'll accept all kinds of specious arguments. Also, if it's Texas specifically, well, there's no love loss among the citizens of most states and Texas so you'd have a lot of people wanting the federal government to put Texas in it's place. So yeah, I do believe bombs would drop and people would die-- it's happened before it'll happen again.

It's not like we're that much more sophisticated than 150 years ago, all our technology and gadgets have done is pacify us, not made us smarter-- Texas even considering secession is an example. If the politicians of Texas were being honest with their constituents they'd mention that secession comes with a financial penalty, Texas is a state that for every dollar they give in federal taxes they receive about a dollar and a half of services back. So if the people of Texas want the same services they'll have to pay more, or they could pay the same and receive less services. Also, they'd have to invest in a military which would be more expensive to operate than the US federal government based solely on the laws of purchasing power. Said army would be second flight too since the US federal government would never allow a belligerent nation bordering them to share in their military technology. And again, this is all assuming there's a president in office willing to be weak enough to allow it to happen which will never be the case, not even Jimmy Carter would allow it to happen.

Whether a state adopts an ordinance of secession, the federal government, per Texas v. White (1869), would likely continue treating it as a state that is part of the Union. If the state does not try to enforce its borders against free trade with other states as well as free movement of persons, does not attempt to interfere with the enforcement of federal law, does not try to forcefully remove federal military bases, etc., then the status quo would likely be maintained.

I'm pretty sure the feds monitor the states, so it's fair enough when a state monitors the feds.

Utah has a history of monitoring, restricting and standing up to the federal government. They haven't bombed us yet.

Disagree, despite whatever intents both parties had at the beginning to limit the war, this one would end up nuclear. Their is plenty of precedent for escalation creep once the fighting starts. An estimated 618,222 died the last time, because of technology this would be far worse. That is why a civil war is unlikely to start not a reason to be optimistic if it did.

The crowd gathered at the Bundy ranch hardly constitutes the best of America (tax cheats, racists, clinical paranoiacs, etc.). And as I understood it, the feds hadn't taken action not because they "turned tail and ran" in the face of so called patriots, but because they hardly wanted to be painted as the bad guys if they clashed with lunatics, as they had at Ruby Ridge, and Waco.