Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • No.

    There's a Supreme Court case from the post-Civil War era that addressed whether Texas has a right to secede. SCOTUS said, basically, that the Union is an all-or-nothing deal. (Texas v White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868))

    The issue, specifically: Texas had a bunch of US-issued bearer bonds, which it continued to sell after secession. After the Civil War, some officials of the pre-secession TX government sued to recover the money raised from those bonds. The post-war TX government didn't want to give up the money -- it claimed that the sales during the Civil War were legit, because the provisional government was the legitimate government of TX during the secession years.

    SCOTUS said no. The provisional government had no legitimacy, because a state -- ANY state, TX or not -- cannot secede. The sales were not legitmate.
  • The strategy cited in TFA is interesting, but I suspect the results of the state legislature attempting to exercise its rights to split Texas into five states would be something other than the US government saying GTFO.

    /gerrymandering battle royale, to start with
  • Texas should pursue this forcefully!

    The United States has an unblemished record of honoring its treaties and obligations from the 19th century and this should be no different.
  • We must rid our nation of pariah states. Texas is not that pariah.

    I'm looking at you, New Hampshire...
  • imokaywiththis.jpg

    Really, please let them at your earliest convenience.
  • On behalf of the rest of the United States, please let this be so
  • This is silly. No state is going to seriously try to secede in our lifetimes. End of subject.
  • Don't tease me...

    On the serious side, as a californian, I've often casually wondered about our state going rogue.
  • Honest Bender: Don't tease me...

    On the serious side, as a californian, I've often casually wondered about our state going rogue.


    You can go Stone. Washington and Oregon will be going Rogue.
  • Texas going independent? That's crazy talk! Almost as crazy as West Virginia going to the Big 12.

    /College football on the main page? Really?
  • New rule for Journalists: If the answer to your headline's question-format subject can be phrased simply as "No.", don't write it as a question.

    Of course, the people of Texas could actually form an army of their own and "secede". To be quite frank, any group could do so and claim to secede, and defy the will of the Local, State, and Federal Government. However, it'd be just as legitimate as if I crowned myself the Prince of Equestria, and went around issuing official decrees based upon that. And any murder, mayhem, and crime they committed would be treated exactly thus. Murder, mayhem, and crime.

    Only in this case, it'd involve unleashing the United States Military on the American people. And they think the civil authorities are arbitrary and dictatorial?

    On second thought, Prince of Equestria don't sound half bad.

    i.imgur.comView Full Size
  • Even if it could, Do you really think a supermajority of voters (this would have to include 100% republicans and at least some democrats) would vote to secede? No. This is yet another baby-kicking-toys-out-of-crib move by whiny republicans upset that democracy actually works.
  • AverageAmericanGuy: We must rid our nation of pariah states. Texas is not that pariah.

    I'm looking at you, New Hampshire...



    I say the US should consist of ONLY pariah states, since a majority of americans voted for the pariah party. I wonder how long it would last if all productive people went Galt
  • SgtArkie: I wonder how long it would last if all productive people went Galt


    You mean if a source of perpetual energy in violation of the laws of thermodynamics existed, right? That's what you meant to say? Because that's the whole MacGuffin that makes the world of Atlas Shrugged even remotely plausible, and not an exercise in purely capitalistic mental masturbation.
  • It's sad the fine people in Austin have to endure the rest of the state.
  • I've been through San Antonio, so this would be sad as it's beautiful.

    I've been through New Braunfels, so this would be no big loss.

    But I've heard good things about Austin, so there's maybe some salvageability potential here....
  • The problem with the "division clause" mentioned in the article, which would allow Texas to break into five stated: Congress must approve any new states of the union ( just like they have to approve Puerto Rico). End of that story.
  • Creoena: On behalf of the rest of the United States, please let this be so


    Please, by all means, explain why you think this affects you.
  • What's the worst that can happen? It's not as if the South suffered a 150 year dark age.
  • I'm still down with The Whiskey Rebellion.
  • Because it worked out so well the last time you tried.
  • I think the secessionistas may be a bit surprised once their cities, with most of the wealth of their new nations, start seceding from the recently-seceded states.

    If I remember the Ken Burns documentary correctly, this was on track to happen to the Confederacy at the end of the Civil War.

    /lines on a map mean nothin', man
  • The Third Man: The problem with the "division clause" mentioned in the article, which would allow Texas to break into five stated: Congress must approve any new states of the union ( just like they have to approve Puerto Rico). End of that story.


    I would have thought the whole seceding thing would abrogate any pre-existing agreement with the US ab initio. Texas did get itself a brand new constitution during Reconstruction and I'm fairly certain the Northern writers of that constitution were alert enough to add a "no funny ideas, losers!" clause.
  • Load 25 of 214 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.