Can Texas Really Secede from the Union? Not Legally

  • Share
  • Read Later
Christopher Anderson / Magnum

Downtown Midland Texas, 2005.

It’s beginning to feel a lot like the 1860s — and not just because Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln opened nationwide this past weekend. There is a secessionist movement afoot: hundreds of thousands of Americans from all 50 states have signed petitions to secede. Texas is in the lead — no great surprise, perhaps — with ABC reporting last week that the Lone Star State’s petition was the first to get more than 25,000 signatures. It now has more than 100,000.

That 25,000 mark, which at least seven states have hit, is significant. The petitions were shrewdly placed on a White House website called We the People, which invites members of the public to appeal directly to the federal government. The site promises that petitions that garner more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days — subject to some exceptions — will get a response from the White House.

What exactly are the states’ grounds for seceding? The answers are a bit scattershot. The Texas petition complains that the U.S. is suffering economically “from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending” and throws in alleged abuses imposed by the Transportation Security Administration, which could be summarized with the phrase “Don’t touch my junk.” Virginia’s petition cites, with somewhat arbitrary punctuation and capitalization, “Corruption,Lies,and Cover-Ups.Including potential Voter Fraud.”

(MORE: Why We Need a Voters’ Bill of Rights)

Scoff if you will, but it is clear that the neo-secessionist movement is having a moment. The Drudge Report, that calibrator of the far-right zeitgeist, exulted in a headline on Nov. 14: “Secession Movement Explodes.” And articles have been appearing elsewhere online with headlines like “Is Secession the Answer for Utah?” (If it is, what exactly is the question?)

Of course, anti-secessionists are gleefully responding. Chuck Thompson, the author of Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession, has written a piece titled “Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.” In it, he argues that the small-government utopia that Texas secessionists are dreaming of — a country with weak trade unions, negligible taxes and no guaranteed health care — “already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

As the petitioning and flame wars continue, though, it’s worth stepping back and asking a basic question: Is any of this legal? Can a state actually secede from the union?

It’s a question that law professors sometimes like to ponder, but the answer certainly must be no. The Constitution, which provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away.

(MORE: Why We Are Still Fighting the Civil War)

It is often said the Civil War answered this question: that when the South surrendered at Appomattox, the idea of secession was also defeated. In fact, no lesser authority than Justice Antonin Scalia — who would probably rank No. 1 or 2 in a parlor-game bet over which Justice is most likely to sign a secession petition — has said precisely this. In response to a letter from a citizen asking if there is a legal basis for secession — a letter that it is remarkable for being answered by a sitting Justice — Scalia wrote in 2006, “[The] answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

Of course, it is highly unlikely that any of these legal questions will have to be re-examined, because for all the secessionists’ petitions, they remain a perversely small minority. Even in the states that are racking up the most signatures, governors have been quick to distance themselves from secession talk. The conservative Republican governors of Alabama and Texas have come out publicly against secession, and the governor of Louisiana — whose state’s signature total was second only to Texas’ on Nov. 14 — called the idea “silly.”

(MORE: Should a Person Be Jailed for Swearing in Court?)

In fact, just like 150 years ago, pro-union forces are starting to respond with vigor. A petition recently went up on We the People titled “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.” It has gotten more than 24,000 signatures, and counting.

MORE: The Day After the Election

518 comments
Regio121
Regio121

Exactly and thanks KyleJackson the same reasons the Union had before the invasion to Tejas and California, a lot to gain and nothing to lose. Nerveless I do not support any secession from the USA.

KyleJackson
KyleJackson

First of all if you read the Texas constitution you'll plainly see Texas reserve the right to secede (which was acknowledge by US Congress with NO retort or rebuttal)

As to @coach777b- Lets go over some numbers (since you OBVIOUSLY didn't)
1) Gross Domestic Product, Texas GDP 1.245 Trillion in 2008 (Ahead of 183 other independent nations)

2) Population, in 2010 census Texas population was in excess of 26 million people (Ahead of 117 other independent nations)

3) Labor Force, 2009 Estimate for Texas labor force stood at 11,861,400 (More than 152 other independent nations)

4) Energy, Texas Crude Oil Proven Reserves: 4,613 millions barrels, ranked 1st in the nation. When wisely used, able to last Texas another 100-300 years easily. Besides Texas Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear capabilities, Texas is a leader in wind, solar, and methane energy development and practical usage.

5) Exports, Texas exports in 2006 totaled $150.8 billion making Texas 28th Globally (Ahead of 167 other independent nations)

Potential Government Revenue for and Independent Texas
Texans paid 225.4 billion to federal tax system in 2005 (The latest year of accessible data)
Texans paid 77.5 billion in state taxes in 2008.   Combine the two you have a potential Government Revenue of $302.9 billion per year.
This would place Texas 12th in the world in budget revenues (Ahead of 183 other independent nations)

Military
The US spends 4% of its GDP on the military and defense. Applying this percentage to the GDP of Texas gives us a figure of approx. $50 billion per year, And would rank Texas 5th globally in military spending (Ahead of 190 other independent nations)

So this being said, I'm willing to bet the union has more to lose by losing Texas, than Texas has to lose by splitting away from the union.

AlexHill
AlexHill

@KyleJackson it has gotten so bad I wouldnt mind to see them secede. Beteer for them but not the US.

Shenonymous
Shenonymous

First off, here are four references in order for you to check out the information for yourself.  Looks like the Huffington Post is a wellspring of information on this topic.
References:  http://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/secession-poll_n_2147048.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/secession-obama-2012_b_2138541.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/secede-from-the-union_n_2126467.html
     The fact is that in none of the 40 states where petitions have been filed for their secession do the majority of their citizens support the action and only 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.
While the Constitution does not specifically address the question of secession, the Supreme Court regularly and consistently has interpreted the Constitution to have created a union that cannot be  put asunder, that is torn apart or put into pieces.
     FYI:  Some history of secession in the United States shows South Carolina pulled out of the union that actually was the start of the Civil War in 1861.  Texas seceded twice: first from Mexico, then again to join the Confederacy.  THere really is a longer history but this is the gist of it.  If anyone is interested a google search would produce 2 million six hundred seventy results!
     Constitutional Law professor, Rob Vischer, “The Civil War made plain that when it comes to secession, it’s really going to be about brute force.”  As a practical matter, because of the dependency on the federal government for many funded programs, not necessarily welfare programs but national defense, infrastructure, etc., chaos would ensue were secession be allowed, states would go bankrupt as all of the ones crying for secession at the moment are on the brink.  Vischer further reminds, and a very important reminder it is, that all of the secession petitions do not originate from state legislatures, nor governors, they are “just coming from private citizens — and a very small percentage of citizens in every state.”

JDFTE
JDFTE

There is no provision in the Constitution for secession? The 10th Amendment covers that - "The 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."

Therefore, if no provision is either given nor forbidden, it is in the hands of the people and state.

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@JDFTE Well, you are right and wrong... The State in question [legislation] has to vote and concur with the secession before it can even happen.  Yes, the people control opinion, but not decision.

shaggy_the_clown
shaggy_the_clown

If Texas secede I'm still moving there at some point, we'll let the states that don't secede end up being bought by China.

Funny how the civil war ties into this seeing as it was the democrats who were on the south, and the north were the republicans, and the south lost, but they are still trying to push their agenda n are somewhat succeeding due to the collapse of moral society.

AlexanderFrye
AlexanderFrye

Any state has a right to secede. According to OUR Declaration of Independance, any people that give consent to be governed, have a right to seperate from any government. To say that, no state, has that right is completely asinine. Look to the Declaration that Jefferson crafted, all of the facts with which the King of Great Britain was accused of and you will start to see what "Just powers" our government is being destructive of.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomesdestructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolishit, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principlesand organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely toeffect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration

coach777b
coach777b

@AlexanderFrye 

Asa much as I dislike Scalia, I assume he has more judicial experience than you and probably knows how to spell Independence. Should you yahoos manage to secede without getting blasted all over the landscape by the U.S.Military, what are you going to do to sustain yourselves. First, all the Black folks will leave rather than face slavery. Then the Hispanics will bail, seeing the handwriting on the wall.

All U.S. Military installations will leave after blowing up each facility. Any Federal installation will depart, leaving a consulate. You'll need a passport to leave your 'new' nation. Say Goodbye to Grandma in Oklahoma! . Texas is one of the top states in the nation that takes in more federal dollars than it puts in. That means that you'll be on your own with no Army, Navy or Air Force. Look out for Venezuela or China. We might help but you're going to have to do a lot of a***kissing to get our help.We'll put you on our list but North Korea, China or Afghanistan are ahead of you.

So I say, if your hatred for a Black President is that great, maybe you need to secede!

AlexanderFrye
AlexanderFrye like.author.displayName 1 Like

@coach777b @AlexanderFrye 

Your'e seriously giving out English and Grammar corrections on the internet... "Asa much as I..." Where ever you're getting your information from as far as Texas receiving more tax money than we give, you're an idiot. Next time try providing a basis for your claims, like this; Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $0.94 in benefits. Cite>"Texas". Research Areas. The Tax Foundation. 2010. Retrieved October 15, 2010.

Oh, and as far as military goes, try citing claims once again because you're looking even more like an idiot. Try looking to see where the world's only fifth generation jets are made and a good majority of military vehicles. Then, look here, it appears we supply more bodies to the military... http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for-recruits-army-navy-air-force


Oh and lastly our GDP ranks 15th in nation (yes, nation) rankings. Keep your racial prejudices to yourself. No one said anything that was hating a specific race or ethnicity.


seanjohn0724
seanjohn0724

@AlexanderFrye The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's a declaration with an expansion on philosophies from previous scholars. Now, this is a great document for philosophical musings, but in a nation that has a Constitution that is clearly the law of the land, no other philosophies or documents have any weight.

butsonmatthew
butsonmatthew

@seanjohn0724 @AlexanderFrye hey moron, the declaration has been cited many times in Supreme Court cases and if it weren't law it would be like citing the bible in court, it wouldn't hold up, so you can go back and correct every case that has put the "wrong people" in jail. Besides anything is legal if you're the winning side, and justice, liberty, and natural rights have and will always prevail.

AlexanderFrye
AlexanderFrye

If that was the case then our fore fathers had no right to seperate the King's land, am I right? If I'm not mistaken, that act was punishable by death under the pretence of treason, no?

See here's where you're wrong, the primary purpose of the Declaration was "to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States". In which the United States would have to prove to European powers they were not reliant on British Rule. In other words the document played a role in the United states recognition as a state hood.

mandycat
mandycat

Not to worry.   Texan wrath lasts only until the next natural disaster.  Governor Good Hair babbled about secession and mere months later was whimpering that mean old Uncle Sam wasn't sending Federal aid to fight wildfires quickly enough.  

ColBo
ColBo like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I do believe that as part of Texas joining the union last century they were guaranteed two rights

1. to divide into up to five separate states with a total of ten senators and the appropriate number of representatives. 

2.Texas reserved the right to succeed from the union and re-establish themselves as an independent republic.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

The following is not really a Part 7. I did sign a petition. However, I am not White if by White you mean WASP. It means Anglo-Saxon Protestant. If by White you mean Caucasian or Caucasoid, then yes, I guess you would be correct. Politically Libertarian, as both Democrats & Republicans give you one form of 'liberty' in exchange for embracing their voluntary form of repression. These parties were born within a generation or two of the other, and quite interestingly have kept their warped and inversely proportioned platforms. Either way, you get 50% liberty, 50% repression.

As for secession, we do in fact have manners of secession right now. It is called Values secession. Economic Success vs. Economic Failure secessions. Consequences of Lifestyle secessions. 

Taxation, by means of their policies, disproportionately helps the Democratic Party's leadership subsidize those populations who actually do live the most extreme norms and lifestyles fostered and 'protected' by the party. How? By keeping these persons (the so-called 'victims' of allegedly free-markets) immunized from many of the basic and natural consequences of these popular 15-minute instant-gratification lifestyles. In short, welfare of all sorts, including the unearned-portions of entitlements (exceeding the fair proportional contributions to the entitlement programs over the lifetime of the individual contributor's working-life, and including subsidized cost-of-living adjustments exceeding contributions).

Unfortunately, Republicans rarely take the high road when they are back on top. Most often, remembering the abuses of the Democratic administration that preceded them, they will take remaining tax revenues (after some cuts, reductions, and re-allocations to other government programs) and redistribute it to some of the losers during the preceding administration. Why?  Because it just does not seem fair to do the right thing, pay taxes to subsidize people who do the wrong thing, only to come back and do the right thing for its own sake. Turning the other cheek is easier said than done. So, Republicans rarely succeed in reforming the corrupt governance of our society in any definitive manner, as they desire some sense of fair play, and justice, when they are back on top. 

In short, we get stuck between thieves, and idiots who cannot take the high road. We cycle back and forth between disingenuous thieves, and low road idiots who refuse to stop the cycle when they get the opportunity just because it's not fair.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 6:

At some point, open hostilities will become inevitable. The federal government would want to 'send in the guard' as it were to squash the freedom lovers.

But, that is why unity and learning to form & operate de-facto governance, economies, culture, legal systems, etc. is fundamental. All leaders historically have levels of experience. All managers historically have some practical experience. 

No movement or ideology is fundamentally revolutionary. Revolutions are only felt by dissenters and loosers never by winners.

Prior to an open rift, or public declaration of independence, there should be several years or even decades in which the peoples of the freedom loving states learn the customs of paying taxes only to their own chosen representatives, and not to the federal government or other unfriendly states.

Freedom is always possible. Whether it's probable or not depends on many factors besides desire, ambition, etc.

Primarily: factors of competence, experience, maturity. Laws of order, reason, common-sense.

Entropy cannot nurture a government or its people.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 5:

Nonetheless: the Declaration of Independence; Reason; Decency; Respect for Freedom; Respect for our fellow human beings; Respect for our fellow sentient-beings; etc. all explicitly state or implicitly aim at Secession andSelf-Determination.

Should violence be used to reassert one's freedom. No. Violence, even when useful, is not constructive.

Either parties or elected representatives honor the will of the people, or the people should de-legitimize their respective dissenting government(s), whether federal, state, county, city, village, township, etc.

How?1. Run for office. Partisan. Non-partisan.2. Run for or take part in organizing, managing, etc. with other qualified people who will lead the training.3. Learn with real practice about the structure and administration of government, business, law and order, education, etc. until the people feel competent--based on objective & quantifiable feasibility, and other studies--to run a government.4. Serve: Army, Navy, Coast Guard, etc. Volunteer: Libraries, Schools, Non-Profits, etc. Learn real management.Experience real leadership. Learn to fight. Learn to trust, cooperate with, and lead your fellow citizens.5. Start coalescing into privately closed communities (cultural, economical, ethical, legal, moral, social). Start helping each other thrive. In various aspects of life.6. Start driving competitors or real dissenters (real outsiders) out of your counties and states by competitive, democratic, and socio-economic means. Start progressively but methodically cutting government programs. Start progressively but methodically cutting all dependence on federal funding and programs. Be careful. You need to remove dependence from your midst.7. Start coalescing like-minded communities. By-pass unfriendly states and the the federal government.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 4:

But, the few survivors will taste freedom proper, whether sweet or sour.

If there is anything positive, it is that other regimes around this power-centralizing world--which are fleeing the true spirit of humanism, classical liberalism, and even the enlightenment--will experience a very good lesson, and will be divided as to whether they will allow a formal structure for peaceful political secession, in the guise of preventing a repeat, and with their guile of knowing that they can subdue economically without enslaving politically. They can choose to allow the natives to do the dirty work of repression, but still have the econonomic & military dominance over the nominally 'free' citizen republics.

The Constitution, literally, may not explicitly provide a framework for secession, primarily because it was understood that states were free and sovereign (i.e. does anyone remember the necessity of the arguments against the necessity or non-necessity of including or excluding a Bill of Rights into the Federal Constitution; or, that even those rights promised under the Bill of Rights have been fought in courts for centuries, as they applied only in the 10-Sq. Mi. of Washington D.C., and even today not all of them are binding on the states which may have better or worse Bill of Rights on their own; or, that the apportionment of taxation was ever an issue, namely because the states were free and sovereign for almost two centuries; or, even the manner in which armies were raised and funded; or, a lot of other issues indicative of the true purpose of the so-called union).

We can fairly and reasonably agree that union meant a very different thing to the founders and to the people of America before the ascendancy of the northern states, their special interests, and the Republican party.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 3: 

During the next three-weeks starvation, looting, and anarchy will depopulate upwards of 75% of all urbanized &suburbanized residential-populations within a 25-mile radius of any community with a population over 15,000.

Within 4-8 months, or very soon through the first winter, most of country will be dead or starving.

Any survivors will be: pillaging soldiers; members, and perhaps the infrastructures/communities of the members--which had the time to survive and prepare in secret--and which should they succeed, would have prepared to survive the aftermath; religious or other separatists and survivalists; and, people who can either farm in relative isolation or otherwise hunt-and-gather in sparsely populated forested regions of the country.

Will true partisan, political/regional secession and liberty (not freedom) be fruitfully re-established by these violent means. Statistically: In Your Dreams.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 2:

A freedom-loving people need a lot more than violence when struggling against anygreater violence.

But, what is most relevant about the War between the States is that:1.) The leaders of the freedom-loving people chose to surrender rather than keep fighting for decades as guerrillas,assassins, etc.; and,2.) That a two-to-four (2-4) week war which the northern states planned was exhausted into an almost five (5) year travail for the sake of freedom.

With all the advances in technology since 1865, any group of real-politik, capable & competent persons (not just naive but committed dreamers) will indeed accomplish their goal.

Such a people must act as a real, but secret, de-facto government. It must collect real taxes. It must create a realeducational infrastructure.

If the group survives, within twenty to fifty years they can send an apocalyptic (divine) attack. Only one-shot will have been fired in such an attack. Only one-shot will have been needed for such an attack.

Any city with 500,000 people or more within a 10-mile radius of its central core will become extinct during that first week.

SentientBeing
SentientBeing

Part 1:

Violence does indeed settle issues. It has for the northern butchers. But only temporarily.

When it came to what was important, the northeners accorded a grand compromise, thereby becoming the butchers to the reconstructionists.

Violence 'settles' issues by both decimating the living & engendering a population of cowardly-drones. This is temporary.

Freedom always resurfaces. Freedom often changes its name, its face, its desires. But freedom always resurfaces. When it does, it comes with a vengeance. 

Freedom cannot be ultimately defeated by violence. Only liberty anesthetizes (seduces & spiritually castrates) freedom proper.

Victory is a fallacy. It lasts until either greater violence or fundamental progress leaves the former victors behind.

The War between the States only 'settled' the issue that: violence would be used effectively to keep a freedom-loving people within a non-representative union against their will. In short, that lesser (southern) violence would not defeat greater (northern states) violence.

PureRumble
PureRumble

I was shocked to find out that Ron Paul argued that this country was founded through secession and that secession should thus be regarded as one of the country's important principles.

Incorrect. The UNITED States of America was not founded via secession but UNITION. It was the solemn wish of the divided colonies to unite and stay united that made it possible for USA to be founded. Thus STAYING UNITED is and should be the outmost important principle of the country. That's a point that a certain bloody civil war was fought to underline.

jimparks305
jimparks305 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@PureRumble ... and 37 of the current states had no part whatsoever in the American Revolution.  You'll also note that the 13  colonies did not choose to become one big state.  They remained individual states, and the very first line of the Declaration of Independence, which describes what the document is, will affirm this to anyone with common sense:

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America," -- just look at it.  The word "united" is not capitalized -- indicating that it is not part of the name of a country.  The declaration is unanimous -- meaning it is made by multiple entities, each having a say in what is being declared.  There is no declaration of a new country existing.  In fact, the separation of the states is even further highlighted in this excerpt:

"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States".  

That the colonies had to unite themselves against Britain in order to successfully revolt is not in question.  But its pretty clear from the Declaration of Independence that none of the founders had any notion of creating an unbreakable bond between the colonies or of forming one new country whose sovereignty would override the independence of the individual states.

coach777b
coach777b

@jimparks305 @PureRumble 

You repugs are very selective when making your arguments. Apparently, you never studied Consttutional Law or you would have read the 'Articles of Confederation"  That document was succeeded by the Constitution. So, although you may have the DESIRE to secede you don't have the RIGHT. That would be considered an act of treason. Ask Robert E. Lee!

coach777b
coach777b

@jimparks305 @coach777b @PureRumble 

According to your flawed logic, thirty-seven states did not sign the Articles of Confederation so they have no obligation to stay in the Union.

"On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers."

Can you understand YET?

jimparks305
jimparks305

@coach777b @jimparks305 @PureRumble A)  Texas was not a party to the "Articles of Confederation".  B) Regardless of the desires of the authors of those Articles that the union be perpetual, nobody has the moral right to bind future generations to non-negotiable relationships. C) The Articles are not the law of the land; the Constitution is.

The law aside, what moral right do you feel to use force to hold Texas in the union if the people of Texas choose to leave it?

branchltd
branchltd like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Legal grounds?  The US didn't have legal grounds to break away from England. The same is true of virtually ever spearation of states and many separations of colonies from the country that owned them.  For that matter, under the Constituion, the federal government is supposed to leave authority not enumerated for it in the Constituion to the states and it doesn't really have legal grounds for a lot of what it does.  Here in North Carolina those wanting to secede don't really care about legal grounds or not.  If Texas wants to scede don't expect us to help you keep them in the union.  The same for New Hampshire, which as also voted to scede recently (but with less press because they're progressives up there).  If any state wants to secede you're going to have a hard time finding people to stop them by force.  The Civil War was extremely unpopular in the North and could not even have been conducted in this day and age.  Whether the federal government wants states to secede or not is't an issue (of course they don't they lose taxes and that means fewer jobs for worthless bureaucrats in DC), it's what the states are willing to do to secede, what the federal government is willing to to to try and stop them and whether the federal government can actually get enough popular support to put their plans into effect.  Moreover, count on many, many sympathizers in both civilian and military remaining in the US.

JayD51
JayD51

@Lilolebob That would be a bad idea for the USA. Texas is the 2nd biggest contributor to this nation's wealth. If Texas were its own country it would be the 14th richest country in the world. Texas also pays more in taxes than it takes in through benefits/welfare/etc. So it is a net-giver and subsidizes problems throughout the nation. It is also the second biggest in terms of population as well. Texas is the state that has the most Fortune 500 companies as well. Lastly it is number one state in terms of Export revenue. Finally, Texas is the second largest state in terms of land. If Texas left it would be a big blow to the nation.

JayD51
JayD51

@Lilolebob I just want to add that in the last decade of the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by more than one million jobs, more than all other states combined! And fully 95 percent of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas.With a rock-solid infrastructure (Texas is the only state in the continental U.S. with its own independent power grid) and stable political tradition, it’s also a self-sustaining player in agriculture, aeronautics, computers, energy, high-tech research and manufacturing,telecommunications, transportation and just about any other economic category to which you care to attach a dollar value.

jimparks305
jimparks305

@Lilolebob Well, your petition now has a grand total of 2 signatures.  The other signature kind of makes the joke even funnier.

Lilolebob
Lilolebob like.author.displayName 1 Like

@jimparks305 @Lilolebob  - Yes, I spent a whopping 15 minutes on it as sarcasm.  But seeing as how you are the one following it, and replying in the middle of the night, who's the joke on.

You.

When I'm on my deathbed I'm sure I'll be thinking "I wish I had argued with more people on the internet."

jimparks305
jimparks305 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Lilolebob Looks like you're the only one who's signed your petition, Bob.  Let's look at your silly little tirade masquerading as a petition:

"1- There are 21 US Military Bases in Texas. Texas is the 3rd largest recipient of military expenditures. These expenditures would be distributed among the states receiving the military bases and personnel."

Considering military bases as a goody to be distributed to favored states is a part of the problem.  Texas is not the "recipient" of US military expenditures.  It may be a state where much of the money is spent, but its not like those expenditures are some kind of gift from the US to Texas.  Also, before you can start redistributing that tax money around to other states, you'll have to deduct all the taxes paid to the US by Texans, because obviously, after you kick them out, they won't be paying federal taxes any more.

"2 - Companies with headquarters in Texas that wished to do business with the United States would move to other low tax states as New Hampshire or Delaware."

Oh, you mean like all those other foreign companies that do business with the US, like Foxconn, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and Toyota?  Like those?

"3 - Two-thirds of the US/Mexico border is located in Texas. This would save the US taxpayer huge amounts in immigration and border security. Building a fence along the remaining 7 miles of Mexican border would be an easy affair."

Ignoring your ignorance of arithmetic and geography for the moment, won't you just have to reroute your fence around the Texan borders with New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana?  Wouldn't want those tantrum-throwing Texans trying to sneak in, now would we?

Fortunately, your use of the White House web site as your own personal ranting forum will be short-lived, as there is no chance you'll get the signatures needed to be taken for anything more than the ridiculous joke you are.

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

i think all us petition signers should organize a coup and get rid of the democrats and their unions. i am willing to raise arms against thr usa to defend my interests are you

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@MichaelStewart Dude, you look like you are 12 (from your pic).  Here is one for you (since you do not understand what Democracy is...).  It is the equal rights and distribution of these equalities to the people.  Republican is, in short, taxing the poor and making the 1% (rich people) and trying to have City-States led by money, not rights.

With that said, pay attention in your social studies class....

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@DerekElliott @MichaelStewart  Actually i do know what democracy is. It is a tyrannical government based on the majority. I do not support democracy because peasants have no knowledge how to rule.  When I do vote I always vote republican because I support the wealthy class.  Wealthy are wealthy for one reason they are smart with money. They do not waste their money on drugs, alcohol and others vices. They prioritize money. The poor hate the wealthy because of their success and feel that the wealth should be given back to them.  You have a choice of whether to be rich or poor.  I like the Regressive tax policy the USA has.  The poor use more services so should have to contribute more to their society. Maybe you should take a few American government classes.  Oh but wait you are an Ignorant Liberal,  Liberals do not have the ability to learn new things and like leaching off successful people like myself.

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@DerekElliott @MichaelStewart  I am 35 years old and I do not agree with democracy. I am a fascist. The USA needs a dictator like Bashar Assad or Vladimir Putin. Yes Vladimir Putin is not technically a dictator but if he ran for office here he has my vote as would Josef Stalin the greatest leader after Czar Peter the Great and King Henry VIII

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@MichaelStewart @DerekElliott Well, as stated above, you are trolling.... Not a crime, YET.  
First off, a 12 year old cannot vote.  And your understanding of democracy is way off.  The point is not have TYRANNY, unlike Republica.  Asians, Jews, Indians and alike are rich, and we see how successful their country is; they need and ask for support from the USA.  Why should I have to take anymore government classes, I am a sociology(PhD) physics(BA) and Social Studies(Masters) high school teacher.  I stay well apprised of foolish and frivolous rhetoric, especially from people who boot their wealth.

A great book written in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations might make an excellent extra credit opportunity for you in the Junior High you attend.

jimparks305
jimparks305

@MichaelStewart Absolutely not.  What you are advocating is the overthrow of the US government by force or violence, and just printing or publishing what you have posted here can get you up to 20 years in prison and bar you from getting a passport, serving in the military, voting, owning firearms, etc. for the rest of your life.  My advice to you is to cool off and very carefully consider the possible consequences of your actions.  Its one thing to debate whether states have or do not have certain rights under the Constitution; its quite another thing to call for armed uprising and violent revolution.

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@jimparks305 @MichaelStewart  I do advocate the overthrow of the US government and have been planning so for years.  Lets the feds try to stop me.  My plans are not in writing so they will not have evidence.  The usa will be a failed state by the end of my lifetime 3000 years from now.

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@DerekElliott @MichaelStewart @jimparks305  I attend Houston Community College for your information.  I have a 4.0 for a GPA. I was educated in MA. I can speak Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, French, Italian, Hindi, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Polish.  My family background consists of scientists and engineers. Not pathetic ghetto teachers like yourself who have no ability to think for yourself.  You must love being a plaything for your teachers union. Another communist creation that brings tyranny to hardworking people and destroy businesses.

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@MichaelStewart @DerekElliott @jimparks305 Again, I can tell by your grammar and punctuation that you are still a teenager....

However, I have HISTORY papers to grade.... This is for you (hence why I know you are a liar and not in college)

“It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”

Aristotle: (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.


MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@DerekElliott @MichaelStewart @jimparks305  I live in Texas. I learned about fascism on my own.  I use to be put in groups where I learned to hate democracy. For example my group would be asked where we wanted to go for dinner. I would say I want Japanese everyone else wanted to go to McDonalds.  I hate fast food so I would start threatening my group mates to try to get them to change their vote. As they would not change their vote I would simply get into trouble in order to sabotage the entire group.  This was when i was a teenager. Now I do not involve myself in groups as I do not want the hassle. I learned this tactic after reading biographies on Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, and adolf Hitler. I learned if I do not like what the group agreed on I will attempt a coup de tate as I will  get what I want

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@MichaelStewart @DerekElliott @jimparks305 You are a fascist?  Yeah right, you do not even know what it means..... but you play one online though!

You also boast these KNOWINGS as though you read it from The Anarchist Cookbook (I implore you to buy it, the USA will track you down no matter where you on this planet) and not something acquired from college studies.  You may know how, but having the machines and containment to do such and stabilize the otherwise volatile minerals... oh wait, you know this..... oh wait, I see the fallacy here, you are 13 (teenagers know it all anyhow)

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@DerekElliott @MichaelStewart @jimparks305  Actually my kind normally lives 3000 years.  It is nice you have  a physics degree. I am a Political Science Major in College.   I am also a Fascist.  In my spare time I study Nuclear technologies. I know how to extract Uranium using Nitric acid, I know how to make Nitric acid,  I know how to enrich Uranium using Hydrogen flouride. I know how to build cenrtifuges, and I also know how to lace the explosive with Cobalt and Barium Nitrate to intensify the damage

DerekElliott
DerekElliott

@MichaelStewart @jimparks305 Well, I see that you appreciate the pursuit of Life Extension... Inspiring to live beyond 3000 years...  Incidentally, this is my BA Physics Degree; Biological Physics: Life Extension Sciences 

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@jimparks305 @MichaelStewart the patriots called for arms and violent revolution in 1776 against my family. i have a vendetta against the usa. if texas does not form an army to overthrow the usa and to destroy israel i will do it myself. at least i will have nuclear weapons as i am learning to mine, extract, and design nuclear material. i have no loyalty to the usa i am loyal to Russia.

MichaelStewart
MichaelStewart

@jimparks305 @MichaelStewart  For the record I traveled to Sao paulo Brazil this year with no problem. The USA cannot stop me from doing anything. I am beyond the reach of this horrid country.


jimparks305
jimparks305 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@MichaelStewart @jimparks305 At this point, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in any case, welcome to every watch list in every US security agency.  Don't be surprised if you have a hard time getting on airplanes.

For what its worth, I haven't come across anyone advocating the secession of Texas so that they can form an army to destroy Israel.  But thanks for bringing a total nutjob perspective to the discussion.