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

502 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.

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

@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

@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

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 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.

jimparks305
jimparks305 like.author.displayName 1 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.

rutoft64
rutoft64

From the first grade I was taught we have open elections the person that wins is the winner. You or nobody else has had there rights trampled on not now or ever in America. I will defend America form ALL its enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I stand by my oath and it was not one different then yours. If you ever even took one. It sure does not sound like it. As long as America has a democratic elected Government. I do not care if it is socialist or captilest. It is America. I will fight for America and what it has done for me my and family. Your words  ( submit ) ( trampled ) ( socialist ) they are just some more of a bad loser. Can take it. A bad party. Don't you think it is time grow up and face things. If you want to chang it, run for office. I bet you lose. Other wise go to Canada like you said you would. Canada man I just might go with you. Good fishing up there. But befor I go. Go on you tub bring up the Bettles song,( I am a loser ) and listen to the words.

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins

@rutoft64 "From the first grade I was taught we have open elections the person that wins is the winner."

They call this brainwashing. Everybody knows that the person who wins is a loser.

rutoft64
rutoft64

Oh so i have been brain washed? Well that is good to know. Now when my team the Vikes lose I can go up to the window in Vagas tell them that they have been brainwashed and that the team that won, lost. Man am I glad you informed me of this. 68 years d-- I have been taking it the wrong way!!!

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins

@rutoft64 No. You can't go up to the window because there is no "you" in team. There is "me" however. Unfortunately, "me" can't go up to the window either because that would be grammatically incorrect.

EricClausen
EricClausen like.author.displayName 1 Like

you sir, are blind by the massive cover up by the Bilderberg Group. you like all media have been muffled and hog tied from spilling the trueth like YOUR JOB requires you to as a journalist. to b e open minded not one of the sheep. Shame on you, the founding fathers are rolling in thier graves on the garbage you print

railus44
railus44

What a bunch of loonies! It was too hard to find a comment that brought real sense to the argument. No wonder Congress can't arrive at reasonable agreement over the things that concern us as a NATION. There are too many who think they'd be better off with 40 or 50 separate ones, too many who know for sure how much better off they'd be if we weren't the United States of America.

Not that all this squabbling is new. Try reading about the Great Depression years, the years during and following two world wars!

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins

@railus44 Come now, surely my comments bring real sense to every argument by redefining sense itself.

awenshok
awenshok

Apparently, those who can neither spell nor own a dictionary wish to leave. OK. 

moreoveridontgiveafvckboys
moreoveridontgiveafvckboys like.author.displayName 1 Like

If they don't like the USA, then the mostly WHITE petition signers should do what they tell others who do not like it here: Go back to where your ancestors come from (in this case EUROPE!!!!).

EricClausen
EricClausen like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@moreoveridontgiveafvckboys 

this is nothing about race its about privatised bankers taking over and the industrial military complex that WE as a country has been warned of several times before. But since its in your line of fire, NO just because you put a black man in office does not make everything better. He is not a savior of any kind he is a well documented Marxist.

coach777b
coach777b

@EricClausen @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys : "he is a well documented Marxist."

Just couldn't let this one pass. Show me the DOCUMENTS! And it seems merely coincidental that all of this uproar didn't start until Barack Obama was elected. You sailed thru eight years of "W" without a peep out of you. So  I want you to look in the mirror and repeat the following, 100 times!

"I am a racist!"

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR THERAPIST/

jimparks305
jimparks305 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@moreoveridontgiveafvckboys Nice, let's make this a racial thing.  

afatdutch
afatdutch

@jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys +1 for Jim Parks being a racist. 

jimparks305
jimparks305

@fartymcfartkins @afatdutch @jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys Farty, you're really asking a lot of an individual who came here to simply sling ad hominems, display his fear and ignorance of southern culture, and in general paint everything in sight with a very large brush.  

I've enjoyed your commentary, but have grown bored with the crowd.  See you around.

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins like.author.displayName 1 Like

@afatdutch @fartymcfartkins @jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys Better, in the last paragraph anyway... swing and a miss though (don't get me wrong, the questions asked offer a decently interesting discussion when one party decides to disagree. They're just not particularly... relevant). A bit emphatic at points, but sometimes this is a good thing. You adopt a bit of a standoffish attitude, though this is quite a common sight, especially when someone has to back down from a harder stance.

"why not explain how ignoring the federal government to create your own still makes you part of the union."

Well, if all the states were to "secede" and create a new government, then this new government could still be considered a union, no? It would be like a nationwide vote of no confidence across the board, but it's still technically secession. Does this make it realistic? Highly doubtful, and there would be no guarantee that the resulting institution could count for an improvement (heck, it would probably be worse). That being said, you can want something to happen a certain way while knowing full well that it probably won't. (By the way, this is not something I'm advocating. My purpose here was merely to demonstrate the potential for diverse viewpoints.) 

I'm not answering the questions that follow the quoted sentence, as they clearly don't apply to the scenario I have given you. Based upon the questions you asked however, do you think it might be fair to suggest that when it comes to secession, perhaps you do have some preconceived notions of your own? I mean, those weren't really questions, were they? Much like the question I just asked, they were closer to statements phrased as questions... when I say that, I am telling you "I know those weren't questions. Why don't you go ahead and try to tell me they were!" (seriously though, don't). It is a challenge that one issues, inadvertently (perhaps), telling us much about their viewpoint. "A is true. Tell me it's not"

Would you say it's fair to suggest you were only thinking of secession as a means to leave the union, and it never occurred to you that it could be a means to dissolve our current government? Or would it perhaps be more accurate to suggest that it has never occurred to you that "the union" and "the government" might be viewed as separable entities? Whatever the case, you were off the mark here. 

"whether it be regarding race (which again I find very likely in most cases being that so many secessionist states are in the south)"

Okay. Assume all people from the south are racist. Is there no other commonality between southerners? Is "racist" truly the only thing you think when you hear "south"? I can think of other things a number of southerners might have in common, some of them perhaps even equally offensive. I do not believe all parts of the secessionist movement lack any racial elements (indeed I believe there are strong racial factors in a number of cases, though whether they are merely byproduct or cause is another question in and of itself), but to chalk a disparate movement embodying a number of different cultures entirely down to racism? I feel to do so would be ignorant at best, and dangerous at worst (You can't combat something effectively if you're unwilling to even make an attempt to break the surface in order to understand it).

With regards to your first paragraph, I reject everything you say outright. Your argument was vague and unappealing, though the imagery of the Paultard was  vivid and moist! All this amounted to was little more than an unjustified attack. It was weak sauce. I gave you an open invitation to really lay into secessionists on the issues. I do and do and do for you, and what do I get in return? "They [insert unjustified generalization here]"? There is a difference between "They are ignorant because [insert dictionary definition here]" and "Their stance on A, B, and C clearly lacks a realistic perspective and here is why..."

Suppose someone says to you "What makes this secessionist not ignorant is the same thing that makes this ron paul supporter not ignorant. They look at reality objectively, they don't just make a knee jerk reaction based on..."

How do you explain to them that they are incorrect? What specifically about secessionists, >all< secessionists, demonstrates that they do not look at reality objectively? What specifically about all secessionists demonstrates that they make knee jerk reactions based upon "preconceived notions of self grandeur" and "warped ideologies"? If you can't point to a single specific issue you have with secession that holds true for all secessionists, then why in the world do you think anyone the least bit rational would let you get away with calling all secessionists racists, or calling all secessionists ignorant? Please justify your stance properly, or back down gracefully by means of some statement along the lines of "secessionists that think `X` should rethink their stance because `Y`".

I'd be perfectly happy with... "either or".

afatdutch
afatdutch

@fartymcfartkins @afatdutch @jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys what makes all secessionists ignorant is the same thing that makes ron paul supporters ignorant. they don't look at reality objectively, they just make a knee jerk reaction based on pre conceived notions of self-grandeur and warped ideologies, whether it be regarding race (which again I find very likely in most cases being that so many  secessionist states are in the south), foreign policy or the important role of the federal government.

you can't secede from the government without seceding from the union as we know it. Texas would become a sovereign state and therefore not part of the UNITED states. 

So if you are so keen on defining and getting more specific about terms, why not explain how ignoring the federal government to create your own still makes you part of the union. with not getting military aid, financial aid, getting taxed by the federal government or reigned in by its laws, beholden to its economy or currency, how exactly are you even related to the united states, disregarding geological placement? by those standards, canada and mexico are part of the union as well. 

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins

@afatdutch @fartymcfartkins @jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys  Well that's nice, except you're not saying anything at all now. I can easily have a phd in biology and be an extremely ignorant pompous git in some other way (or even with regards to just about everything outside of my imaginary doctorate). It's all well and good to call someone ignorant, but then you must justify your claim. Why are all secessionists ignorant? What is it about every last secessionist makes them so ignorant? Stripping bare all the generalizations and hypocrisies, all we have left that definitively all secessionists hold in common is that they are secessionists. Thus, you should be demonstrating that the act of secession in and of itself is ignorant.  You should also keep in mind that secession comes in different flavors. Just because one might want to secede from "the government" doesn't necessarily mean they want to secede from "the union", for example. 

In order to argue that all secessionists are ignorant, you must first define what it means to be a secessionist and from there demonstrate why holding such a stance is ignorant. If you start to define "secessionist" too strictly however, your argument will sound almost as ridiculous as "all black people are african americans", which is clearly not true.

As such, I would ask, why are all secessionists ignorant in a fashion that is pertinent to your point? Or are you rather basing this claim off of a group of secessionists you have seen and have merely decided are representative of all secessionists?

You can explain why certain notions certain secessionists might have are "ignorant" or "unrealistic" or "racist" or "dumb" to much greater effect than if you just start generalizing. "Squares have four sides" is a far more accurate statement than "all polygons are squares", and it is a far more relatable statement to boot.

fartymcfartkins
fartymcfartkins

@jimparks305 @afatdutch @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys I think it's fair to say that different people have different reasons for wanting secession, and to try and pigeonhole them as racists or somehow insane like afatdutch and others have done is completely unacceptable. This serves little purpose other than to cloud issues and discourage rational discourse. It is no better than saying, for example, that anyone against secession is a liberal yuppie, nor is it any closer to the truth of the matter.

"Where was the secession movement in 2008?"

While I get the point you are making here, it's not like secessionists didn't exist in 2008. It was just a matter of finding a platform with a conveniently placed microphone. After a wonderfully polar election there are plenty of disgruntled voters. They see a petition to secede, and sign it. Some perhaps as a statement. Some because they are serious. Hey, some may be outraged that a black man was reelected. But some others may be outraged that more black men haven't been elected. It doesn't matter. 

In any case, the problem I have here is that this question almost makes it sound as if the secessionist movement itself is in response to this election. It is not. It may have been hijacked somewhat by an angry electorate, which also brought a great deal of publicity, but it's certainly nothing new. 

Perhaps a better question would be "Where were the secessionists in 2007?". The answer would be "around". While this would not rule out the possibility that >a< (as in singular) secessionist might want to secede for racial reasons, it would rule out the notion that all secessionists are only seceding because a black man has been elected president. Regardless, I think it fair to say that geography and way of life probably play much larger factors.

Finally, even if we assume that all secessionists are racists, even if we hear them saying "obama only got elekted cuz he black", and so on and so forth... This merely demonstrates they are racists, which some claim to already know. There is a missing logical step from this point to "all secessionists want what they want for purely racial reasons". Unless of course the point is to just call secessionists racists, in which case, enough with the insinuations. It's time to grow up. 

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

@afatdutch @jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys Your insistence that this is a racial issue only shows your own inclination to view the world in racial terms.

As little faith as I have in the possibility of rational discourse in this forum, I'm going to at least try to explain something here, and hope you'll at least try to understand my point of view before throwing out another ad hominem or threatening physical violence against Texas to get "your" resources in this hypothetical situation. 

Before I get into that:  I do not live in Texas.  I live in South Carolina.  I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a Democrat.  I did not sign a secession petition, because I do not want South Carolina to secede.  I don't *want* Texas to secede, and I don't even think that secession would get 10% of the vote in a referendum in Texas, but I don't feel that I have any right to tell them they can't decide for themselves.  I would not support the use of violence against Texans to prevent their secession.  

For those of you who can't see beyond race and insist that the secession movement is a bunch of angry crackers with Confederate battle flags on their pickup trucks and who can't stand having a black president, just ask yourself this question:  Where was the secession movement in 2008?  

Then go have a look at a red vs. blue map of the US.  Here's one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

Now consider this:  Is it not just possible that some people in the red states took the most recent election as an indication of just how far apart the two sides have become?  Is it possible that its not about race at all, but that they believe there is such a fundamental difference in the way that people in blue states think vs. the way people in red states think that they've come to believe that there will never be a meeting of the minds, and that they'd be better off on their own?  

afatdutch
afatdutch

@jimparks305 @afatdutch @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys The petition started days after the election, so it obviously has something to do with barack obama. it wasn't started after any particular policy got signed or took effect, so it must be something general about him people don't like. It could just be sore losers being sore losers, but I don't see how by looking at Obamas record you would really throw in the towel and say you don't want to be a part of this country anymore. It just seems peculiar. 

As I said before I welcome the secession of texas, but it wont be long until we invade your country and take our oil back from you. 

moreoveridontgiveafvckboys
moreoveridontgiveafvckboys

@jimparks305 @moreoveridontgiveafvckboys Actually, let's make this an clear thing. No need to hide. The world already knows it's about race and that you're simply a lot of disgruntled racists. But I'm sure, in spite of your feigned ignorance, you know that. :)