re: TEXIT Referendum Bill Is Now Official

quote:

---

So the odds of this actually happening are what, terrible? How serious is Texit?

---

Thinking about it, it is probably not very serious. Some GOP politicians are probably using this to keep their voter base motivated. Said politicians are likely well aware that this is not practical, but their less-educated voters are less likely to see it that way and are easily driven by the right words.

quote:

---

Today, it would probably pass, due to BREXIT.

---

The SNP is not willing to even hold another one until support polls at 60%. Is TEXit anywhere close to that threshold?

quote:

---

Do you think England would have fought a war in the 21st century to prevent Scottish independence?

---

Nope. They are already separate nations though.

quote:

---

Did Europe fight a war to prevent England from seceding?

---

I'm not sure why that is relevant.


To be honest I'm not sure that anything in your post about Scotland would be relevant to Texas seceding. Outside of one entity seeking to separate from a larger entity, there are almost zero similarities in the parties current relationship and situation.

quote:

---

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World— Fellow Citizens & compatriots— I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man — The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls — I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death. William Barrett Travis. Lt. Col. comdt.

---

Travis was 26 years old when he wrote this.

quote:

---

Travis was 26 years old when he wrote this.

---

Most college graduates today would struggle to read that and comprehend it.

Re: Travel in the US ....

Negotiating travel between the United States and an independent Texas should be relatively easy since there is already an example of how the United States handles regular travel between itself and a contiguous foreign country. All we have to do is look south toward Mexico.

Starting in 2014, the number of people legally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border topped one million daily. Passports aren’t even required, as the U.S. government allows Mexican citizens to use “Border Crossing Cards” to enter the United States from Mexico “by land, or by pleasure vessel or ferry.”

There is a very good reason that motivates the federal government to lower the barriers to travel between contiguous countries and itself. It’s good for the economy.

Noe Garcia, president of the Border Trade Alliance, singled out the economic motivator. “Legal border crossings at the dozens of ports of entries located along the U.S.-Mexican border significantly benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which is why the numbers continue to rise.”

However, anyone concerned about the use of passports to travel from State to State within the United States should hope they don’t live in one of handful of States that haven’t implemented the federal guidelines in 2005’s REAL ID Act. Starting in January of 2018, residents of Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington will need a passport to board any flight, domestic or international, according to new TSA guidelines. However, the States not listed have state-issued IDs that are compliant with the TSA guidelines. In addition, government-issued Border Crossing Cards and Global Entry Cards can be used.

This is all to point out that travel agreements between self-governing independent nations are common, as is the desire of nations to ease travel restrictions between those countries while maintaining high standards for security.

A great example of this is the federal Visa Waiver program that allows the citizens of certain countries to travel to and through the United States for up to 90 days for tourism or business without having to obtain a visa. That program includes Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, with nine other countries in the process of being certified.

It is reasonable to assume that Texas would readily qualify for all existing programs instituted by the federal government that lower the barriers to travel and speed the process for those who travel. This would have to be discussed, and final agreements would be part of the negotiations.

Re: the Texas/US border ....

Whether you are a supporter or a skeptic of TEXIT, there’s no doubt that you’re wondering how a border between independent Texas and the rest of the United States will work.

Some say that it will be complicated and difficult to manage, while fewer say that it simply wouldn’t be feasible. However, if you want to see exactly how easy it would be, all you have to do is look to the north.

Right above the U.S. is Canada, along with the border that keeps the two countries separated. This example alone is enough to show how a border between Texas and the United States could work.

The border between the U.S. and Canada is officially known as the International Boundary. It is the longest border between two countries globally, spanning 5,525 miles. The border that exists on land comprises two sections: Canada’s southern border, which continues to the U.S, and Canada’s western border, with Alaska to its west.

When it comes to maintaining and marking the massively long boundary, the task is left to the bi-national International Boundary Commission. Issues regarding the boundary’s waters are given to the International Joint Commission.

However, the agencies currently responsible for arranging the legal passage between the Canada-United States border are the CBP (U.S Customs and Border Protection) and CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency). While everything is handled in detail on the legal side of things, here are a few little-known facts about the international border that will surprise you.

- Along the 49th parallel of the border, there is a 20-foot divide between each countries’ forests. The border also has a “no-touch zone” that separates the two. There are a few exceptions to this zone. One of those is Derby Line in Vermont and the other is Stanstead in Quebec.

- Vermont and Stanstead are separated at the border of Derby Line with a line of flowerpots. There is even a library built on both Vermont and Canadian soil, with the main entrance located in Derby Line. While there is no entrance from Canada, patrons can enter the premises without reporting to customs by merely taking the sidewalk of Church Street, provided that they immediately return to Canada when they leave the building.

- Point Roberts in Washington is a small American town just south of Vancouver Island. However, when drawing the border, Point Roberts went unnoticed and is now separate from the U.S. As a result, students in grades 4–12 need to drive through Canada each day to get to school.

- Finally, the town of Hyder, Alaska, can only be reached through Canada. To enter, you don’t need a passport.

These are just a few successful examples of how the United States and Canada have handled their joint border over the years.

However, these facts beg us to ask the question: If Canada and the United States can successfully manage a 5,000-mile long border, how hard could it be for Texas to do the same? The answer is simple; it wouldn’t be hard at all.

quote:

---

Why would they let us? We bring absolutely nothing to the table.

---

Louisiana will provide access to the Mississippi River, enabling a huge pipeline to be built for a source of fresh water.

How do y'all respond to the constitutionality issue?

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”— Antonin Scalia, late Supreme Court Justice

Didn’t the Supreme Court declare secession unconstitutional?

The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, “So what?”

Dr. McClanahan’s attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion.

The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that he disagreed “on all points raised and decided.” The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling.

Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, “Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions.”

There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive “seal of approval” on the federal government’s policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject.

To reinforce his belief that the United States was a “perpetual union,” he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Constitution was merely an amending document to the previous Articles of Confederation, citing the Preamble to the Constitution. He then had to ignore that it only took 9 States of the original 13 to ratify the Constitution of 1787 and that, had less than 13 States ratified, it would have destroyed the “perpetual union” allegedly created by the Articles of Confederation.

To reinforce his assertion that the United States was an “indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,” Chase had to ignore the existence of West Virginia, and the agreement with the Republic of Texas upon its admission, that it could divide into 4 additional States and that those additional States would be guaranteed admission into the Union if they so chose.

To reinforce his assertion that States, upon entering the Union, gave up all rights of sovereignty and became incorporated in a single, monolithic superstate, Chase had to ignore every reference to the States as individual political entities in the Declaration of Independence, the aforementioned Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, the United States Constitution, and all intent of the framers, clearly expressed in the period.

In his zeal to confirm the supremacy of the Union, Chase ascribed qualities to it that are usually reserved for deities. In effect, he equated the Union to God and established a quasi-religious orthodoxy that requires adherence to a doctrine that elevates the federal government to godhood, its three branches to the Holy Trinity, and the judiciary as its holy priesthood.

There is no doubt that, had the States been exposed to Chase’s logic during deliberations over the ratification of the Constitution, they would have soundly rejected it and likely drafted a new Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court was not and never will be perfect. Some of the most heinous, morally reprehensible, logically flawed decisions have emanated from the Supreme Court. To imbue it with infallibility is to say that, when it upheld slave catching or when it upheld racial segregation, it was right. Yet decisions by the Court in both of those instances have been overturned.

Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the 1904 case of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, recognized that the Court could be caught up in the politics and passions of the day and render bad decisions.

“Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance… but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.”

With all its obvious flaws, some academics continue to point to Texas v. White as the “silver bullet” that handles all questions related to States separating from the Union. However, others tend to glide over it so as not to have to acknowledge its most significant problem.

Embracing Texas v. White requires one to believe the last 150 years never happened. Since 1869, the world kept spinning. Generations have come and gone, and the Supreme Court has continued to issue rulings that chip away at the foundations of Texas v. White. As the entirety of Chase’s determination is predicated on the claim that “perpetual union” is the “more perfect union” spoken of in the Preamble of the Constitution, the single ruling by the Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where it was determined that the federal government can gain no powers based on the Preamble, could utterly destroy Texas v. White.

The federal government’s position on self-determination has evolved to the point of signing international agreements, covenants, and treaties pledging to respect the right of self-determination. The same chorus of voices who declare that Texas v. White is the “end all, be all” of decisions on the matter of self-determination of the States are the same voices who declare that subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court obligate the federal government and the States to give treaty obligations, such as those dealing with self-determination, the same weight as constitutional law and argue for its application as such.

Ultimately, though, any question of self-determination is political in nature. It is not, and never will be, a judicial question.

God bless Texas!