Texas v White was a foregone conclusion. I can easily see Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz arguing the case and winning. That is winning in front of a court whose majority does not owe their position to a man whom if they found secession to be legal would be the 19th century equivalent of Pol Pot or Joe Stalin.
some states are "giver" state and would do ok, like Mass,NY and other high tax states but states like Mississippi or Tennessee are "taker" states and wouldn't survive their first environmental disaster.
In short, the study is actually pretty decent and is up front about all this but many of the media reports and summaries of it are misleading.
The "conservative" members of the court are all "FEDERALISTS." For some reason people seem to think
they are a state's rights bunch; but they each have been members of the Federalist Society or made speeches to it.
Federalists are adherents of Hamilton's views on interpretation of constitution, and sometimes of Madison's views, though Madison later changed and joined Jefferson as an anti-Federalist. The anti-Federalist promoted secession ideas,
and Jefferson played a role in trying to get two states to secede--- before he became President if my recollection is
correct. After, he would not have countenanced secession and none of the Presidents did. Anyone in that office
would have been obliged to do exactly what Lincoln did.
Federalists were for a strong central government
and with meaningful powers. E.g., President John Adams.
I like the way the movie Lincoln ends with the singing of The Battle Cry of Freedom.
"Hurrah for the Union
Hurrah boys hurrah
Down with the traitors
Up with the star"
Those who promote secession are not only being foolish as a policy matter and a practical matter, but
the are spitting in the faces of everyone who has ever served in our military and on the corpses of all who died
in service of our country.
If I was any of you i wouldn't sign those petition on the website.
I'm sure that gets your name on a few lists.
Pure fiction but an interesting read.
Civil war: Who would come out on top if the United States all declared war?
Treason is never successful. For if it is, none dare call it treason.
Sent from my Galaxy S2
Second why do you think it is foolish as a policy or practical matter? Economy wise Texas is in better shape than the U.S. in general and would probably be in even better shape without the interference of the federal government. Texas is geographically and economically larger than almost any european nation. As a practical matter Texas becoming a republic again is no less practical than Germany is.
I have worn the uniform of the United States as have many of my friends. We are American by birth but Texan by choice. While we are not advocating secession, if Texas were to secede tomorrow we are not going to pack up our families and go back to where we came from.
to preserve and protect and defend?
If you are serving for your own selfish reasons, the salary, the life style, whatever, that's fine, but you did
take an oath to Preserve Protect and Defend The United States. Advocacy of secession is utterly, completely,
and totally inconsistent with that oath, as The Constitution is what binds us together, and secession is unlawful
under that constitution--- again, Texas v White.
Now, if you want to advocate that there should be a constitutional amendment making secession possible, that is
fine. Good luck though finding 3/4th of the states to go along.
Under Article VI all treaties made under authority of the constitution are the law of the land, just as Texas v White is. So what is it about Texas v White that makes it any more binding than the over four hundred treaties made under authority of the constitution between the United States and the native peoples of North America?
Why should the annexation of Texas be treated with any more respect than say the Treaty with the Cherokee of 1791?
The United States government has a long history of unilaterally changing or withdrawing from treaties. Under what legal theory is their ability to do so exclusive?
As far as an amendment goes, I would not be surprised to see one. Over thirty state legislatures have had sovereignty issues kicked around in the last couple of years.