The last President was Texan, and I'd wager no one except Texan's thought he did a good job, so they probably should leave.

Flint your IQ keeps dropping the more you post crap like this.

Do you even understand WHY Governor Hair Gell here opened his big mouth about "suceeding" from the union (Which we can't BTW, the thinking that Texas can is an urban legend). It's cause he's trying to rally the extreemist in the republican party to try and hold back Kay Baily Huchison (R-TX Senate) from beating him in the next governor election.

He's scared of loosing to someone who has actual intelligence so he's running around jumping on soap boxes and crying "wolf" for his own petty attempt to hold onto office. You were fooled again by political grandstanding.

"Texas of course has unique history, as a separate nation which joined the Union, they have a treaty allowing withdrawal, and would set the stage for the splintering of the United States. "

Again proof that Flint doesn't know anything about Texas history. I live here, I know how everything went down. There is NO provison in our treaty that allows is to leave the union. None, zip, nada, i've read the treaty, nonthing there. That RUMOR sprang from an interperation that if that US didn't fulfill it's promises to the state of TX in terms of the Anexation act passed by congress. If congress didn't pass the act we wanted a way out of the deal.

But congress DID pass the act of annexation and the terms of the treaty were fulfilled. Signed, Sealed, Delivered.

Now we CAN split ourselves into 5 states. That IS true, and though cometimes I would like to kick out Dallas at times I'm pretty content with things the way they are in that regard.

As for the rest of your post about other states talkign about bills in their leglaslative sessions. People have been doing that for centuries (claiming about sucedding from the union and making their own countries that is). It's an old argument that is a form of political grandtsanding to push the issue of state rights.

Neither Texas' current constitution of 1876 nor its annexation documents explicitly state that it has the right to secede or that it has to remain in the Union. However, the fact that the Constitution of the United States does not disallow it, leaves the right to the States under the 10th amendment. What the Texas Constitution says is that the people have the right to alter their government at any time. This provision would include secession.

The White decision from 1868 is suspect at best. Chief Justice Salmon Chase had been a Lincoln Cabinet member. If you actually read the decision, there is no Constitutional grounds cited, because it didn't exist. The court held that Texas had entered an indissoluble union when it joined and that it never ceased to be a State in the Union at any time during its secession effort. There is no Constitutional basis for that point. In fact, President Grant had to readmit them prior their regaining representation in Congress. Had the Supreme Court's decision been valid, their secession would have been declared void under the Constitution and they would have automatically reverted to their prior representative position without further act of government.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

Wait...wo.....wo...wo

Someone was listening to the hair?

Have any other Texan's been noticing that his hair has been thinning and going a bit grey?

Now having said that I'm quite sure Walker Texas Ranger is on his way here to arrest and water board me in the Rio Grande (pronounced rye-oh grand-ee)

And tomorrow he will not only be the president, but also a client.

<--decides prison will at least give me some sleep

oh lizon... Do you think flint has any clue what he is talking about! It is quite obvious that he needs to up the medication....

the south will NOT rise again. ^.^

> Einstein wrote:

>  seems to me that the last time a succession for those reasons happened it lead to the most successful nation on Earth... hmmm...

Which lasted (or will last) for how long? .... hmmmm...

edit: I'm not particularly anti-US (sometimes I give the country a stiff "grrrr' though), but sometimes I just have to add my half dozen words or so.

Actually Lizon the Supreme Court said they never actually 'seceded'. Learn the court rulings before you go blathering about sir. Instead the court said it never happened. But then again the President "restored their ability to nominate representatives" which says secession.

Lincoln made a mess... Constitutionally and otherwise. However it is important to note that secession has been written as allowed... by our founders. Indeed they enacted such a thing against a certain Monarchy...

Of course the court didn't say they "succeeded" because they couldn't. Lawyers were present in the 19th century too you know. Learn the court rulings before you go blathering about sir.

Since when do you need a permission to secede.You just do it.

> Justinian I wrote:

> If we wanted to raise the average IQ, the addition of 33 million people wouldn't help much. What would help is if we let the south leave the union. Ofc, I am in favor of keeping the union together even if we have to terrorize and ruin them again. For the past 150 years, they have only behaved when the threat of federal troops was present. If anything, we need a strong federal government to keep those idiots in line.

One of my favorite moments in American history was when the hero of 1812, Andrew Jackson, told a few southern states at the time that he would march on them if they ever seceded from the union when he was president. lol.

Nothing like keeping the Empire in perfect working order.