TexasCHLforum.com

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 9:48 am

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Time to form a more perfect union.

Interesting that you quoted that line. I had been thinking of the tactics and strategy for secession and was going to suggest that we write our declaration using that same beginning. The list of causes would differ, obviously. But we should start with that line because it is so recognizable to others and it was correct. I would get the declaration written and call our legislature into session on July 1 to ratify it on July 2 and publicly release it on July 4th. This is all part of the psychological warfare we will need. The emotional impact of those dates and that wording will strike a bond with many outside of Texas.

While I keep praying it will not come to this, the time to think of our strategy and tactics is now, before it is forced upon us.

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:22 pmMy allegiance is to Texas. It's an old country. My great, great grandfather fought at San Jacinto. His blood is in my veins.

About 30 years ago, circumstances came up where I had to take a closer look at where my loyalties lie. Being Jewish, I am automatically eligible for citizenship in Israel under their Law of Return.I was working for SAPD at the time and we hosted a group of Israeli police officers on a learning visit for a couple weeks. During the visit, the subject of my visiting Israel and claiming my citizenship came up. Included was the point that both the US and Israel recognize dual citizenship. I seriously thought about it and came to the conclusion that I could not do it at that time. An old saw about a man not being able to serve two masters came to mind and I ended up telling the other officers that I knew that at some point in time, Israel and the US would have opposing interests. If I were a dual citizen, how could I I decide which to support? So, since my primary loyalty was to the US I declined to claim my Israeli citizenship. I did tell them that I would consider it and if the US ever went in a direction where I could no longer support this country, I would go to Israel, but instead of dual citizenship, I would renounce my US citizenship so the question of my loyalties would not come up.

But as a result of that discussion, I also thought about what it would take to get me to leave the US. I love my country. I consider it the best country in the world, even as I know it has some flaws. But my primary loyalty is to the way our country was designed. I love freedom. I support capitalism. I strongly believe in a limited government. I have studied some history and I know how conflicted Robert E. Lee was about his role in the Civil War. He decided that his primary loyalty was to his state over the federal government. I do not know if I would have made the same decision he did at that time. I do know that if it comes down to another civil war in the US, I will be on the side of freedom.

In a war of Texas secession, I would have to take the side of Texas. I would have to renounce my US citizenship if I did because even if Texas lost that war, I could not support the US ever again. If the US goes full socialist (or much more socialist than it already is), I would not be able to support the US again. I truly believe that Texas would still stand for freedom (which means it would also be more for capitalism), which is why I can say I would support Texas. I have to point out that if this war starts as a race war and the federal government was on the side of not allowing a single race to take control or claim extra rights or privileges, I would still probably support the US. I don't see that war as involving Texas versus other states, but a mass uprising that the government would try to put down across the US. If something happened where I could not support Texas either, I would have to leave the country. I don't know if it would be to Israel, but I will not live under the socialists I see taking over in the US right now.

I keep praying that this war never does really come, but I honestly have to say I expect it. In about 90% of the possible scenarios I see coming, I will support Texas. In about 5%, I would support the US and in the last 5% I would have to leave. I hope all of you consider all the possible scenarios that could occur and decide what you will do under the various circumstances that might occur.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:08 pm This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.

Two very important points to consider and keep in mind, especially when talking about this case. The first is that no one is asking the SCOTUS to decide who is the next president. Nothing in this court case will decide that. What is being asked and the court will decide is if people other than the legislature itself may make decisions that affect the electors appointed. If the court agrees with the premise, all that will happen is the four state legislatures will have to vote on who gets appointed as electors. They may appoint the same people that are currently appointed. They may appoint a new slate dedicated to President Trump. They may pick 62 people with NO preconceived dedication to vote. If they are one of the states where the electors are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, I have no idea what will happen and the exact wording of the court decision may be critical. But SCOTUS will not determine who won the election.

Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.

E10 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:34 am Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.

I guess that will be the next SCOTUS case, how to interpret this clause of the Constitution:

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

The way I read that is that if a state does not appoint electors, then it no longer takes 270, just a majority of how many get appointed. I can agree it takes 270 of the electors appointed, if all states appoint the electors. The questions becomes what happens if a state, say Pennsylvania, gets the appointment thrown out by the court and the legislature does not make another appointment of electors.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:14 pmAnd when this suit goes nowhere, when SCOTUS is shown to be corrupted and in the pockets of the communists, what do the aggrieved states do next?

I don't think the SCOTUS is corrupted right now. As Pawpaw pointed out, there are at least three relatively new justices appointed by Trump who are pretty confirmed conservatives and I believe them to be honest. I think Alito and Thomas would also be honest and fair in this case. I am not so sure about the rest.

The good news is that the case is, as I understand it, actually resting on some pretty fair legal grounds and SCOTUS precedent. If the case gets to a decision on its merits, I think it will be decided against the 4 defendant states. Bush v. Gore established pretty firmly that you cannot change the rules for counting the ballots after the election started. It also established that all counties in a state must interpret the law in the same way. The other parts of the case, that it takes a legislature to change the election rules for a presidential election, not a governor or elections administrator or even a court decision, seem like a clear cut case also.

But I am seriously in doubt that it will get that far. I believe there is a good chance that the question of standing will be the grounds for the decision and it won't be the way I hope. The claim laid out about debasing our votes just seems weak to me.

But along with this, I have been gaming out possible results. Even if Texas wins the case, will it make a difference in the election? The rule is that the president must get more than half the electoral votes to win. Currently, that is 270 out of 538 possible. The only way I see that Trump can be re-elected is if the courts rule in his favor on all four states and give him the electoral votes. The court could do this, but I doubt it would because the ruling itself would violate the Constitution where it says the state legislature gets to choose its electors. So, I am guessing the most likely result is to invalidate the current election certification and tell the legislatures to choose their electors again. They might do it by recounting the legal votes (if there is time) or the legislatures will probably decide to pick the electors themselves. If they decide to pick them, some of the states might pick the same electors because they are local politicians trying to get re-elected. Can you see their next campaign if they did not pick the ones the majority of the media will claim are the expressed will of the voting public?

Now there is the possibility that some states may not get to name new electors due to the time constraints. If all of them did not get to vote it lowers the threshold to 239 (538-62 = 476, half is 238, so a majority is 239). Trump only has 232 so he would still lose.

So, to win, Trump has to pick up enough of the electors plus have some states not send in votes. If all of the states don't send in he loses. If the same electors get sent in by the legislatures, he loses. If all of the states send in electors, Trump MIGHT be able to win while losing the electors from one state depending on the state.

I hate this analysis, but this is a case where I would rather be pessimistic so I can be pleasantly surprised than get my hopes up and be extremely disappointed.

And the title of this thread should be “Texas to the rescue of our Republic”

I fully agree with this.

parabelum wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:02 amPaxton writes:

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,”

So I read that to be the “injured party”. IANAL of course.

AndyC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:15 amTexas is claiming otherwise: "By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”"

Thanks. I did not see the claims by Paxton. I am not sure that will hold up in court but I will certainly hope it works.

I like this. Unfortunately, and I am not a lawyer nor an expert in this area, I see a single problem with it. Texas may not have standing for the lawsuit since it is not an injured party. I really want to see this case go through and it is asking for a remedy the courts could order. It is not asking for a specific winner to be determined, just that the legislature be ordered to choose the electors. This might not make a difference to the election overall, as the legislatures could appoint the Biden electors, "bowing to the expressed will of the people" anyway. But I like the concept and the case argument.