TexasCHLforum.com

dmurrey wrote:I signed the petition for Texas as well. I regret it though, it was totally stupid of me to send on my information to the white house expressing my displeasure. Does anyone know if there has been any talk of backlash or punishment against those who have signed petitions from the WH? I read something that said they may revoke your 2A rights if they believe you may support an armed insurrection against the fed, which some argue these petitions are ones support of violence against the gov. Though they says (peacefully) in them. Maybe I'm paranoid but I now fear men in black suits showing up at my door. Any word on this?

Slowplay wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Anyway, isn't secession a "varying political idea" protected by the 1st Amendment, just like collectivism? At the very least, the dissatisfaction expressed by the threat of following that process might inhibit the current bunch of criminals from overreaching.

Interesting question - is petitioning for secession protected political speech and nothing more?

Or, would petitioning for secession be tantamount to offering to renounce citizenship?

VMI77 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Furthermore, unrelated to what I quoted, all this talk about secession over mere election results is highly immature. Don't you guys who support it realize you're saying that you're so uncivilized that you can't stand to even be in the same country as someone who dares to disagree with you? Grow up! If you want to talk secession because the federal government actually did or didn't do something (like that TSA-TX spat a couple years ago), fine, then there might be something worth talking about. But seceding over people voting differently than you is just nuts. Wasn't the 1st amendment put there to protect varying political ideas? And don't we claim to be the political group that loves & respects the entire US Constitution, rather than just the parts that suit our purposes?

You have a point....up to a point. Where do you draw the line? What if the majority of the country voted for an openly communist government? Would you be OK with that? It's just a varying political idea, isn't it? When it comes right down to it, we've got an administration that has publicly stated that it wants to fundamentally transform the US and actively undermines Constitutional limits. Granted, various administrations have been chipping away at the Constitution for a long time, but there is a tipping point somewhere isn't there? After all, as has been said many times by many people: the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. I'm not advocating secession, and at this point I don't even think it's possible, but I fail to see how mere advocacy of it is in any way a failure to respect the Constitution. Where does the Constitution prohibit secession? Even if it did, the Constitution includes a process to change it, so with enough of the states in support, secession could be made Constitutional.

Anyway, isn't secession a "varying political idea" protected by the 1st Amendment, just like collectivism? At the very least, the dissatisfaction expressed by the threat of following that process might inhibit the current bunch of criminals from overreaching.

sjfcontrol wrote:

RPB wrote:Houston Chronicle
Texas secession: Fact and fiction
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11 ... d-fiction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a point I had forgotten probably not feasible but it would be interesting if we had 10 Senators ...

Fact or fiction: Texas is permitted to divide itself into five states.

FACT.

The 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas affirms Texas’ right to divide itself into five states if it chooses. Here’s the relevant passage, written in 19th century legalese:

“New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.”

Texas has never tested the treaty of annexation. But it is possible that ten senators could, at some point, represent the current territory of Texas. How ’bout East Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, South Texas and North Texas?

10 Senators ... I like that better than just two ... 10 out of 100?
10% of the US Senate controlled by Texans ... hmmm

I would assume that it would amount to an additional 8 (with the two we already have). So it would be 10 out of 108, a bit less than 10%.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I don't put any stock in that kind of thing. Many of you well know how much I loathe and despise the current administration, but some petition on a website ain't going to lead to secession. There would have to be enough citizens in each state to bring it to some sort of a vote in that state, and the majority of the people of that state would have to vote for it. That I might consider seriously, but it ain't going to happen...too many people LOVE the free phones, birth control and other handouts. Why would they want to be cut off?