Grundy1133 wrote:I read an article abou tNorth Carolina introducing a bill that would allow them to secede from the US should the federal govt attempt to disarm their citizens of firearms that have been legally purchased... It made me wonder if other states would do the same thing... If they try to get rid of the 2nd amendment, Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed. One requirement in the treaty was that the constitution was to be upheld... If the govt fails to do so, do you think Texas would secede, or if one state seceded do you think others would follow suit and we end up with a 2nd civil war?
If a triggering event occurred that was sufficient to cause one state to secede, I think others would follow suit. What that event is, I don't know exactly but I could see it being some level of federal infringement on gun rights without a formal repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Depending on how this Masterpiece Bakery ruling goes, some really bad things could spiral out of control from that. And of course, the relentless federal spending and meddling almost has to reach a breaking point at some point.
imho, we are closer to a civil war than most of us want to admit.
Tipping Point: A Tale of the 2nd Civil War
When a mass-shooting prompts a call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, a handful of states secede and provoke the Second U.S. Civil War. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0793 ... UTF8&psc=1
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
I'm not convinced a civil war would break out (or could even be justified) if the 2nd were repealed through a duly constitutional amendment process. I would hate that and I would fight it with every ounce of political energy I had, but I would have to respect it as at least being within the bounds of the law. And, I can't fathom 3/4 of the states agreeing to it.
I think what could trigger it would be the left passing a comprehensive ban of some type or some unduly restricting licensing or other requirements, or something like that, which functionally neutered the 2nd but which SCOTUS improperly let stand.
They've been doing this on other issues for several decades now so the precedent has already been set. What they can't get through legislation they simply keep pushing until they find enough judges to deem it so. It doesn't help that they've already corrupted the educational institutions, the bureaucracies, and the courts in their favor. It's going to come to a head sooner or later.
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
I don't know where you got that Texas retained the right to secede per the treaty. I do not believe that to be true. The only unusual thing granted was the ability to subdivide into more states, but not greater than 5, in order to gain more senators.
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
I don't know where you got that Texas retained the right to secede per the treaty. I do not believe that to be true. The only unusual thing granted was the ability to subdivide into more states, but not greater than 5, in order to gain more senators.
In the book I linked about, that's exactly what Texas does, breaks into 5 different states of Texas. Can you imagine the progressive socialists heads exploding if that were to happen?
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
J.R.@A&M wrote:And Texas grain, beef, cotton, etc., would continue to be exported, although farmers would have harder time financing crop production without federal farm programs. Overall, I would think the rural parts of the State would suffer more from having fewer economic development resources.
And that’s why there will never be change, people want less government unless it negatively impacts their favorite redistribution program.
[sarcasm]Why we just can’t live without big.gov holding our hands and guaranteeing our results. [\sarcasm]
We’ll all ride the ship to the bottom cause no one thinks that iceberg has fatally wounded the hull.
No argument from me about the merits of federal farm policy.
I am simply predicting that if risky Texas row crop agriculture has trouble getting financing in newly Independent Texas, then more cropland will revert to grass, which means fewer rural businesses, fewer rural jobs, lower tax base, and declining rural infrastructure. Wind and solar enterprises would not change that just as they haven't in the current state of affairs.
Last edited by J.R.@A&M on Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Always liked me a sidearm with some heft.” Boss Spearman in Open Range.
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
I don't know where you got that Texas retained the right to secede per the treaty. I do not believe that to be true. The only unusual thing granted was the ability to subdivide into more states, but not greater than 5, in order to gain more senators.
In the book I linked about, that's exactly what Texas does, breaks into 5 different states of Texas. Can you imagine the progressive socialists heads exploding if that were to happen?
What would stop the regions containing Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis counties from splitting off and remaining with the United States?
“Always liked me a sidearm with some heft.” Boss Spearman in Open Range.
Financially it would depend on a number of things.
If Texas seceded peacefully, where we maintained good relations with the US, then we would not need a large standing army. As long as we minded our own business, we really just have to fear Mexico invading, which is pretty darn unlikely, IMHO. And importantly, if we were able to break away without assuming any of the US national debt, then I think we would be completely fine. Even better if we manage to avoid trade wars and excessive tariffs on trade with the US and Mexico. It doesn't matter who owns the natural resources as long as Texas is able to tax those companies on their sales / profits from the resources. There would be some unrest as companies relocated to / from Texas, but after the dust settles, it would be OK.
But, if the split is contentious, and involves a shooting war, or even a trade war, we would definitely be in worse shape.
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
Whatever the treaty might or might not have said, the point is moot... Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated much more succinctly than I ever could: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
Whatever the treaty might or might not have said, the point is moot... Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated much more succinctly than I ever could: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
There may not be a constitutionally protected right to secede, but there is definitely a right to do so. As so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence. That right is endowed by our creator and it trumps any "rights" acknowledged by a government.
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
Whatever the treaty might or might not have said, the point is moot... Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated much more succinctly than I ever could: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."
There may not be a constitutionally protected right to secede, but there is definitely a right to do so. As so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence. That right is endowed by our creator and it trumps any "rights" acknowledged by a government.
My understanding is that Texas vs White established that a state can not secede. If I read it right, options would be for the rest of the states agreeing to let it go or by winning a revolution.
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
There may not be a constitutionally protected right to secede, but there is definitely a right to do so. As so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence. That right is endowed by our creator and it trumps any "rights" acknowledged by a government.
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.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
Soccerdad1995 wrote:Financially it would depend on a number of things.
If Texas seceded peacefully, where we maintained good relations with the US, then we would not need a large standing army. As long as we minded our own business, we really just have to fear Mexico invading, which is pretty darn unlikely, IMHO. And importantly, if we were able to break away without assuming any of the US national debt, then I think we would be completely fine. Even better if we manage to avoid trade wars and excessive tariffs on trade with the US and Mexico. It doesn't matter who owns the natural resources as long as Texas is able to tax those companies on their sales / profits from the resources. There would be some unrest as companies relocated to / from Texas, but after the dust settles, it would be OK.
But, if the split is contentious, and involves a shooting war, or even a trade war, we would definitely be in worse shape.
It is surely very complicated, and I’m not smart enought to think it through. But even if Texas could free ride on North American National security, there are lots of other financial obligations that the State has heretofore never had to cover, and perhaps couldn’t. Even under the best case trade scenario, the State revenue picture is variable enough to imply that an unstable currency and high interest rates would make us relatively poorer than the status quo, unless we got some other advantage, e.g., a corporate tax haven or something like the Ireland next door.
“Always liked me a sidearm with some heft.” Boss Spearman in Open Range.
A very contentious topic and one that we should probably tread lightly around.
All of the "settled" law aside, it's highly unlikely that this once nation will continue into the future in the same political configuration that it is in today. IMO, the Progressives will force the issue on one or more topics that drive a number of States to drawing lines of separation between then and at least other States and probably the Federal Government if controlled by the Progressives. It'll boil down to going our own way or descending into an internal conflict, however you choose to describe it.
Also, I think it possible if not probable that the States retain some relationships through a Federal Government of diminished power, more focused on defense, foreign relations and maintaining a single currency. But, I don't see us continuing along as we are without something significant happening.
Jeff B.
Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. - Joe Huffman
