Nullification Is Back? (in Off-topic)


AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 7 2009 6:33 PM EDT

"Under House Bill 246, firearms made in Montana and used in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation. The same would be true for firearm accessories and ammunition made and sold in the state."

Article about the Bill

Montana House Bill 246

This bill has already been signed by the governor of Montana. Also, the House of Representatives in Texas is trying to push through a bill just like this one. This bill has already been introduced to the House.

Article about Texas' Bill

FailBoat[SG] May 7 2009 6:42 PM EDT

Even more reason to move back home... ^.^

Django May 7 2009 6:45 PM EDT

That is enough reason for me to move to Montana!!!!

ScY May 7 2009 6:56 PM EDT

Cool so that affects like the 10 people who live there? :D

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] May 7 2009 6:58 PM EDT

Did a class project on Montana back when I was a wee lad in a Texas middle school.
May Montana bear arms while hands in Texas be left bare!

Papa Bear [G6] May 7 2009 6:58 PM EDT

Glad I'm a Texan...

FailBoat[SG] May 7 2009 7:03 PM EDT

If you read the Texas bill article, we, Texans, are also asking for a push to secede if the government continues to push regulations that Texans feel violate our rights. Of course, I've been saying that was going to happen since I first learned that Texas could secede at any given time it felt like.

Although I'd really rather not have to move back home and get my green card to be able to visit friends up here in Washington. And the wife would need a working visa of some kind to stay at Boeing unless they'd just move her down to Texas...

Lord Bob May 7 2009 7:03 PM EDT

"Montana lawmakers fired another shot in battles for statesメ rights as they supported letting some Montana gun owners and dealers skip reporting their transactions to the federal government."

I fully support this measure. I may be a Liberal on just about everything else, but anything to restore gun rights to the people and stick it to federal gun control advocates is a good, good thing.

Demigod May 7 2009 7:04 PM EDT

How would that bill become and stay law? I haven't heard of the bill before (and I'm at work, so I don't have time to read it), but from the quote, it sounds like it would be far too easy to overturn. I wonder if it's just wasted tax revenue to boost hometown votes for the next election.

Oh well, it reminded me that I haven't been to the shooting range in a year. Time to dust off the boomstick.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 7 2009 7:08 PM EDT

"it sounds like it would be far too easy to overturn."

By who, do you think a state like Montana is suddenly going to turn blue?

{cb2}Dinh May 7 2009 7:09 PM EDT

the Revolution draws nearer

Cube May 8 2009 7:29 PM EDT

Not to spoil your cheerfulness about anarchy, but I'm curious how significant this actually is if anyone can answer that for me.

For example, in California I'm pretty sure Marijuana is allowed for medicinal uses, but the Federal law makes no such exceptions.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] May 8 2009 7:45 PM EDT

I've always wanted to move to Montana...

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 8 2009 9:02 PM EDT

"For example, in California I'm pretty sure Marijuana is allowed for medicinal uses, but the Federal law makes no such exceptions."

You are correct. Oddly enough the federal government doesn't push to much against it either. I'm betting that the fed won't push to much against this new law either.

j'bob May 8 2009 9:33 PM EDT

Just to throw in the Devils Advocate...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/americas-gun-laws-how-did_b_165825.html

So, no gun laws what so ever? Glad I DO NOT live in a populous area anywhere near there (if this goes through). Do I believe that everyone have a right to "bear arms". Yes... I bear a few myself.
Do I think gun ownership/sales/"trafficking" should go unregulated completely? LOL.

kevlar May 8 2009 9:57 PM EDT

It's funny how the Democratic party used the Iraq war as one of the strong topics in the election to win people over with the anti-Bush propaganda, yet what has been done in the middle east? Not a dang thing. The big pullout that was promised was a flat out lie and the mainstream media has somehow stopped chirping about the war 10 times a day and now is more focused on reporting on irrelevant issues. Check out www.usatoday.com. You actually have to DIG for war links... something that was front page for the last year or more... along with presidential poll support results.

Instead of pulling the military out of Iraq, Obama has been more focused on pulling our Veterans medical insurance from under their feet... http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45117

I listen to this radio show http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/main/affiliates on the way to school in the mornings, and they tell it how it is. I don't need coffee for school, I just listen to this show during the 5 minute ride to school in the morning and I'm pissed off for the rest of the day.

Cube May 9 2009 3:19 PM EDT

The whole issue they had with the war was a big joke. Once we had toppled Saddam, there was no way we were realistically going to pull out soon. No one smart wanted to immediately pull out in reality, and for good reason too. If we left immediately after toppling Saddam, Iraq simply would have been worse off, likely descending to civil war. Saddam might not have been good to people, but he had a stable functioning government.

However, if anyone thinks we brought democracy as we know it to Iraq, take some time to break out the Iraqi constitution.

Lord Bob May 9 2009 3:28 PM EDT

And when during the campaign were we ever promised an immediate pullout in Iraq?

ScY May 9 2009 3:56 PM EDT

Hmmmmm interestingly enough, I have some really really weird feeling that if Texas seceded, in the following second Civil War (which I bet would last approximately 5 hours) the United States Government would win.

Just a hunch.

[P]Mitt May 9 2009 6:54 PM EDT

I'm sorry kevlar. I don't understand how one article about a possibility, yes: possibility, of Obama decreasing health insurance coverage makes him more focused on it.

That's like if you see one article against Obama's policies, saying that all of the United States hates Obama. What you have is a strawman argument.

Obama never promised an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In this article (which is one of many) you will notice it mentioning withdrawals from cities and (gasp!) Iraq by 2011.

As for the Montana firearms topic, I have to do more research, but if firearms are a state issue (which I doubt they are) then the state has all the power to regulate them. However, I suspect that this isn't true. The situation is exactly like medicinal marijuana in California - State officers will turn a blind eye (well technically not blind, because it's not against state law) to federal regulations in firearms. But Federal agents and officers will be allowed to prosecute even if Montana laws say that they are exempt because federal laws override state laws.

Lord Bob May 10 2009 2:14 AM EDT

"That's like if you see one article against Obama's policies, saying that all of the United States hates Obama."

Which a lot of conservatives, especially on this board, think is true.

Cube May 10 2009 6:24 AM EDT

Obama may not have said it himself, but a lot of hype was still built up about pulling out of Iraq.

kevlar May 10 2009 7:25 AM EDT

Bob, seriously... the majority of Hilary's campaign for elect was based on the war, and Obamas primary was central to it, and as for the US having the right to not like him (equal to or greater than Bush) yes... the curve is going that way. Even Clinton, bless his Air Force 1 partying soul, did a better job with the economy. When is the last time you saw a branch of our automobile industry able to even think about being bought out by the foreign competition. Let alone TRYING to start policy in investing in our own product (i.e. steel) and having a trade war scare him blind and do a 180 faster than a cat running toward a Rottweiler.
It's funny, the Russians never pushed forward with strategic strongholds when Bush was in office. The economy didn't spiral downward when Bush was in office (I emphasize spiral). North Korea spoke to the world that they were pursuing enrichment, and since then... *crickets*.... ya buddy1

Sickone May 10 2009 9:31 AM EDT

You know what I find it funny ?
That in the name of "keeping the right to have weapons" most people would willingly renounce most of the liberties which trying to protect would justify having a weapon in the first place.

It's kind of like insisting on your right to have a spoon, a fork and a knife in a Chinese restaurant, but giving up the right to be served food.
Yeah, sure, now you can use the "western utensils" all you want... but what will you use them on ? The table cloth ? Your foot ? But doesn't matter, hooray, you got to keep your utensils !

Cube May 10 2009 1:18 PM EDT

Blaming Obama's few months in office for the economy, that's rich.

QBOddBird May 10 2009 1:23 PM EDT

Scy - more than just Texas has spoken of seceding again.

I also sincerely doubt that the revised US would attack the seceding states simply for leaving. Recapture of those states would be poor, poor tactics. More likely, if some of the states secede again, they will simply remain that way or eventually reunite of their own volition.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 10 2009 1:33 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Thak May 10 2009 2:19 PM EDT

Any state can do what they want. They just might lose federal funding for disaster relief and such. Wisconsin used to be 18 age to drink at a bar but then they got into economic troubles and the fed said change to 21 and we will help out. So now it is 21 in WI also.

This is essentially how i think this gun bill will act. They will pass it and keep it until lil brother needs something from big brother.

TheHatchetman May 10 2009 3:23 PM EDT

"Blaming Obama's few months in office for the economy, that's rich. "

I LOL'd so hard I damn near fell out of my chair and ROFL'd! Thanks kevlar ^_^

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 10 2009 3:32 PM EDT

"Any state can do what they want."

you are basing that statement solely on legal drinking age laws? so a state can legalize marijuana, slavery or child pornography under your broad statement. i guess states could also choose not to pay federal income taxes?

TheHatchetman May 10 2009 3:34 PM EDT

Oh, and while I was just a wee one during the Clinton administration, I recall him doing a pretty good job with his office, outside the whole Monica thing, of course...

There may be huge holes in my point, as as I said, I was 4 when Clinton took office, and 12 when he left... But I believe we had a $290 billion deficit when Bush senior left office (At the time, the largest deficit in American history)... When Clinton passed the torch to Bush Jr., we had a *surplus* of $79 billion... Bush Jr. beat his daddy's old score by a ton...

While disasterous events may have helped in our budget issues, I think the Bushes aughta just stick to baked (and now "Grillin'!") beans...

Cube May 10 2009 3:52 PM EDT

Here you go kevlar-

2. Not only that but the US auto industry has been going downhill for a while now. It's just now with the economic downturn due to creditors that we can see how badly in shape they are.

3. Trade wars are bad - very bad, in the long run no one benefits.

4. If you are talking about Russia invading Georgia, the American media reported that extremely poorly. I have friends who grew up in Russia. Georgia was not an innocent bystander in all of this. Russia was fighting for the underdog's independence!! Also, this happened when Bush was in office.

5. Did you forget the 2006 North Korea nuclear test?
Under Obama's administration all they did was test a rocket so far. Not that he's even had time to craft any policies to try to stop any of this.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 10 2009 3:55 PM EDT

"5. Did you forget the 2006 North Korea nuclear test?
Under Obama's administration all they did was test a rocket so far. Not that he's even had time to craft any policies to try to stop any of this."

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 10 2009 3:55 PM EDT

^ Sounds like someone doesn't know the whole story.

Cube May 10 2009 3:59 PM EDT

Must I repeat
Not that he's even had time to craft any policies to try to stop any of this.

Anything that happens for the next six month is still Bush's fault I'm sorry. Government is not fast.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 10 2009 5:21 PM EDT

I was making no statement about the Bush or Obama administration. I was simply stating that this statement, "Under Obama's administration all they did was test a rocket so far.", was incorrect. Which it is, do some research.

Cube May 10 2009 5:44 PM EDT

I've been busy for the past month, so yes I missed them breaking off talks and starting their facilities up again if that's all your referring to - which will take at least six months according to something I just read.

This is of course resulting from the rocket launch I did talk about, so it sounds to me like you are just nit picking.

Thak May 10 2009 5:47 PM EDT

Pretty much Dudemus.

The states of the united states are under a union for the greater good. Each individual state governs itself. The states used to not be unified under one flag originally. Essentially opperating as different countries. Why each states has its own flag. Link to the dates of state entry into the union to get you started. So if a state decided to do those things they can but they most like would be cut off from any federal involvement(term big brother derived from). Not to mention there population would dwindle to nothing essential dissolving the state cause society sees some of those examples as taboos. Or more likely state government would just be impeached by the people of the state and a new one put in of what the people of that state want. (in lies the beauty of american government imo) Just head to the library and do some research on early american history/union. If you live in DC you have access to some of the best material on the subject.

Texas is the best example to use since they were smart and have upfront writing that they can secede anytime they please without cause in there agreement of joining the union.

Cube May 10 2009 5:53 PM EDT

No state is seriously going to consider leaving the Union any time soon. It's basically just a fantasy for some.

But yes the Federal does black mail the states with threats for highway funds - I find this a little unfair, as it's usually with stuff that the constitution would reserve for the states to regulate. I think they also overreach using their power to regulate interstate trade as well - I believe that's the reasoning for the FCC, profanity on television is definitely something the Federal government should not be regulating IMO, but what do I know I'm a libertarian.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 10 2009 10:01 PM EDT

"Texas is the best example to use since they were smart and have upfront writing that they can secede anytime they please without cause in there agreement of joining the union."

from my reading it would appear that this is a misconception and what was written was that texas has the power to break into four smaller states, each remaining part of the union.

did you read the supreme court case that i posted a link to thak? the decision states that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the union. i do understand history and have read much, which is why i am having such a hard time understanding just where you get your info from. perhaps some links describing these states rights would be wonderful. from my understanding we are bound by federal law unless state laws are more restrictive.

here is a link regarding the wording of the agreement to join the union of texas:

"Two points to consider. First, there's this brief history of the Lone Star State's 1845 entry into the Union, emphasis added:

When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed—after much debate and only a simple majority—a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas ' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)

That paragraph comes from what I can only assume to be an authoritative source on the matter: the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. (Tip of my cowboy hat to an old college pal—from Texas—who posted the link on Facebook.)"

also snopes has a link:

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

last paragraph refers to secession clause.

Thak May 10 2009 11:31 PM EDT

Bill of Rights Amendment 10

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States "respectively, or to the people"

And it is easly noted that no where in the constitution it says that the states do not have a right to secede. Plus you cant have a Union by force based on what the US constitution represents.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] May 10 2009 11:43 PM EDT

Thak let's be real, our government quit caring about the constitution a long time ago.

Thak May 11 2009 12:08 AM EDT

:( Aertmis there are a few who still care that are in office. We have the ultimate power to dissolve the government and re-elect if we all actually band together or the easier route of just simply voting smarter.

Why i'm glad Montana is trying to pass this bill to help protect their ability to do as i have mentioned above if they see the need. Also IMO why we need to make sure we all continue to have the right to bare arms.

More references too.

George Washington, Circular to the States 8 June 1783Writings 26:484--89

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 12:39 AM EDT

and once again:

"did you read the supreme court case that i posted a link to thak?"

didn't the same constitution empower the judicial as one of the three branches of government?

so the constitution set up the supreme court which said states cannot secede from the union. where is the gray area here?

kevlar May 11 2009 12:45 AM EDT

lol don't know where you guys have been getting your intel with the withdrawl bingo bango...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsqFQTbKXo&feature=related

[P]Mitt May 11 2009 1:10 AM EDT

Kevlar, have you ever heard of a politican or congress revising their policies? Of course not. You're too stubborn, condemning this government to fail without even seeing the whole picture.

The top generals are against an immediate withdrawal. So Obama listened to them and took the best course of action. Or would you rather have him "stay the course" just because he stated a different policy before that was not the most optimal. This reminds me of Hitler and his top generals: Hitler's top generals were against many of Hitler's more questionable policies, and yet Hitler pressed forward (on many occasions). This (arguably) is what led to Nazi Germany's downfall (not Allied tactical brilliance - read your history books).

Obama is the opposite. He listens to other people, takes into account their ideas, and chooses the best course of action.

If I get elected on the claim that "Solar powered energy is depleting the sun so we should get rid of all solar plants" and then research and experts (in Obama's case, the generals) come to me and show me that solar power is harmless to the sun, do I still get rid of all solar plants (just so I don't go against what I claimed I would do) or do I REVISE my policies?

But who am I to talk to you? You're probably a blind follower of Rush Lumbaugh's words when he said "Let's be honest. Every Republican in America is hoping for Obama's failure."

Thak May 11 2009 2:32 AM EDT

LOL I am well familiar with Texas vs. White case. And in regards to what you also referenced before http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/ to get the whole story and make your own opinion. Don't take some journalist/bloggers word.
The 1845 joint resolution that admitted Texas to the Union provided that Texas could be divided into as many as five states. What you are referencing is stating that the land of Texas can be broken up to add 4 more states making it a total of 5.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/page3.html
"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 said State,...."

We can go on about Texas but I suggest that be left to a different topic in debates cause I will just have to start getting into the civil war when the referenced documents were drawn up and under the cicumstances when they were agreed upon.

And as you are sticking with Texas Vs. White. The judges are elected/appointed by the officials we elect. Therefore if the people vote into the office officials to represent their state(and fed gov) who actually uphold the constitution how our forefathers meant it to be(by understanding the creators individually in some of my referenced material), but as Aertmis sadly pointed out they aren't doing to well lately.

The beauty of how our government works remaining open ended, constantly evolving for better or worse, to be amended for the greater of the union and the states with in it.
They weren't stupid in making sure we have the right to defend or revoke privileges of elected government by societies opinion of social views at election time. But it also works in a negative way of if to much corruption takes over. They try and amend to take away our original idea of a great nation, and our ability to fight back and overthrow/rebel as in my referenced material, in our forefathers words what their idea of the country they were building should be and why the constitution was written to uphold those ideas and values.

Kevlar the war has nothing to do with what we are talking about man.

Thak May 11 2009 2:38 AM EDT

Sorry wrong link: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
for "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 said State,...."

Cube May 11 2009 3:26 AM EDT

"didn't the same constitution empower the judicial as one of the three branches of government?

so the constitution set up the supreme court which said states cannot secede from the union. where is the gray area here?"


Actually dudemus, you're wrong. The constitution does not say exactly what the power of the supreme court is. The supreme court determined it's own power in Marbury v. Madison.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 9:40 AM EDT

"Texas is the best example to use since they were smart and have upfront writing that they can secede anytime they please without cause in there agreement of joining the union."

so where is this mysterious secession clause you speak of?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 9:42 AM EDT

the constitution didn't create the judicial branch of our government?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 9:51 AM EDT

by empower, i simply meant that the constitution created the judicial branch for some purpose. since it is one of the first three articles dealing with the separate branches, you would assume it was pretty important to the founding fathers. i don't think they created it to be a powerless entity. here is article 3 of our constitution which created and empowered the judicial branch of our government:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Lord Bob May 11 2009 12:16 PM EDT

"I LOL'd so hard I damn near fell out of my chair and ROFL'd! Thanks kevlar"

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that whole post was a joke.

Thak May 11 2009 1:44 PM EDT

It says in one of the documents the union bought the land under bonds and Texas has the right to pay back those bonds. Under the terms we both agree on being allowed to break into 5 entities and no slavery that side of the Mississippi etc... essentially.
There fore if they pay back their debt they the union officially doesnt own that land anymore.

Think of it as a mortgage on a house. The bank owns the house till you pay the loan back.

And you are missing the point with the supreme court. Those judges were appointed by our elected officials. So say Obama appoints new judges who has a very different view then Bush's appointed judges, the ruling can be changed. Nothing is set in stone everything can be over ruled/overturned. So at the time those judges are in power yeah that is how it is but the next set of judges can come in and see Texas vs.White and say that the Union is in violation of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights with that ruling and overturn the verdict.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 4:43 PM EDT

what you just stated sounds nothing like what your original statement was. are you admitting that the secession clause doesn't exist now?

"Texas is the best example to use since they were smart and have upfront writing that they can secede anytime they please without cause in there agreement of joining the union."

how many time has the supreme court overturned one of their own previous rulings? could you also post a link to one of these cases?

Thak May 11 2009 6:00 PM EDT

They can all all they have to do is pay back the debt under guidelines xyz. Then they can leave if they choose no reason and with out cause.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 6:05 PM EDT

^linky that document please, as well as a quote for the section you are referring to?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 11 2009 6:20 PM EDT

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html

perhaps you are referring to one of the non ratified documents. the only one that matters is the one that was accepted by both parties. so if the secession clause is not in those documents listed on the above page then they were never ratified and therefore mean nothing. if however i missed it in those documents pertinent to our entry into the united states, i would love to be shown where it exists as i have never been able to find it there.

kevlar May 11 2009 6:30 PM EDT

Mitt, before you go all personal on people maybe you should take a breath or two before you go all righteous on someone's posts. All that link showed was that Obama DID use the pullout from the war as a keypoint to his campaign, when a couple posters, including yourself said it wasn't. Flip flopping isn't anything new in politics, and it can actually be exploited against the naive nowadays which is pretty sad. Say one thing, do another. Bush said he was a Republican and turned out acting more like a Democrat than anything in his last years as President.
When someone uses the War pullout though, then flips on it, there is just a little bit more involved than just "listening to people". People debated about that issue to hell and back and told the Democrats that a pullout like that was impossible. Why not listen then? Because it helped get votes. It's a big slap on the face to all those that voted with that as one of their deciding factors, but one can only hope it was a wake up call as well.

At this point in the discussion, I agree, Thak it doesn't fit in with where this has gone, and I can only post once or twice a day so it gets spread out. Ah the life of a forum thread.

Thak May 12 2009 12:18 AM EDT

Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States
Approved March 1, 1845 http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
"Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States." (Debt to be payed effectively making the union not owning the land with my understanding on how debts/loans work with conjunction to "to be disposed of as said State may direct")
"Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct."

Which the the above was approved on according to Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State(http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/dec1845.html) which was signed by the president on December 29, 1845. Although the formal transfer of government did not occur until February 19, 1846, Texas statehood dates from the 29th of December. "...with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same might be admitted as one of the States of the Union; which consent of Congress was given upon certain conditions specified in the first and second sections of said joint resolution;..."



cession: act of ceding, as by treaty.

cede: to yield or formally surrender to another

treaty: a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

defray: To pay or discharge; to serve in payment of; to provide for, as a charge, debt, expenses, costs, etc. To avert or appease, as by paying off; to satisfy; as, to defray wrath.

I see this as they were paid 100k for the land and to accept the terms and avoid negotiations to end the civil war. As stated before you can't have an effective state by force. And the fact that the agreement is a mere treaty and treaties can be broke at any time. States to me they can leave any time without cause. And if debt is payed off they dont own that land anymore.
And no where in the agreement says that they can not leave.(If i missed that it does somewhere besides Texas v White point it out.) My head is hurting from going over all this legal stuff.


Thak May 12 2009 12:36 AM EDT

LOL after reading over all of this info we have given some one could prob pull off a dissertation on Texas history.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2009 8:48 AM EDT

"I see this as they were paid 100k for the land and to accept the terms and avoid negotiations to end the civil war."

which civil war would this be?


do you still hold to the following statement?

"Texas is the best example to use since they were smart and have upfront writing that they can secede anytime they please without cause in there agreement of joining the union."

it seems that you have not shown me "upfront writing" but instead are now offering to give an interpretation of an historical document without providing credentials for doing so or a legal precedent to back up your interpretations.


Godpanda May 12 2009 9:00 AM EDT

Mitt and Kevlar, be nice :P

Y'all so cute. All this politicks and such. Over my poor ickle head.


PS

Rush is.... Well.... I'm pretty sure he's an alien. No human could be that... Well.... The English language can't do that creature justice.

Whatever it is, Rush needs a muzzle.

Cube May 12 2009 10:53 AM EDT

I agree with Mitt though I don't ever see Flip Flopping as a bad thing. I have no idea how serious he was about pulling the troops out early during his campaign, but it would have been a bad idea, and whether he was planning it the whole time or someone changed his mind I really don't care. Making the right decision is far more important.

Cube May 12 2009 10:58 AM EDT

Okay, let me amend that statement; Flip flopping can be a bad thing if you are doing it maliciously. That is trying to get elected on some platform, so you can later abuse your power. I see no abuse of power here though.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2009 1:18 PM EDT

here is a paragraph from the same website you are quoting regarding the ratified agreements that brought texas into the united states. notice the part in parenthesis:

"When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)"

that comes from this page:

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html

Thak May 12 2009 2:29 PM EDT

OMG dudemus im tired of going over this with you twisting what i am saying. I have given you plenty of references.
When i read theses documents i see it as plain as day, upfront writing they can secede anytime without cause. So i explain myself on where im getting this since you think i pull this out of thin air. you go and try to twist my statement when i am explaining were i got it from. And i dont know how more upfront you need just by the basis of it not saying they can't. (not by mistake its not in there)

which civil war? hehe im not even going to answer that you were smart enough to follow along this far you can figure it out which one.

Anybody has enough credentials to do what ever. You dont need a PHD,M.A/S,BS to look up in the sky to find a new star. There are hackers that have no degree that know about security more then a person with a degree. You dont need a law degree to be your own lawyer. You dont need a degree to read a book. All a degree is to me is a piece of paper that states you know how to read a book and copy answers from that book to a test. Anybody can do that if they apply themselves, they dont need a piece of paper to tell em they can do it. And teachers are told what to teach and not to teach by the school district/board. So once again you are basing your beliefs on what someone else told/tells you. Which is fine, but I prefer not to be a sheep and make my own beliefs out of reading some of the same documents these credited people read. Just because people happened to not choose their education down the history path doesnt mean they aren't smart enough to understand it. And by your standards i could myself go back to school get my PHD or Masters which every you see more accredited then write my own book on what i see then it would be ok in your eyes since now its coming from someone with credentials.

And what the heck do i need a legal precedent for it's not like i'm going to make a motion to congress or the justices to get the state seceded. This is still America last time i checked and we don't need a legal precedent to discuss anything. But my precedent would be that there are bold violations of the Constitution and Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights specially with the White v Texas case.

I'm done with this topic. Good Day!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] May 12 2009 5:58 PM EDT

"I see this as they were paid 100k for the land and to accept the terms and avoid negotiations to end the civil war."

this all happened 16 years before the civil war even started, hence my confusion.

i apologize for asking you to show me something that i knew wasn't there. i tried to tell you it didn't exist but you wouldn't believe me. all i was left with was proving my point by asking you to find it for me. ; (
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002kZN">Nullification Is Back?</a>