Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

Does Mexico have an aircraft carrier?

I think Canada ain't got none either.

"Lady Lex" is available for "stocking" after being "re-commissioned" though.

Now you want to start talking ... special operations ..

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is this why all ranchers on the border own a back hoe?

Is this why all ranchers on the border own a back hoe? Originally Posted by ekim008

I suppose, now that going to "boy's town" is so risky!

We'd have a helluva illegal alien problem with all the Yankees and californians here

Was that racist? I don't know but your rant sure sounded racist. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

It sounded racist, .... and "over the top."

(Is Austin trying to stop the "encroachment" from San Antonio?)

His rant reminds me of Russians bitching about all the Germans in East Germany!

We'd have a helluva illegal alien problem with all the Yankees and californians here Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

We do already. Especially when they try to pass themselves as "Austinites"!

The Yankees are "carpet baggers," ....

.... but the Californians are "basket weavers."

I'm tired of covering their unpaid utility bills.

Maybe they can work a deal and call it Texico! I like the sound of that.

Then we can all make minimum wage, wear a silly uniform and sing a jingle too! Originally Posted by austxjr

I agree Texico is better, as long as you pronounce it correctly.... Teh-ee-co.

It aint just texas. I say we let them all go.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...rld&id=8883599

Deflect all you damn well please, ExNYer. Your IMPROPER cite now stands against you, and you're scurrying for cover. Legitimate historians note that West Virginia's admission to the union as a separate state was an unconstitutional fraud. Suffice it to say: "the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's creation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dipshit, there was no improper cite. The holding in the case is the ONLY part that counts. And the holding was that the legislature could not claim fraud over something that the governor had discretion over. So the SCt. never had to reach the question of constitutionality.

The only thing that is improper is your belief that because the SCt never had to reach the questions of constitutionality, that it therefore is unconstitutional. Horseshit.

And your "improper" statement that the SCt was somehow "complicit" for a legitimate act of Congress now stands against you.

And regarding a "legitimate" historian who believes WVa admission to the Union was an unconstitutional fraud, Southern apologists don't count. Not even Shelby Foote. They're biased - to say the least.

As a matter of fact, historians in general don't even count. History is their forte, not interpreting the constitution. Trying quoting a constitutional scholar, like Laurence Tribe or Cass Sunstein.

The reason why you call people names and use epethets is because you're not winning any argument.

If you want to portray Lincoln as a lawful statesmen you're going to have to defend these things:

1.Lincoln illegally threw in jail anyone caught speaking in public against his actions.

2.Lincoln illegally threw into jail any newspaper publisher who criticized him

3.Lincoln threw into jail any person who was seen in a group failing to speak in favor of his actions.

3.Lincoln threw into jail everyone in the Maryland legislature who voiced support for seccession.

4.Lincoln threw into jail all consciencous objectors, including Quakers, who where torured in jail by having their hands mangled so they couldn't be farmers or use their hands after release.

5.Lincoln threw into jail anyone threatening to file peitions in court challenging his executive powers to raise militias, arrest without habias corpus, shut down presses, etc.

6.Therefore all these legal petitons and actions occurred AFTER his assassination.
The real reason for his assassination, and the reason why his killer declared him a tyrant, wasn't because he defeated the South.

He was assassinated because of his crimes against the north.

"I am the President of the United States, clothed in IMMENSE POWER!!!!!" - Abraham Lincoln. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I do not have to defend ANYTHING about Lincoln.

IB Hankering and I are arguing about the readmission of WVa to the union. You are trying to change the subject to Lincoln. What Lincoln thought had nothing to do with the constitutionality (or lack of it) in WVa's re-admission). It is a stupid strawman, which is why you bring it up.

And your history is beyond twisted. John Wilkes Booth did not care about the North or Northerners or what Lincoln did to them. He was sociopath who thought he was some kind of glorified knight avenging the South's honor. And he was too cowardly to actually join the Confederate Army and any actual fighting during the war, I might add. He did actually like to confront people who could shoot back at him. He preferred to sneak up behind them and shoot them in the back of the head.

If Texas was independent we wouldn't need any fucking military except to do what we did before and use the Texas rangers to go down to the border and shoot dead every illegal alien criminal who tries to come into our country to commit their stinkng banditry crimes, whether it's selling drugs, murder, extortion, rape, thievery, or slacking off and doing a shitty job on their cheapass "construction" work. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

How about the illegal Mexican women who come into our country and work for escort agencies, espcially in the Austin area? Are you OK with them?

Everyone in the construction industry, including me when I was a home builder, has seen the cheapass garbage of horrible foundations, uneven and unplumbed walls and windows,sloppy paint and drywall, that these Mexican workers do. And you've gotta watch them every fucking second or they won't do a damn thing, and they'll steal half the tools if you let them. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

That isn't the fault of the Mexican workers. They are just taking any job they can get, even if they are not trained for it. That is the fault of the US builders who won't hire trained workers because they cost too much and won't spend the money to train the unskilled illegals. Instead, they hire unskilled illegals and hope for the best. And the builders select the cheapest material possible to lower costs. That's why homes cost $250K instead of $300K.

That isn't the fault of the Mexican workers. Originally Posted by ExNYer

First ... many, if not most, of those coming across our borders are not even citizens of the Republic of Mexico so calling them "Mexicans" (just because they have brown skin?) is incorrect.

Second, for several years now there has been a building boom on the West coast of Mexico to the level that the government has had to build special housing to accommodate the imported workers from Central and South America to do the labor on the construction projects, which have consumed the readily available labor pool in the area .. wages and benefits are relatively good.

Third, irrespective of the hype when medical care becomes readily available in this country (just around the corner) without any risk of incarceration or deportation the numbers will grow geometrically beyond the existing populations here.

This state for years has had been blessed with workers from south of our border, but they were actually here for work and not entitlements...as is becoming the case. Those politicians who hold the carrot of residency or citizenship out to those desiring to come and/or desiring to remain if already here are creating an unmangageable group in excess of those folks already here. The workers coming here need jobs. Our economy cannot support them without jobs to support themselves. To entice them to come for a "better future" is tantamount to cruelty. They won't have it.

Dipshit, there was no improper cite. The holding in the case is the ONLY part that counts. And the holding was that the legislature could not claim fraud over something that the governor had discretion over. So the SCt. never had to reach the question of constitutionality.

The only thing that is improper is your belief that because the SCt never had to reach the questions of constitutionality, that it therefore is unconstitutional. Horseshit.

And your "improper" statement that the SCt was somehow "complicit" for a legitimate act of Congress now stands against you.

And regarding a "legitimate" historian who believes WVa admission to the Union was an unconstitutional fraud, Southern apologists don't count. Not even Shelby Foote. They're biased - to say the least.

As a matter of fact, historians in general don't even count. History is their forte, not interpreting the constitution. Trying quoting a constitutional scholar, like Laurence Tribe or Cass Sunstein. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Were you not among the pretentious bunch that deplores name-calling?

FACT: You didn't "cite" the article at all! You just posted text from the article; that's "improper citation" or "plagiarism": your choice.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was complicit in that the Radical Republicans pointedly denied President Johnson three appointments; thus, Congress had stacked the justices against Virginia.

West Virginia gained admittance to the U.S. by a process contravening the explicitly stated process outlined in Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution; hence, it was unconstitutional. Historian Jame McPherson (not Foote), in Battle Cry of Freedom, pp 297-299, points out that the process whereby West Virginia gained statehood violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution: which does not describe a means to such an end but rather altogether proscribes such an action. McPherson pointedly notes everyone knew the men pushing for independent statehood did not represent the majority of the people (note: that Lincoln and Congress recognized them as such was a "legal fiction": so Lincoln's "opinion" in this instance factors very large in the unconstitutional fraud prepetrated against Virginia). McPherson further and emphatically states "without the presence of victorious Northern troops, the state of west Virginia could not have been born" (299).

What does West Virginia have to do with ...

..... Texas going it alone for awhile?

What does West Virginia have to do with ...

..... Texas going it alone for awhile? Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's just another sub-plot in a thread that is so typical of Sandbox threads.

Rick Perry is not with it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texa...ecede-petition

Ironically, a petition to secede from the United States is not supported by the governor of Texas. Rick Perry said no to a secession petition from thousands of citizens who want the Obama administration to allow Texas to leave the Union peacefully and form their own government. Imagine that?



On Nov. 13, the Huffington Post provided an update on the controversial post-Election Day petition.
Shortly after the 2012 election results of the presidential race became official, a movement began to gather enough support for the Lone Star State to go at it alone.
Petitioner Micah H. wrote the "We the People" program of the White House and asked that President Obama and his administration allow the great state of Texas to leave peacefully.
His efforts were buoyed by Peter Morrison, an official with the Hardin County Republican Party, who referred to those, especially non-whites, as "maggots" in voting for Obama.
The authors of the Texas petition to secede from the United States believe the granting of the request by the Obama administration would protect Texans "standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."


By the writing of this report, the secession petition, now involving 30 states, has over 60,000 signatures. Once any petition reaches 25,000, it mandates a response from the Obama administration.
This movement may have gotten roots from statements made the Rick Perry in 2009 with suggestions of withdrawing from the United States. Then, he said:

"When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we're kind of thinking about that again."

However, Catherine Frazier, press secretary for Governor Rick Perry clarified her boss' stance on Texas' petition to secede from the Union. Monday, in an email to a Dallas news affiliate, she said:

"Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it. But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government."

While Perry does not take a hard-stance on supporting efforts to secede, he does suggest the White House should follow in the footsteps of Texas' leadership and balanced-budget.
It's understandable that many people are upset their candidate did not prevail on Election Day. However, this is a democracy and it has clearly spoken about its choice to lead the next four years.



In reality, the country is not breaking up; this is not the beginning of another Civil War. As Bill Funk, constitutional law professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, points out about efforts to secede:

"It's not in the president's power under the Constitution to let a state secede. In fact, it's not clear whether anyone, even Congress, could let a state secede. It might, in fact, take a constitutional amendment."

Are you better off than you were four years ago? The majority of Americans voted a resounding "yes" last week.