Enlil said:

Rail_Gun said:

That has nothing to do with the Treaty, you didn't even look it up. SCOTUS cases are irrelevant to the enforceability of treaties. Texas had sided with the confederacy and was defeated and that case rubbed their nose in it is all. Get your head out of your hindquarters and look up the treaty for yourself, counselor.

---

Wrong, counselor.  All treaties are subject to the Constitution of the United States.  Any unconstitutional provision in a treaty is void.

On top of that, there is NOTHING giving texas the right to secede in any document related to Texas becoming a state.  You seem to want me to prove that, but how would I do that?  Should I quote the exact portion that says nothing about it?  Don't you think it would be much easier for you to quote the portion that gives texas that right?

---

Enlil said:

I'm still waiting for you to quote the document that gives Texas the right to secede.

---

Rail_Gun said:

Where in the Constitution does it read anything at all about succession? That is a nonsequitur.

---

TriGeoLight said:

It isn't going to say shit about it in the Constitution because the Constitution was written we were seceding from England not Texas from the US. Your thinking to early man.

---

Enlil said:

Rail_Gun said:

Where in the Constitution does it read anything at all about succession? That is a nonsequitur.

---

It is not nonsequitur at all.  Texas has already tried to secede and that attempt was void under the Constitution:
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. " Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726.

What makes you think that any future attempt to do so would be Constitutional?

---

Enlil said:

WRONG AGAIN.  Texas TRIED to secede.  It failed.  If you failed at it once, you can fail at it again.

---

viktor said:

Why would Texans want to get their asses kicked again?

---

zappaisgod said:

No states are trying to secede.  15 or 20 states have dingbats running around asking people to sign petitions.  They do not represent anybody other than themselves and themselves are not states.

---

TriGeoLight said:

the fact that texas citizens received the amount of signatures required makes texas involved whether Texas rep. and gov. want it or not. Sorry I miss read your first post but it does get texas involved. The petition ends December 9 and it only needed 25,000 and it has way more.

---

gluke bastid said:

TriGeoLight said:

the fact that texas citizens received the amount of signatures required makes texas involved whether Texas rep. and gov. want it or not. Sorry I miss read your first post but it does get texas involved. The petition ends December 9 and it only needed 25,000 and it has way more.

---

Whoah dude awesome sounds like Texas is on track to be its own country by 2013.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

gluke bastid said:

TriGeoLight said:

the fact that texas citizens received the amount of signatures required makes texas involved whether Texas rep. and gov. want it or not. Sorry I miss read your first post but it does get texas involved. The petition ends December 9 and it only needed 25,000 and it has way more.

---

Whoah dude awesome sounds like Texas is on track to be its own country by 2013.

---

You forgot the zero at the end.

20,130

---

But no they have teh signzturez

TriGeoLight said:

the fact that texas citizens received the amount of signatures required makes texas involved whether Texas rep. and gov. want it or not. Sorry I miss read your first post but it does get texas involved. The petition ends December 9 and it only needed 25,000 and it has way more.

---

Dude, I understand you're enthusiastic and all, but you don't have any basic understanding about what's happening. The amusing thing is that you seem sure of yourself despite this. You might want to cut that out because it borders on ridiculousness. Stop being so certain of things that you haven't actually studied or researched.

The White House created the website to receive feedback from citizens about what they consider to be important, what they would like to see happen. In order to encourage people to participate in this process, they stated that, if a particular petition receives a certain amount of signatures, then they will offer a response to the matter.

That's it. It's really that simple. Ten million people could sign a particular petition and it wouldn't mean anything from a legal standpoint. No laws change. No Texans vote on it.

Now let's talk about Texas. In Texas, there doesn't even exist the possibility of making petitions that, once receiving enough signatures, get directly voted on by people in order to make it law.


The only way that Texans have direct democracy is when they vote on changes to the Constitution that are proposed by their state legislature. The only other thing that even comes close is the way that each political party can put on their primary ballot questions on particular issues, essentially a fancy opinion poll. That's it.

Even if Texas did have a way for petitions to be signed for the measure to be placed on a ballot for voters to choose, the "petition" on the White House's website wouldn't work. It'd have to be a written petition, in accordance with the state's laws, signed by eligible Texans, submitted to the appropriate authority, after which the signatures would be verified as authentic.

You do realize that people from other states than Texas have voted on the White House's website's "petition", right?

So, dude. You're wrong on so many levels with this.