Is Texas inching towards secession?
- Thread starter Evmur
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
lol, that's suppose to be a secret about the huge Hispanic influence part. A few years ago the articles would point out that the Hispanic population was on pace to be the majority in Texas https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/25/texas-hispanic-population-grows-2-million/ but now it's 2021 in Texas and so instead of separating the two white/Hispanic they combined the two and say there are 73.97% white instead of two groups. https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/texas-population
Well no it's not about me it's whether or not Texas might split from the US(the OP). I think it wont,, but what it is doing is the becoming el barrio(la vecindario) and so the Hispanic influence will begin to dominate. The water though hasn't been drinkable in Texas for quite some time now(look at the fish consumption bans and level of river and creek pollution) this though is attributed to the Plants(industry) and human pollution(drainage).
States CAN legally secede from the union- just not unilaterally. It takes a constitutional amendment to do it legally.
And I think people SHOULD consider a secessionist movement on moral ground. Unity is important, make no mistake, it's very important... but if the only way to uphold godliness and morality is separation, then separation is greater than unity.
The first American civil war was caused by rebellion which failed because it was too corrupt. I believe that the American Revolution was successful because of the Puritans. There was divine providence over the colonies because of a call to righteousness. The Confederacy was foolish to think they had the same. They sought God's favor without seeking his righteousness.
I'm not saying succession should be "first aid" by any means, and definitely not advocating rebellion. I would give my life for my country today, and I give it and have given years of my life to it already as giving it unto the Lord- because I believe that we have some favor left in his eyes.
But why should we sit idly as the unrighteous take control, and inch toward tyranny against us? Should we just passively accept that our tax money is given to abortionists to murder under the guise of "health care"... when there is a valid lawful way to oppose this?
How long until there is a real movement??? Where do we draw the line in the sand? How long will YOU kneel to "Medical" tyranny? I, for one, saw this coming DECADES AGO as backslidden trash sinner. I swear, my girlfriend at the time always had an excuse for everything. Even lied, saying she had breast cancer. My co-workers had completely mastered malingering to the point I was disgusted. I would rather die TODAY, RIGHT NOW, than be a slave to people's medical excuses for the rest of my life. I knew in my heart that this was from the power of the anti-christ. Are we just going to wait unitl it's too late- and we have to choose between living out godly principles and obeying government??? I don't think it should, or needs to come to that. Once we pass that threshold, where our rebellion is mandated by god, we either have an organized rebellion, or get persecuted and die. Do we really want to ignore possible options that we have before being persecuted/jailed/martyred???
Don't get me wrong, it would be an honor to be martyred, but it we be disgraceful to passively sit by and watch my government, over which we have some sway, degenerate to the point of turning on it's own people because they hunger and thirst for righteousness. A secessionist movement wouldn't even have to end in succession to be successful, it would only have exert political pressure to change things in our favor. So, at the end of the day, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.
And I think people SHOULD consider a secessionist movement on moral ground. Unity is important, make no mistake, it's very important... but if the only way to uphold godliness and morality is separation, then separation is greater than unity.
The first American civil war was caused by rebellion which failed because it was too corrupt. I believe that the American Revolution was successful because of the Puritans. There was divine providence over the colonies because of a call to righteousness. The Confederacy was foolish to think they had the same. They sought God's favor without seeking his righteousness.
I'm not saying succession should be "first aid" by any means, and definitely not advocating rebellion. I would give my life for my country today, and I give it and have given years of my life to it already as giving it unto the Lord- because I believe that we have some favor left in his eyes.
But why should we sit idly as the unrighteous take control, and inch toward tyranny against us? Should we just passively accept that our tax money is given to abortionists to murder under the guise of "health care"... when there is a valid lawful way to oppose this?
How long until there is a real movement??? Where do we draw the line in the sand? How long will YOU kneel to "Medical" tyranny? I, for one, saw this coming DECADES AGO as backslidden trash sinner. I swear, my girlfriend at the time always had an excuse for everything. Even lied, saying she had breast cancer. My co-workers had completely mastered malingering to the point I was disgusted. I would rather die TODAY, RIGHT NOW, than be a slave to people's medical excuses for the rest of my life. I knew in my heart that this was from the power of the anti-christ. Are we just going to wait unitl it's too late- and we have to choose between living out godly principles and obeying government??? I don't think it should, or needs to come to that. Once we pass that threshold, where our rebellion is mandated by god, we either have an organized rebellion, or get persecuted and die. Do we really want to ignore possible options that we have before being persecuted/jailed/martyred???
Don't get me wrong, it would be an honor to be martyred, but it we be disgraceful to passively sit by and watch my government, over which we have some sway, degenerate to the point of turning on it's own people because they hunger and thirst for righteousness. A secessionist movement wouldn't even have to end in succession to be successful, it would only have exert political pressure to change things in our favor. So, at the end of the day, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
"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."
"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 pledge of allegiance nullifies the DoI being used to secede.
"One nation under God,indivisible...."
The DoI is non-transferable. Meaning, it is a declaration of grievance in particular.
The conditions detailed in that declaration would have to be entirely present in the land today for the declaration to apply.
They aren't.
"One nation under God,indivisible...."
The DoI is non-transferable. Meaning, it is a declaration of grievance in particular.
The conditions detailed in that declaration would have to be entirely present in the land today for the declaration to apply.
They aren't.
When I look it up, I find: There is no clause in the US Constitution that prohibits it.
Adding: The US Constitution only addresses the method by which a state may be partitioned into two or more states, or by which two or more states may be joined as a single state. The US Constitution is silent with regard to secession. Is that wrong?
Adding: The US Constitution only addresses the method by which a state may be partitioned into two or more states, or by which two or more states may be joined as a single state. The US Constitution is silent with regard to secession. Is that wrong?
When I look it up, I find: There is no clause in the US Constitution that prohibits it.
Adding: The US Constitution only addresses the method by which a state may be partitioned into two or more states, or by which two or more states may be joined as a single state. The US Constitution is silent with regard to secession. Is that wrong?
Adding: The US Constitution only addresses the method by which a state may be partitioned into two or more states, or by which two or more states may be joined as a single state. The US Constitution is silent with regard to secession. Is that wrong?
SCOTUS, in 1869 and the case Texas v. White. States cannot unilaterally secede.
If you read the Scalia article that may also help.
What a read! Well, part of it does say:
That the State, having severed her relations with a majority of the States of the Union, and having by her ordinance of secession attempted to throw off her allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, has so far changed her status as to be disabled from prosecuting suits in the National courts... If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at he time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.
That the State, having severed her relations with a majority of the States of the Union, and having by her ordinance of secession attempted to throw off her allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, has so far changed her status as to be disabled from prosecuting suits in the National courts... If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at he time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.
Ah, but there was more.
101
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
102
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.
101
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
102
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.
-
1
- Show all
Heh, yes, there was a lot more! Do you think it will come to revolution?
Do you think it will come to revolution?
For a non-violent revolution to occur we'd have to have a citizen majority pact dedicated to the cause.
One thing about any country and their governments.
They who have the power, and that top 1% or more who have the wealth, depend on the majority of Americans to make government run. And make the money those 1% enjoy as proceeds from their corporate interests, investments, etc....
-
1
- Show all
The bottom line is that the US constitution is government of the people, by the people and for the people. When that is no longer true you have a government resting on a faulty foundation, the house will fall. A house divided cannot stand.
We can be sure that Britain considered the US declaration of independence to be "illegal". So what, it became necessary because King George was ignoring the will of the people.
We can be sure that Britain considered the US declaration of independence to be "illegal". So what, it became necessary because King George was ignoring the will of the people.