• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill On Texas Secession Presented To TX Legislature

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This of course will never pass.


AUSTIN -- The Texas Nationalist Movement will host a rally at the state capitol Saturday urging lawmakers to put the matter of Texas independence before the state's voters in a non-binding plebiscite.
The resolution, drawn up as a concurrent resolution of the Legislature, spells out actions by the federal government which have intruded on the sovereignty of the State of Texas and calls for the plebiscite to be included on the ballot of the next scheduled election for state constitutional amendments. That date is Nov. 8 of this year.
The rally is scheduled from 1-4 p.m. Saturday on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin. The legislative sponsor of the rally is State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler).
"The elected representatives of the people of Texas need to know what the voters think," TNM president Daniel Miller said. "That is the purpose of this resolution, simply to give our legislators a sense of what the people of Texas think about the actions they are taking in defense of state sovereignty."
Miller said that state officials and lawmakers have done well in attempting to defend the state's sovereignty from federal intrusion, and that this plebescite could help further the goal of reining in federal over-reach.
"The elections last November showed that a lot of people, not only in Texas but across the United States, believe that our federal government is out of control," Miller said. "Even though the power in Congress changed hands, however, Washington continues to try and bully Texas and other states with rules and regulations never voted on by any elected representatives of the people and in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees state sovereignty."
"Simply allowing the people of Texas to vote on this issue in a non-binding way would send a very loud, very clear message to Washington that Texas won't be pushed any farther."
The resolution spells out that the vote would be "non-binding and for advisory purposes only," and that results would be reported not only to state officials, but also to members of Congress and the President.
"We in the Texas Nationalist Movement believe that independence is necessary for the economic and cultural survival of the people of Texas," Miller said. "Even so, there is nothing more any of us would like to see than the United States government steer away from its current path of self-implosion and return to the original intent and purpose of government as defined by the U.S. Constitution."
Visit the Texas Nationalist official website here.
Related Material: Texas in the news y'all, and you know what that means huh - either Bush news or secession news.
Bill On Texas Secession Presented To TX Legislature | Today's Lead Story
 
Actually, I don't know if I see anything wrong with a non-binding resolution.

The spokesman mentioned is wrong and right about the 10th Amendment. He's right in that it's not being followed but he's wrong in that Washington is violating state sovereignty. Rather, the federal government and state governments are violating the rights of the people which the 10th Amendment also guarantees.

So you're right in that they'll never get the vote for a non-binding resolution passed. But if I was a Texas legislator I'd probably vote to allow it.
 
Actually, I don't know if I see anything wrong with a non-binding resolution.

The spokesman mentioned is wrong and right about the 10th Amendment. He's right in that it's not being followed but he's wrong in that Washington is violating state sovereignty. Rather, the federal government and state governments are violating the rights of the people which the 10th Amendment also guarantees.

So you're right in that they'll never get the vote for a non-binding resolution passed. But if I was a Texas legislator I'd probably vote to allow it.

I'd vote to allow it too, just so that I can have a list of who's nuts in Texas government. :mrgreen:
 
I'd vote to allow it too, just so that I can have a list of who's nuts in Texas government. :mrgreen:

Yeah, I'm sure that's one way of looking at it.

But people have such little direct affect on politics and on how our government works that I support anything that will directly allow them to affect politics even if I don't support the measure being proposed.
 
Perhaps if Texas seceded then we could finally get some decent, non-partisan textbooks.
 
jOER invade mexico right back!
 


The resolution spells out that the vote would be "non-binding and for advisory purposes only," and that results would be reported not only to state officials, but also to members of Congress and the President."We in the Texas Nationalist Movement believe that independence is necessary for the economic and cultural survival of the people of Texas," Miller said. "Even so, there is nothing more any of us would like to see than the United States government steer away from its current path of self-implosion and return to the original intent and purpose of government as defined by the U.S. Constitution."

I'd vote for it.
 
While the thought of the State Seceding is silly, it won't happen regardless what the Feds do. The demographics of the state for one have changed. The actual ability to do such is... not there and frankly...

As a message by the people in protest, I'm down with that. I'd of waited for the SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare. If that's ruled "constitutional" then they'd have a lot more ammo.
 
looks like we Yankees got to go back and smack some sense into Texas...1865 style. =)
 
Texas v. White prohibits this.
 
Texas v. White prohibits this.

darn texas, keeping the white people down
mad.gif
 
I would think this would send a very strong message to all of our elected officials around the country. The fact that a state as large and as populated as Texas would even talk about succeeding forshadows dark times for our future as a nation. Due to partisan in-fighting; D.C probably hasn't even noticed anything though. If it comes close to having popular support in the state, other states would be emboldened to try the same thing. Ideas like this tend to pick up speed. (more so when your government is negligent in its duties to its people) We could end up with a "velvet divorce" with five wanna be Americas. (Southwest, West Coast, Midwest, New England and the South East Coast) Worse case, second civil war. Now I personaly would not mind losing California, but Washington state is a nice place to visit and I would need a pass port to visit my mom in Michigan... wierd.
 
Back
Top Bottom