Slashdot Mirror

"If it turns into a real mess, all it would take is Rich people fearing for their own lives to put up the money to start mass producing this drug. Also, it appears the Russians have a few drugs starting trails as well."

Isn't it the job of the federal gob't to pony up the money in cases like this when it's a public health issue, and a potential national security issue? Is this not what we pay taxes for?

God knows they spend money on all kinds of less minor crap.

Yes, but Texans don't seem to believe in federal government. In fact, texans have been wanting to secede for awhile now. I say now is the time we let them do it. Then immediately put a travel ban in place between the rest of the country and the newly instituted "United States of Caucasia".

I'm not calling for Texas Secession yet, but it's tempting some days... and not just for Texas. Washington and New York are too far from most places to understand local needs.

Texas is kind of like that girlfriend that is always this close to dumping you -- she really means it this time.

I, for one, would like to call her bluff, help her pack, and call her a cab.

I'm not calling for Texas Secession yet, but it's tempting some days... and not just for Texas. Washington and New York are too far from most places to understand local needs.

The only people who would mind that are people the rest of us would just as soon see secede, as well.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Over time, this principle has been reinforced: the more land a government oversees, and the more remote it is from a local area, the more likely it is to misunderstand the specific needs of that locality.

It's bad enough that the federal government makes laws that might work on the coasts but ignore the needs of people in the flyover states, but trust the UN to treat Texas like New York or Brussels and thus completely miss the point.

I'm not calling for Texas Secession yet, but it's tempting some days... and not just for Texas. Washington and New York are too far from most places to understand local needs.

And if the next Democratic president were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him.

If Carty Finkbeiner is ever president, I will work actively for the Texas Secede movement.

If Texas succeeds

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well, technically there is no basis for this myth of Texas having the right to secede from the rest of the Nation at will. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Texas constitution nor is there a provision for it in the US constitution. Now some folks would claim that because there is no mention of it, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Check to the FAQ at this site, which seems to promote the idea.
Snopes briefly mentions this myth as well in the last sentence of this page, and also mentions that there is no such clause in any official documentation.
More proof

Impress them with what? Your gullibility? You are quite misinformed and would do well to educate yourself before speaking urban legend as fact.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no

Or this fine piece of Secessionist literature.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

Notice in the first answer it takes special pains to emphasize "note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...".

All that is well and good, but the gret secessionist geniuses down in Texas seem to forget the fact the Constitution of the United States does in deed outline our form of *guberment*, in particular the President, Congress, and the rights of States. That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.

Junior High was a long time ago I was remembering Rick Perry's recent remarks.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no

Your right there is no explicit clause stating one way or another. Here are the different sides to the argument.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

and wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Texas

Finally, I don't agree with this guy but I like this quote.

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/04/20/texas-eventually-secede-union/

"I say Texans can do whatever the hell they want. Even if U.S. law says Texas cannot secede from the Union, the whole point of declaring independence is to free yourself from such laws"

Not quite as elegant as "For the People and By the People" but we ain't from Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

"The resolution did, however, include two unique provisions: first, it gave the new state of Texas the right to divide itself into as many as five states (a proposal never seriously considered). Second, Texas did not have to surrender its public lands to the federal government. Thus the only lands owned by the federal government within Texas have actually been purchased by the government, and the vast oil discoveries on state lands have provided a major revenue flow for the state universities."

-----

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html

"Texas does not have the right to secede, any more than any other state does. Which is not to say that Texas, or any other state, can't secede if it has a mind to; after all, 11 states did back in 1861. Many modern Texans have the vague idea - as did most secessionists - that because Texas entered as a former republic, it retained the right to leave the Union if it saw fit. However, no such clause appears in the congressional act authorizing Texas to join the Union. Because it was once independent, because it at one time did secede frmo the Union, and because its ideology is far different from that of the rest of the US, Texas has always clung to the idea of a guaranteed right of secession as a mark of its specialness and as a source of reassurance in case all else fails.

One privelege Texas does reserve, and a condition that appears in the resolution approving its statehood, is the option to subdivide itself into as many as four states (a total of five). But Texas is more likely to leave the Union again than to fragment its identity and its land. "

-----

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp

Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
            A:

"No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the rest of the United States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"--including Abraham Lincoln himself--may have ever said)."

---------

I wonder if NorCal would consider liming the water it sends downstream to LA, hehehe. I bet SoCal would divide and then try to CONQUER (or, KONK-WAR) NorCal.... Seems the Peripheral Canal is in the news/on the talk show circuit, again...

Texas does not specifically state that it can secede from the Union but it can certainly read that way.

Take a look at some people who are very serious about seceding.

This is a long-running "joke" in Texas but very few actually take it seriously. After all, Texas ALREADY runs the country. Not for long though...