Texas has required number of signatures 25,000

[farmerbyron]

With the signing of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation became history and not the definitive law of this land. So "States Rights" are not an issue. The Constitution eliminates it.

Huh?

10th amendment to the constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[cmhbob]

With the signing of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation became history and not the definitive law of this land. So "States Rights" are not an issue. The Constitution eliminates it.

Chief Justice Chase disagrees with you. The majority opinion in Texas v. White held that

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these [Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Decision

And as farmerbryon points out, there's always the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Hobbes]

To ask for a peaceful secession from the Union

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...om-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/

How did this ever turn out, anyway?

 

[RickN]

How did this ever turn out, anyway?

I think the Whitehouse is still working on a carefully worded statement, blaming Bush.

 

[ripnbst]

Here's sort of a sidebar question...Would the US disallow Texas' secession based solely on the fear that if they allowed TX to do it then others would do it too?

 

[ignerntbend]

I think the Whitehouse is still working on a carefully worded statement, blaming Bush.

I'm fairly confident that many of the people who signed the petiton are non-Texans who are sick of listening to the bluff and blarney that the petion represents.

The White House won't blame Bush. They're much more likely to try an appeasement strategy. They'll want to convince the real Americans that signed it, that Dubya and his acolytes don't represent Texas at all. We can't just kick Texas out in the cold as tempting as that may sound.

 

[WTJ]

I'm fairly confident that many of the people who signed the petiton are non-Texans who are sick of listening to the bluff and blarney that the petion represents.

The White House won't blame Bush. They're much more likely to try an appeasement strategy. They'll want to convince the real Americans that signed it, that Dubya and his acolytes don't represent Texas at all. We can't just kick Texas out in the cold as tempting as that may sound.

Please "kick" Texas out in the cold. I implore you.

 

[ignerntbend]

Please "kick" Texas out in the cold. I implore you.

We're just not going to do that, nor should we.
You have a whiny-ass six year old pounding his tiney fists on the floor. No, you don't kick him out.

 

[BadgeBunny]

We're just not going to do that, nor should we.
You have a whiny-ass six year old pounding his tiney fists on the floor. No, you don't kick him out.

No, but he'd wish I had after I was done with him ...

 

[458 SOCOM]

Good bye Texas. Don't call the evil Obama when a hurricane drowns your ass.

I think succession is that point exactly