Maybe Texas will beat NH out the door.
etc.
1 Like
This is absolutely the simplest and clearest… let me repeat, the CLEAREST discussion
of the idea of secession… and the clearest discussion of TEXIT as above, that I have ever
seen/heard. Should be seen by ALL secessionists and non-secessionists… and
taken to heart.
I hope it moves along the process of Texit
The Brits understand our politics better than many
Americans.
The video emphasizes Texit, but also mentions
New Hampshire and California.
Talks about Texit being censored on places like
Facebook.
Heavy British accent.
https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20231212/16426421/Texit-Now-Going-Full-English-with-Graham.htm
Some discussion of the usefulness of referendums that
fail; discussion of “Defend the Guard” movement across
the US (but does not mention the NH bill); state investments
in gold (Texas has already removed its gold to Texas); etc.
Published 12-15-2023, but seems to have been recorded a
week or so prior to that. Nearly an hour interview of Daniel Miller; Daniel does most of the talking. NH mentioned once.
Very interesting interview.
I am including the following link mostly for the opening text, in italics, stating the
writers opinion that Texas, if it becomes independent, will devolve into a third-world
country. It is, apparently, a letter/email sent to the author of the article. It claims
that because Texas gets one-third of their budget from federal dollars that it
can’t possibly survive on its own!
This has also been claimed for New Hampshire.
People still don’t realize that if you secede, you don’t send dollars to DC. They’re
just not thinking.
1 Like
Podcast about Texit and Nullification:
1 Like
This link was kind enough to provide the quote from White v Texas in support of the constitution denying the legality of secession (from White v Texas):
“The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,” the high court said in an opinion written by then-Chief Justice Solomon P. Chase.
Note that Justice Chase is simply voicing an opinion about what the Constitution is supposed to be about. That opinion seems to based on the Articles of Confederation, which we have already shown was completely scrapped, and seceded from by the states before they could join the compact designated as the Constitution.
Now, the Preamble of the Constitution does say:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We might take that point about securing to “our Posterity” as being a statement of the intent of the Constitution to be perpetual.
Then we get Jacobson v. Massachusetts wherein stated that:
“The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument.”
“While the spirit of the Constitution is to be respected not less than its letter, the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words.” ( Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Chase said that "“The Constitution, in all its provisions…”
Jacobson v Massachusetts separated the intention of the legislation from any actionable provisions of the legislation (the Constitution).
In Jacobson it is written that the United States “… cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution…”.
Chase said that the Constitution “… looks to…” an indestructible Union, and the Jacobson case says that the federal government cannot exert any power to secure “…the declared objects of the Constitution…”.
Consider further that the “anti-commandeering doctrine” would allow resistance to any acts that the states considered federal over-reach, even if the federal actions are constitutional.
One additional note: the separation of the preamble from the constitution proper also would, in my opinion, disallow the federal government from using its power “… form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” unless such allowance is made in the Constitution itself. That covers a VERY large portion of federal law.
1 Like
Just another statement that Texas v White determined that
it was illegal for any state to unilaterally secede.
This idea is getting a lot of press. We need to start seeing
public statements from the other side, can’t have the ignorant
lead the learned.
1 Like
TEXIT is specifically mentioned in this article, but the article is really about the urban/rural divide in this
country. I have seen this discussed before wrt Texas, where Houston has democrat leanings, but the
state of Texas overall is a red state.
1 Like
Looks like Illinois might now be getting an earful about TEXIT.
It’s amazing that even the so-called “experts” don’t understand that
if a state withdraws from the union it will no longer send taxes to
the federal government, so there is really minimal, if any, loss of
revenue in the state.
In this article “Joshua Black, an expert in state politics at the
University of Texas at Austin…” continues to affirm that ridiculous
tenet.
A thoughtful comment by a reader of the Newsweek article.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/18qcdi0/what_an_independent_texas_would_look_like/
“It’s become very clear that the United States of America is not going to survive as an intact nation beyond the next decade or so.”
1 Like
The article is not new, but the comment is:
The important thing to see in the above article is that the
things Annie wants Texas to pay for have already been
paid for through the taxes that people have been paying
to DC through the years.
This is the other side of the coin:
The people of a state that has seceded will be able
to stop paying taxes to DC; and
All the federal dollars that went to pay for things in
the past were already paid for via the taxes
already sent in.
People just don’t think!
TEXIT starts about 1:30
I believe the following is the same, but includes only
the TEXIT portion.
The game is afoot.
Ouch!!!
1 Like