RPT Platform includes secession questions

[Jason Fry]

I've been in favor of Texas independence for a decade at least, but we are making more and more progress on the issue in the establishment.

The Republican Party of Texas passed two planks in its platform that reference secession. The first says that Texas retains the right to secede based on Article 1 section 2 of the Texas constitution. Both the first and second planks call for a vote on the issue, and up or down referendum on Texas independence.

For those who say it isn't possible, let me start with this...

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

All the power is inherent in the people, who have the right to alter, reform, or abolish as they think expedient. We the people of Texas, even the imported Californians, have an inherent right to vote on the subject of whether our association with the US is in our best interest.

[Playa]

Well let’s clarifying one thing…. We didn’t IMPORT the Californians, the immigrated here

[Walker]

I hate to say this but I think it's all grandstanding. We will need more determined conservatives in our political structure.

[Jason Fry]

I agree on the grandstanding... Considering that the lege typically makes progress on two or three of the top ten issues put forward by the convention, and considering that there's some really kooky stuff in many of the other platform planks..

Even so, for an issue I'm dedicated to, I'm glad to see it getting some attention. How many years was constitutional carry on the priorities list before we saw progress?

Those who say we have no right, it's "illegal", etc. have missed the point that the people have the power. I believe that Texas independence is a good proposition, but I am wrong alot. Regardless, failing to even let the people vote on the issue is holding the power in the halls and backrooms of government. Let us debate it and vote!

[ttechdallas]

Has there been anything published on the implications of Texas independence from federally funded programs? What happens with those on social security as well as those who've paid into SS for years but not yet there? Just curious as if this ever came to a vote, I'm guessing there would be those campaigning against it and we all know campaigns routinely rely on fearmongering to motivate voters.

[Walker]

Those who say we have no right, it's "illegal", etc. have missed the point that the people have the power. I believe that Texas independence is a good proposition, but I am wrong alot. Regardless, failing to even let the people vote on the issue is holding the power in the halls and backrooms of government. Let us debate it and vote!

I could be wrong but I think when we joined the union we reserved the right to succeed if we wanted.

[Jason Fry]

I could be wrong but I think when we joined the union we reserved the right to succeed if we wanted.

This is a common misconception. IMO the right to secede goes along with the constitutional clause quoted above. The people have the right to modify the government.

[Jason Fry]

Has there been anything published on the implications of Texas independence from federally funded programs? What happens with those on social security as well as those who've paid into SS for years but not yet there? Just curious as if this ever came to a vote, I'm guessing there would be those campaigning against it and we all know campaigns routinely rely on fearmongering to motivate voters.

That's all true, and is why it is important that this discussion be in earnest, for a while. Some may get all ****** at Brandon and vote for Texas in ignorance, and others will buy the fear of the 'what if' and vote against Texas, but both of those voters are uninformed.

Are former US residents residing in Canada or wherever still entitled to their SS benefits? I believe so. It seems reasonable to negotiate a settlement for Texit where maybe the pay ins stop, and the promise of future payouts stop, but the current payouts and contributions would remain in effect.

I see it like a divorce or any other split. These issues become negotiable. Until we get a chance to actually critically ask and examine the questions, it'll all just be fear and pandering.

[reconman]

The issue is more about the land that we deemed as federal property when we joined the union. That is the biggest road block we face.

[47]

The issue is more about the land that we deemed as federal property when we joined the union. That is the biggest road block we face.

Then we fight them for it. Maybe they'll send their new Navy.

[Pedernal]

Texit would be a catchy name!

[Jason Fry]

Texit is already in use as a term.

Federal property is a negotiating point for sure. There is US property and military presence in many sovereign countries. Maybe we give favorable oil trade terms in exchange for Ft Hood? IDK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jason Fry]

Imagine if you will… a Union somewhat peaceably breaks up resulting in a few sovereign nations. Some time afterward, the largest and most powerful state invades one of the nations it was previously aligned with.

Do you think the US will invade Texas? That puts them in the role of Russia in the same scenario that’s ongoing in Ukraine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Farmdog]

Then build a wall around Austin and get the hippies to pay for it

[Mitchell8]

Will I need a passport to hunt Sam Houston National Forest?