tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3172438405174968302.post8909769110317214482..comments2023-07-22T04:35:20.686-07:00Comments on Eagles for America - Willis: Selling Seccession - Part IJeff B. Willishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01507436173521876645noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3172438405174968302.post-51577177740977929492016-08-20T12:36:03.799-07:002016-08-20T12:36:03.799-07:00I am assuming that you've never read the decis...I am assuming that you've never read the decision in Texas v. White, which is hardly an "obscure" case. The court held that the Union was intended to be perpetual, and that absent a general revolution, it could not be dissolved, and no state had the power to leave it without the consent of all the others. The majority held that Texas did not enter into a compact with the other states when it joined the US, but instead agreed to subordinate itself to an already-existing political entity. Therefore, Texas' ordinance of secession was null, as were all actions taken by officials operating under its alleged authority or toward the furtherance of its ends. Such actions, the court said, were "treasonous and void." Further, those who committed such acts were not actually legal officials of the state. <br /><br />This is settled law. Absent amendments to the Constitution proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention and ratified by three fourths of the sates, the kind of changes you are talking about are not possible, at least within the law. Of course, if we ever got to the point where vast majorities of Americans no longer wanted to live under the current arrangement the law might become practically moot, but there is very little evidence of such majorities existing. <br /><br />On the question of Texas secession: I imagine that if anyone actually looked at the practical problems associated with separating from the US, the idea would not look so attractive. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com