Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
40. That is a ridiculous argument
Fri Apr 23, 2021, 02:36 PM
Apr 2021

Any particular division would require the consent of Congress to that particular proposal.

There is no blanket consent given to Texas in relation to any particular proposal to form a state.

That is simply one of those things that is taught in slave state schools which simply would not work in real life.

Texas also argued, for the same reason, that it had the right to secede.

They lost more than the bonds at issue in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869). If you know how to look up court cases, then I would suggest you take a look at that 1869 Supreme Court ruling.


"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


And, in addition to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision also has more weight than a Smithsonian article.

You can ad hominem all you want, but perhaps you might quote some legal authority beyond a popular magazine.

The issue with PR is that it's not clear that the citizens want Statehood... brooklynite Apr 2021 #1
Same thing with the American Revolution. Kaleva Apr 2021 #2
...in which many persons who remained loyal to the British moved to Canada Effete Snob Apr 2021 #3
The Loyalists moved on their own accord Kaleva Apr 2021 #4
I guess they'll just swim away then Effete Snob Apr 2021 #11
They literally just voted in November JT45242 Apr 2021 #5
No qazplm135 Apr 2021 #7
55% voter turnout same as 2016 election votes per ballotpedia JT45242 Apr 2021 #13
first, it was a nonbinding resolution qazplm135 Apr 2021 #15
"If people do not show up to vote..." Effete Snob Apr 2021 #21
So did OK and its still a state, that's not a relevant metric uponit7771 Apr 2021 #19
it is qazplm135 Apr 2021 #23
OK's EC's counted with low turnout so does PRs voting on that issue. Turnout isn't uponit7771 Apr 2021 #27
So qazplm135 Apr 2021 #30
You're conflating participation and want uponit7771 Apr 2021 #44
And you are conflating elections and results Effete Snob Apr 2021 #46
So black people in America don't want some issues? Come on, we can't participate at the rate uponit7771 Apr 2021 #47
WTF? Effete Snob Apr 2021 #49
Regardless discouraging or just not participating we can't measure the want by participation uponit7771 Apr 2021 #50
Okay, fine, then tell me.... Effete Snob Apr 2021 #52
My guess is that due to their latest economic struggles.. Imallin4Joe Apr 2021 #6
It's their call qazplm135 Apr 2021 #8
Yes, eliminate the favorable tax treatment too Effete Snob Apr 2021 #12
given the income levels qazplm135 Apr 2021 #16
The income levels? Effete Snob Apr 2021 #17
Agree colsohlibgal Apr 2021 #9
WELL catsudon Apr 2021 #14
The people of Texas have no right to do that Effete Snob Apr 2021 #18
You are wrong. former9thward Apr 2021 #22
Remarkably, the Smithsonian Magazine is not the US Constitution Effete Snob Apr 2021 #25
Remarkably, the Smithsonian Magazine has more credibility than an anonymous internet poster. former9thward Apr 2021 #26
Yes it does, but I would imagine that the Supreme Court would have to rule marie999 Apr 2021 #29
No doubt. former9thward Apr 2021 #39
The US Constitution Expressly Requires "consent of Congress" Effete Snob Apr 2021 #34
They gave their consent in 1845. former9thward Apr 2021 #38
That is a ridiculous argument Effete Snob Apr 2021 #40
Maybe you should argue the point. former9thward Apr 2021 #51
That is not the history behind the Dakota territory becoming two states. Cuthbert Allgood Apr 2021 #32
Correct: People of PR do NOT have a consensus for statehood. STILL. Hortensis Apr 2021 #10
PR should hold an election Elessar Zappa Apr 2021 #28
Tell them that. Again. It's not a frivolous moment of attention Hortensis Apr 2021 #33
Will be schooled but any us Dems calling for it can't be accused of stacking the deck UTUSN Apr 2021 #20
"I don't think PR is reliably Dem" Effete Snob Apr 2021 #24
+1000 nt WarGamer Apr 2021 #37
"are correct" - whew, first time that's happened, thanks!1 UTUSN Apr 2021 #45
PR has to want statehood dsc Apr 2021 #31
Are they ready to pay US Income Taxes? WarGamer Apr 2021 #36
they avoid income taxes but also don't get the benefits we do dsc Apr 2021 #41
Apparently, they will do whatever people on an internet forum tell them they need to do Effete Snob Apr 2021 #42
Small price to pay. Kid Berwyn Apr 2021 #48
States aren't formed because of population. WarGamer Apr 2021 #35
W VA exists due to rebellion of VA dsc Apr 2021 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"And the population of Pu...»Reply #40