General Discussion

Gman

(24,780 posts)

18. Actually, they are not stupid

Sun Jun 26, 2016, 04:59 PM

Jun 2016

There's a ton of issues that would in essence mean much less money for the chosen. Smaller treasuries, statewide influence in a state of many million vs several million not to mention interstate commerce laws that would apply all make it a stupid choice for the cost (they'd have to manage 8 Senators vs just 2.) Theres much more on the money making downside they are aware of. And money is what it's all about.

No, they are not stupid.

This excludes the garden variety right wing nuts that don't have a financial interest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DID YOU KNOW? Texas has the power to put another 8 Republicans into the US Senate? [View all] MohRokTah Jun 2016 OP

Well, it's not just that they're too stupid. There's no support for it. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #1

Nope, they don't. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #2

Will there be color coded gun racks? underpants Jun 2016 #3

Unlikely but.. Cresent City Kid Jun 2016 #4

Like I said, the borders would have to be carefully drawn. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #5

Also, the governor, the state 'board' members with their gubernatorial appointments, and the MADem Jun 2016 #7

The existing government would go to the one of the five named "Texas" MohRokTah Jun 2016 #8

But that governor would be one of five, not a big cheese with a big state! MADem Jun 2016 #15

Yup. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #17

Could we stop the damned Texas-bashing? okasha Jun 2016 #56

Yup! Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #23

I say let them--there's nothing magic about a giant state. MADem Jun 2016 #6

They already broke up Texas like that LostOne4Ever Jun 2016 #9

+ struggle4progress Jun 2016 #16

OMG! A fact! okasha Jun 2016 #58

I bet few pockets, like around Dallas, Southlake, McKinney, etc, would love to have their own state. Ilsa Jun 2016 #10

That's what the 1 March 1845 annexation law said but not what the 30 March 1870 law says. struggle4progress Jun 2016 #11

The area was ceded to territories, not formed into new states by the TX leg. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #12

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 Major Nikon Jun 2016 #48

Seems to have been ignored for West Virginia Scootaloo Jun 2016 #57

Or not Major Nikon Jun 2016 #61

It would also need approval of Congress. LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #13

Congress granted its pre-approval in the language of the 1845 legislation... MohRokTah Jun 2016 #14

There's no real point in revisiting this: the issue has been moot for over 150 years struggle4progress Jun 2016 #21

It's a legitimate concern when talk of secession rears up in Texas. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #22

If you say so, then in your mind they do The Second Stone Jun 2016 #54

Actually, they are not stupid Gman Jun 2016 #18

The federal govt has last say on states.... beachbumbob Jun 2016 #19

The Congress gave pre-approval to any plan devised by the TX legislature in the legislation... MohRokTah Jun 2016 #20

You do know other stuff happened after that, right? truebluegreen Jun 2016 #28

I know that, for instance, Texas had to cede territory. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #30

Texass can't do it alone. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #24

Congress gave its consent with the legislation admitting TX as a state in 1845. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #25

No. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #27

That does not fulfill the 1845 legislation MohRokTah Jun 2016 #29

The game she be changed. Texass seceded. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #32

Actually, the SCOTUS ruled that nobody seceded. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #34

Whatever, dude. Go argue your case to Texass, they need you. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #35

No, that's a tremendous oversimplification. jberryhill Jun 2016 #46

It's an open question if that ended with secession. It wasn't included in any agreement HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #52

WRONG L. Coyote Jun 2016 #26

Yeah, well,except you are mistaken... catnhatnh Jun 2016 #31

I don't buy that argument and can easily counter it. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #33

"You" don't buy it? So what? truebluegreen Jun 2016 #36

I have presented a perfectly legitimate constitutional argument. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #37

None of which matters a plugged nickel until a case comes to the Court: the definition of "moot." truebluegreen Jun 2016 #43

Have you ever amended a contract? jberryhill Jun 2016 #47

Wrong again catnhatnh Jun 2016 #45

Crock of metabolic byproducts. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #38

Read the thread. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #39

Read it, it's still a crock. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #40

You are entitled t hold whatever opinion you choose. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #41

so are you. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #42

That agreement was between the Repulic of of Texas and the United States; it became null and void LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #44

I like the secession idea lots better CanonRay Jun 2016 #49

This means if TX tries to secede, we can instigate a breakup of it. roamer65 Jun 2016 #50

Yes the right to secede was in their statehood but they did secede at the Civil War Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #51

No, the right to secede was never in the admission legislation, that's a myth. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #53

When first admitted as a state Texas had the right to secede, they did and became a part Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #59

No, they did not. That is a myth. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #60

That would be legal rock Jun 2016 #55