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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
45. Wrong again
Sun Jun 26, 2016, 06:29 PM
Jun 2016

"At any time between 23 June 1845 (when the Republic of Texas so formally accepted its so being appended to the United States) and 29 December 1845 (when, by specific Act of Congress, the State of Texas within the United States of America officially replaced the Republic of Texas [despite the aforementioned delay re: Texas itself hearing about it]), Texas could have- right then and there- availed itself of the provision allowing itself to subdivide into up to five States. While the Consent Resolution of the Texas Congress of 23 June of that year specifically referred to "a new State, to be called the State of Texas, and admitted as one of the States of the American Union", the duly delegated representatives of the People of that Republic meeting in Convention beginning 4 July 1845 might well have considered dividing their Republic into fifths (or fourths-- or thirds-- or in half) in the course of said Convention and, thereafter, presented the American Congress with a fait accompli which the American Congress could then either have approved of or rejected (per the American Constitution's own Article IV, Section 3, clause 1) as the members of both houses of Congress might have then seen fit...

this the Texas Constitutional Convention did not do, however: instead, that Convention reported out an instrument of Government contemplating a new State of Texas coterminous with the geographical limits of the Republic of Texas already appended to the United States-- and it was this instrument that the People of Texas (as a whole) themselves ratified and which the Congress of the United States accepted as just such an instrument when they officially welcomed Texas into the American Union via statute towards the end of that same year.

But, once Texas had been so welcomed, "she ceased to be an independent nation. She then became a sister State on an 'equal footing' with all the other States. That act concededly entailed a relinquishment of some of her sovereignty"-- including any and all sovereign power to divide herself up into up to five new States in a manner no other of her sister States were- or have ever been- entitled to avail themselves of: that is, a manner wholly inconsistent with the specific language of Article IV, Section 3, clause 1 of the Federal Constitution itself...

Long discussion here>>>
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/explanation-texas-statehood-issues.phtml

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DID YOU KNOW? Texas has t...»Reply #45