General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,927 posts)

61. Or not

Reply to Scootaloo (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 05:50 AM

Jun 2016

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

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