With all due respect, the notion that Texas (or any other state) has a special
right to leave the Union at will is a myth. It is true that Texas was once an
internationally recognized sovereign republic that pre-existed its membership in
the Union. However, other than the implicit theory that any state might
reassume the sovereign rights granted voluntarily by it to the federal
government (which was disproved for all practical purposes by the outcome of the
unpleasantness of 1861-1865), there is no explicit provision in any American
Constitution or statute providing for the right of secession.
Perhaps you are thinking of the unique but real right of Texas to divide itself
into as many as five states of the Union on its own volition without further
action by the Congress. Van Zandt wrongly denies this right in BUS&SS, but he
completely misses the point that the Congress has already given its consent to
the admission of any such states, on March 1, 1845. Of course, the
balkanization of Texas would be total heresy to most modern Texans!
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "kontikipaul" <contikipaul@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico(?)
> New Mexico has zero chance. Texas is one of two states who have the
> right to leave the union at any time and as someone from the smallest
> state in the union who may be made even smaller by Connecticut the
> politicians here are threatening enough lawsuits to bog down a shift
> for years. Basically, I'm not a lawyer by the way, there is
> something in the law called 'tone and content'. What this means is
> if something has become a given legal fact and new information crops
> up that it might not be so, the prepondance of legality is on the
> side of the people/group/entity that will suffer because of the new
> information. Its the legalize of the old saying "possesion is 9/10's
> of the law". If your going to go back to the 1800's just to get
> three miles of border area just because nobody realized the mistake
> in 150 years you've far exceeded your right to contest the original
> fact.
>
> Also as Lowell points out its been a legal fact that the border was
> drawn up as the survey was surveyed and not as it should have been
> surveyed.
>
> The Rhode Island/Connecticut issue will be solved the same way.
> The state of Connecticut is being dragged into this and realistically
> wishes the town would just shut up. The town in CT wants the
> property tax and thats about 15k or so a year.
>
> There's a number of houses' on the Rhode Island/Massachusetts
> border that it crosses' right down the middle. One guy even has to
> register his car in Mass. (garage is on the Mass side), have an
> address in RI (post office assigned the zip code to the house as in
> RI), kids choose to go to school either state. Thats the way it
> should be.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>