Ferrari Mailing List: Re: Betrayal of Journalists

[Ken Rentiers (rentiers]

Q:
Doesn’t the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?


A:
No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] 
(adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2]  However, it does  
state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent  
State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note  
that it doesnot state “...subject to the President of the United  
States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...” or  
“...subject to the rest of the United States...”)

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the United  
States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or  
any other “free and independent State”) from the United States.   
Joining the “Union” was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary  
withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any  
self-appointed academic, media, or government “experts”—including  
Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions  
also state that “All political power is inherent in the people ...  
they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government  
in such manner as they might think proper.”

Likewise, each of the united States is “united” with the others  
explicitly on the principle that“governments derive their just powers  
from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government  
becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and  
property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,  
and to institute new government” and “when a long train of abuses and  
usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute  
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such  
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”



On Mar 15, 2008, at 2:31 PM, LarryT wrote:

> I like this one -
>
> <<It seems that when Montana's
> settlers signed a statehood contract in 1889, one of the conditions  
> was that the federal
> government agreed that individuals had the right to keep and bear  
> arms. If the Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is merely a  
> state or "collective" right, Montana officials say that the  
> statehood contract will have been breeched. "The U.S. would do well  
> to keep its contractual promises to the states that the Second  
> Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution  
> of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson  
> said in a letter to The Washington Times. The Times also notes that  
> the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment  
> doesn't hold water in Montana because the state didn't have a  
> militia in the 1880s. >>
> I wonder how many other states have these kinds of agreements?  Lots  
> I hope - and with state govts with balls to go with the agreement -.
>
> Larry T (66 MGB, 74 911, 91 300D)
> www.youroil.net for Oil Analysis and Weber Parts
> Test Results http://members.rennlist.com/oil
> PORSCHE POSTERS!  youroil.net
> Weber Carb Info http://members.rennlist.com/webercarbs
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Rentiers" <rentiers [at] mac.com>
> To: "LarryT" <l02turner [at] comcast.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ferrari] Betrayal of Journalists
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, LarryT wrote:
> >
> > > I see something bad coming.
> >
> > There's a way out but you may not like it.
> >
> > http://reason.tv/   click on the Drew Carey videos lower left.
> >
> > http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
> >
> > ken
> >
> > ps. I'm not voting. When  we hold our nose and vote that just  
> > sends  the message that the winner has a mandate when nothing could  
> > be less  true.