At 04:41 PM 3/7/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 3:48 PM
>Subject: More on Texas Re: Pledge of Allegence
>
>
>> Indeed, most of the Original 13 States had far more of a functioning
>> government than the Republic of Texas ever did..... which really had
>little
>> centralized authority for most, if not all of its history.
>
>Where do you get that from?
>Texas was a country, recognised by other countries including the US.
>It had an elected government. What more do you want?
>
>
>>
>> Actually, Texas did not gain any special rights under the Treaty
>(It is
>> also worth noting that Texas' first applications for Statehood were
>> rejected.) Indeed, if it had done so, those rights would probably
>be
>> unconstitutional. All States in the United States are equal.
>>
>> Every State has the "right" to split into multiple States under
>Article IV,
>> Section III:
>> "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no
>new
>> states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
>other
>> state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more
>states, or
>> parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the
>states
>> concerned as well as of the Congress."
>
>Then clearly the Joint Resolution annexing Texas is illegal and the
>USSC is wrong several times over in re-affirming those documents.
>(Re: Republic Of Texas nutcases)
First of all, under American jurisprudence, the constitutionality of that
particular clause of the Joint Resolution would only be tested if,
inexplicably, Texas tried to split itself.
Secondly, the Joint Resolution could largely be considered as Congress
granting said approval or could be taken as simply referencing the existing
Constitutional process:
"Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in
addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may
hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory
thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the
federal constitution."
Lastly, historians who have studied the Joint Resolution have traced the
origins of the "split" clause to pro-slavery Southerners. At the time,
Texas was making claims to territory as far West as Santa Fe, and some
Southerners clearly hoped that this western territory could be split off
into another "slave state" at some point in the future, since it was clear
by then that the natural progression of States into the Union would soon
produce more "free" than "slave" States.
Indeed, let us be real here.... why on Earth would the Republic of Texas
insist that the right to split itself, which already existed in the
Constitution, be spelled out specifically in this case? This does not
appear to be a "Texan" idea, as the "Texan Pledge" seems to indicate.
>Well Texas being able to divide itself into 5 states when *Texas*
>wants to seems a bit different, as does the lack of Federal Lands in
>Texas. To this day pretty much all the Federal government has is Big
>Bend and a patch of National Forest and a few bases that it is selling
>off like hotcakes.
You forgot the Guadalupe Mountains, South Padre Island, the Big Thicket
Reserve, and Lake Meredith.
As it is, as of about 1996, the federal government owned 1.41% of Texas'
total acreage. This is a greater percentage than Ohio, New York, Kansas,
Iowa, and Connecticut.
At any rate, it is not a right unique to Texas, as this right was held by
many other States, including the original 13. In particular, I grew up
being taught that New York was "unusual" in its lack of federal lands
because we had maintained such good conservation and stewardship of our
land. And, as noted previously, the Joint Resolution is either tantamount
to Congressional consent of a split, or else it is merely a reference back
to the existing constitutional process.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
