Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance

[Mark Graber]

Or, as good abolitionists argued in 1845, Texas was never in the Union, since the admissions process was invalid and time does not cure constitutional wrongs.  A slight amendment to Sandy's very generous comment on a paper I presented.  Actually, the status of Texas was not settled by the vote on annexation.  Rockwell and other New Englanders made a major attempt to deny statehood on the ground that the annexation vote was unconstitutional.  When they lost that vote, they folded their tents.  Rockwell's speech, I should note, is a wonderful exploration of what it means for a constitutional issue to be settled.  Certainly should be included in any text (i.e. Brest, Levinson, Balkan, Amar) seriously interested in the constitution outside of the courts.   MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/16/03 11:12PM >>> I know of no evidence that Texas was required to waive its special deal (though my lack of knowledge is not dispositive evidence that evidence doesn't exist).  Furthermore, it is quite misleading to speak of Texas "re-entering" the Union, since, as Justice Chase thundered in Texas v. White, the Union was "indissoluble" and, therefore, Texas was never out of the Union.  This is obviously a disputed proposition, but no US official has ever conceded the legal reality of secession. sandy -----Original Message----- From: "Eastman, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:44:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance Forgive me if my recollection is inaccurate, but did not Texas waive its "split" option as a condition of re-entering the union following the Civil War?  If so, this option did not perish over time, but was cancelled. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence -----Original Message----- From: Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance Bryan writes: Finally, it is silly to refer to Texas as "indivisible" when the 1845 statehood act expressly gives Texas the option of splitting into five states. So we have an interesting meta-issue.  Is the sponsor of this new pledge conceding that the original legislation containing the option was either unconstitutional or has perished over time, or could one legitimately argue today that Texas has an option to split into five states (with ten senators) without any congressional approval?  If the latter is true, then the pledge states a false theory, for Texas is indivisible only so long as Texans wish it to remain that way. sandy sandy