Arizona to Secede? - Page 10

***naisho*** · 05-24-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

Yeah, it is really not funny. What will they do with all the Native Americans that are on the reservations? Once those US dollars stop rolling in, what happens? From what I saw of Arizona, they would have a difficult time going independent.

True, them Native Americans.. hmm. perhaps they could claim nearby residency with CA, NM. AZ would be full of supremacists if this were to ever happen.

Preservation of the indian language?
Navajo is easy when you know how!

Steinhauer · 05-25-2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep. That was settled several pages ago. It is really a shame that there are people that are so wrapped up in their own little delusional existence that they continue to deny what has been proven over and over. All in an attempt to make themselves appear intelligent and well informed. Sad that they don't realize they are getting exactly the opposite result.

Errors of Logic

Quote:

Be it ordained by the people of Texas in Convention assembled, That we acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and the laws passed in pursuance thereof; and that an Ordinance adopted by a former Convention of the people of Texas on the 1st day of February, A.D. 1861, entitled "An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled 'Constitution of the United States of America,'" be and the same is hereby declared null and void; and the right heretofore claimed by the State of Texas to secede from the Union, is hereby distinctly renounced. Passed 15th March, 1866.

SOURCE:
The Constitution of the State of Texas, as Amended by the Delegates in Convention Assembled, Austin, 1866. Austin: Printed at the Southern Intelligencer Office, 1866, p. 32.

You do realize that this document was merely stating that Texas had never seceded from the Union in 1861 don't you? That their State's Secession was "null and void" in 1861 and they were rejoining the Union ..... it did not waive any rights to secede as you and Jillio have been fallaciously stating.

Where is a document making it illegal for Texas to secede?

You have still not provided anything ..... I showed you a Constitutional Scholar's own words saying that States have the right to secede.

**Foxrac** · 05-25-2010, 12:30 AM

Steinhauer · 05-25-2010, 12:30 AM

I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....

Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.

Did she have a right to leave?

yizuman · 05-25-2010, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....

Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.

Did she have a right to leave?

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....

Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.

Did she have a right to leave?

a very erroneous analogy. here - FIFY

if Texas chose to secede - it would be broken up into 5 states. There is no Constitutional rights but Texas can legally secede if it meets the legal parameter to secede. Nowhere in Constitution is specific about this.

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Errors of Logic

You do realize that this document was merely stating that Texas had never seceded from the Union in 1861 don't you? That their State's Secession was "null and void" in 1861 and they were rejoining the Union ..... it did not waive any rights to secede as you and Jillio have been fallaciously stating.

Where is a document making it illegal for Texas to secede?

You have still not provided anything ..... I showed you a Constitutional Scholar's own words saying that States have the right to secede.

It is illegal for Texas to secede the way they want now. Do you even know the proper procedure to secede?

Steinhauer · 05-25-2010, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

It is illegal for Texas to secede the way they want now. Do you even know the proper procedure to secede?

Do you realize you were arguing there was no proper or legal way to secede prior to this post?

Steinhauer · 05-25-2010, 02:35 AM

A right proper ownage mate.

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Do you realize you were arguing there was no proper or legal way to secede prior to this post?

because there's none! hence illegal. Like I said - they can challenge this at court but know that there's a cost they must pay for seceding... like splitting up into 5 states.

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 02:38 AM

I am very curious to why you left out the 2nd part of my post.

Narrative History of Texas Annexation

Quote:

Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations.

When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)

In July 1845, a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention met in Austin to consider both this annexation proposal as well as a proposed peace treaty with Mexico which would end the state of war between the two nations, but only if Texas remained an independent country.

The Convention voted to accept the United States' proposal, and the Annexation Ordinance was submitted to a popular vote in October 1845. The proposed Annexation Ordinance and State Constitution were approved by the Texas voters and submitted to the United States Congress.

The United States House and Senate, in turn, accepted the Texas state constitution in a Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State which was signed by the president on December 29, 1845. Although the formal transfer of government did not occur until February 19, 1846, Texas statehood dates from the 29th of December.

Opposition to Texas' admission to the United States was particularly strong in the North during this period. If a challenge to the constitutionality of the move could have been made successfully at that time, there is little doubt that the leaders of the opposition would have instituted such a suit in the Supreme Court.

Narrative by Jean Carefoot
Texas State Library and Archives Commission April 1997

***naisho*** · 05-25-2010, 02:54 AM

kokonut · 05-25-2010, 03:00 AM

Naisho, you do know that deaf/blind ADers do read here?

***naisho*** · 05-25-2010, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Naisho, you do know that deaf/blind ADers do read here?

Yep! Not sure how it is a problem for deaf AD'ers..
And I provide transcripts when I notice the blind are around.

kokonut · 05-25-2010, 03:30 AM

So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask.

***naisho*** · 05-25-2010, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask.

Ah okay. That's cool. Here's a pat on the back for ya.
I just thought it was irrelevant contribution to the thread (the image would be named as oldschooler.jpg on their read-out / braille software) that could be omitted.

I've done it in the past with Hear Again / Mrs Bucket and they've never had an issue with my posts?

Thanks for your concern though. I will fix it for them when I notice discontented replies.

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask.

really? please provide description for your photos in your blog

souggy · 05-25-2010, 04:47 AM

Wirelessly posted

Might want to brush up on the a and img code on your blog.

Mind you, my casual blog isn't blind-friendly either. The one I am working on as a side-project is however.

souggy · 05-25-2010, 04:56 AM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask.

really? please provide description for your photos in your blog

Editted your post already?

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Right.....so not 1812 as one has said 4-5 times.

I never maintained Texas had a "legal right" to secede. Only that it didn't happen in 1812.

Of course they could decide to secede illegally. Question is, would the U.S. try to do anything about it.

I wonder how many supported the revolution before it started???

Need to go back and read again. The treaty was signed that negated their right to secede during the War of 1812. That is what I have said 4 or 5 times. And provided the link to support it.

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I sure hope he doesn't

Scroll back.

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

War of 1812 - the Hartford Convention. that was when New England wanted to secede from the Union. It is relevant to Texas-Arizona secession.

Thank you. Someone who can sythesize!

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Might have been better if these had been added....

Looks like you have a bullet in your foot as well, there, old buddy.

Wasn't a matter of misstatement on my part, but a matter of failure to sythesize information on yours.

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

certainly would .... if I was wrong.

Unlike some "certain" individuals that have a strange inclination to think they are right about everything.

Oh yeah .. "Jane Roe" finally admitted she was wrong.

Have a nice day ... gotta go now

The very fact that you still don't get it makes this all the more humorous.

Still limping on that foot?

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Because someone mixed up the collective American values with their own individualistic values.

Happens consistently. Unfortunately.

**Jiro** · 05-25-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Yep .... and isn't it a nice little gem that she came out years later and admitted she was wrong?

Norma McCorvey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

still hasn't owned up to their mistake .... quite doubtful if that will ever happen.

It would be nice if a specific quote was found in the article mentioned that Texas signed, or rather, waived, their rights to secession could be found ..... anywhere.

I guess "facts" can be made up

if New England cannot secede... then what makes you think Arizona-Texas can?

better brush up on War of 1812 - Hartford Convention! you ain't done till when I say you're done!

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Bwahahaaa!! Classic! Classic!! That's the funniest thing I ever saw on what you posted (Arizona to Secede? ). I'm spilling my guts here on that one. Man, I guess you got a hold of Bob Andweave, eh? Hoooboy (*wipes tears away*).

uh ohhhhhhhhh Bob Andweave just got Chuck Norris'ed!

and Chuck Norris didn't even move an inch!

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity .....

Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully".

So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together".

Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving".

Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage.

Did she have a right to leave?

Fallicious reasoning. But to be expected.

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

jillio · 05-25-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask.

Only after you were embarrassed into it after posting several audios without trascripts on a deaf forum. Please do not take that tone of superiority when guilt is written all over you.

yizuman · 05-25-2010, 10:31 AM

It's pretty convenient when they forced Texas to agree to abide with the rules and if they go outta line, force Texas to break up into 5 states of "convenient size".

The smaller the population, the easier it is to control us. Main keyword, "CONTROL". Something that a Government loves to do, to control the masses into THEIR will rather than the will OF THE PEOPLE.

Yiz

05-25-2010, 12:30 AM	#273 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 33,215	__________________ In Moto We Trust

05-25-2010, 03:00 AM	#283 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Naisho, you do know that deaf/blind ADers do read here? __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

05-25-2010, 03:30 AM	#285 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	So, they have to ask you each and every time? How considerate. Didn't know that you can read minds whenever they're around to read threads. I do it automatically so they won't have to ask. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

05-25-2010, 04:47 AM	#288 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted Might want to brush up on the a and img code on your blog. Mind you, my casual blog isn't blind-friendly either. The one I am working on as a side-project is however. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman Last edited by souggy; 05-25-2010 at 09:48 AM. Reason: For some reason this version of vB converted the < > tags into HTML

05-25-2010, 10:31 AM	#300 (permalink)
yizuman Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,370	It's pretty convenient when they forced Texas to agree to abide with the rules and if they go outta line, force Texas to break up into 5 states of "convenient size". The smaller the population, the easier it is to control us. Main keyword, "CONTROL". Something that a Government loves to do, to control the masses into THEIR will rather than the will OF THE PEOPLE. Yiz __________________

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-25-2010, 12:30 AM	#274 (permalink)
Steinhauer Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	I can illustrate using an analogy to better show you with precise clarity ..... Mr. and Mrs. Union are a lawfully wedded couple. They both married, then began having marital disputes over marital duties. Eventually, Mrs. Union told her spouse, "you know what, I have had enough, you have made my life miserable and I simply wish to dissolve our marriage peacefully". So with that, Mrs. Union planned her divorce. Mr. Union, however, was furious. He told her "You do not have the 'right' to leave me, it is important to our entire family that we stay together". Mrs. Union said "Get bent, I am leaving". Mr. Union then chased after Mrs. Union, beat her to a bloody pulp, burned down her parents back yard and house and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the marriage. Did she have a right to leave?

05-25-2010, 02:35 AM	#279 (permalink)
Steinhauer Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	A right proper ownage mate.

05-25-2010, 02:54 AM	#282 (permalink)
*naisho* Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 6,268

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode