2
   

"I pledge allegiance...to the Texas flag..."

 
 
PDiddie
 
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:34 am
Students in Texas will now have to recite their own state pledge:

"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

Indivisible? Not according to this Texas Facts web page:

Quote:
As part of the negotiations to enter the "Union", Texas was given the right to divide itself into an additional four states at some point in the future, for a total of 5 "Texian" states, though no one has ever considered it worthwhile - it still has that right!


Check out the map:

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/texas-five-states.gif

Perhaps for accuracy and scholarship and all that **** we should have Texas students recite the following:

"Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one -- yet potentially divisible into five states of 'convenient size' and 'sufficient population'."

(For more on the legislation surrounding Texas' admission to the Union, go here.)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,214 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 10:02 am
100%. That settles it.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 12:58 pm
Why does this not surprise me? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 06:16 pm
truth
We should give Texas to the Palestinians, and send most Texans to central Australia, at least all of its republicans. It's really very difficult to drive one's RV through Texas without emptying one's toilet on the highway, that is when one reads their macho sign, Don't Mess With Texas.
Boy that felt good. Prejudice is wrong, but it sure can feel good.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 09:17 pm
Re: "I pledge allegiance...to the Texas flag..."
Quote:
As part of the negotiations to enter the "Union", Texas was given the right to divide itself into an additional four states at some point in the future, for a total of 5 "Texian" states, though no one has ever considered it worthwhile - it still has that right!


No it doesn't.

Although it is true that, as part of the resolution by which Texas was admitted to the union, there was a provision to carve out four additional states, the fact is that, once Texas became a state (rather than an independent nation, as it had been up to that point) it became equal to all other states. The Constitution sets forth the requirements for creating new states in Article IV, section 3: ". . . no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state . . . without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the congress."

Texas, then, had only one chance to be five states: before it entered the union. Once it entered, it became just another state, bound by the constitution like all the rest.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 09:22 pm
Nailed down by the Civil War, when Texas tried to secede.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 03:59 am
You shoulda clicked on my last link, Joe.

Quote:
A Joint Resolution of Congress (not a treaty) was adopted by the U.S. Congress on March 1, 1845, providing for the annexation of Texas, and Texas acceded soon thereafter...

The Joint Resolution does apparently provide that Texas can divide itself into up to five states, but there seems to be little agreement in the legal community as to whether the provision is valid now, even if it was valid at the time of Texas's admission (which itself seems to be a debatable proposition).

The exact quote: "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of territory thereof, which shall be enititled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution." (The remainder of the quote discusses slavery, and is certainly invalid under the Thirteenth Amendment.)

Note that there appear to be three conditions even if the condition is valid: 1) that the states be of a "convenient" size, 2) that one is a continuation of Texas, and 3) that -perhaps- the opportunity to create new states is a one-shot deal, depending on how the language is interpreted.


Betcha a donut that if push came to shove, Texas could (after substantial litigation) do whatever it wanted to do (JMHO, of course). :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 08:29 am
PDiddie wrote:
Betcha a donut that if push came to shove, Texas could (after substantial litigation) do whatever it wanted to do (JMHO, of course). :wink:


A safe bet, as there is absolutely no chance that Texas would actually attempt this type of legislative mitosis. If, however, the unthinkable occurred and Texas tried to subdivide itself, I would readily take your bet, as I am rather fond of donuts and would gladly take all that you would be wiling to wager.

Contrary to the quotation you provided, it is not true that "there seems to be little agreement in the legal community as to whether the provision is valid now." Rather, there is broad unanimity on the subject among those in the legal community: Texas has the same rights as any other state -- no more, no less. Every other state can subdivide only according to Article IV of the constitution, and that applies to Texas as well.

The disagreement, then, is largely between those who understand how the constitution works and those who don't. That's not a disagreement within the legal community, that's a disagreement between people who know what they're talking about and those who haven't a clue.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:56 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Contrary to the quotation you provided, it is not true that "there seems to be little agreement in the legal community as to whether the provision is valid now." Rather, there is broad unanimity on the subject among those in the legal community: Texas has the same rights as any other state -- no more, no less. Every other state can subdivide only according to Article IV of the constitution, and that applies to Texas as well.

The disagreement, then, is largely between those who understand how the constitution works and those who don't. That's not a disagreement within the legal community, that's a disagreement between people who know what they're talking about and those who haven't a clue.


I just know there's an insult in there somewhere...
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 10:24 am
Here's a better idea: Perhaps Texas could simply secede. It was an independent republic at one point, wasn't it? Then the kids could say their pledge, and Bush, DeLay and Rove could go home and run the new country.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 10:59 am
D'artagnan, what a great fantasy. Here's mine: then we could declare war against them--once we get all our Texan friends out of there.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:57 am
I hear they's lotsa oil there.

I mean here.

We sure as hell are being terrorized by the thugs in power.

Please, Mr. Rumsfeld: Invade!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:00 pm
Just think--you could re-enact the Alamo for real!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 04:42 pm
Very funny, PDiddie. I didn't know about this thread when I suggested the secession.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "I pledge allegiance...to the Texas flag..."
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 01:30:27