Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,792 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 813,287
Pageviews Today: 979,026Threads Today: 194Posts Today: 2,650
07:37 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Message Subject SCOTUS case Texas V. White or why states can't secede
Poster Handle Shelgeyr
Post Content
"Texas v. White" won't matter two hoots.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, that was a victor's ruling and had it been handed down during the actual war (an impossible situation, and not germane to the details of the case, but this requires a stretch...) it would have held no weight.

TEXAS certainly considered themselves to have left the Union. This post-Civil War rewriting of history to achieve a political and monetary gain really has no bearing on our present reality.

The argument that "Texas can't secede because the Supreme Court in 1869 said they couldn't (nor could any other state)" would devolve to that of 12 dead men vs. an active and angry state. It is a pointless argument. It is like arguing with the weather.

Besides, a very valid argument can be made that "Texas v. White" is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the text of the Declaration of Independence.

If Obama (or anyone, really) holds up and waves a copy of "Texas v. White", and Texas holds up and waves back with the Declaration of Independence, which do you think is the more important, more powerful document?

The innate rights of a self-governing people say "Texas v. White", as a practicality, is hogwash.

Also, if you want to get prickly about it, "Texas v. White" was about a claim made by the post-war, Federally-imposed Reconstruction government of Texas regarding some US bonds owned by Texas, therefore their additional holding - based merely upon accepting original jurisdiction - that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede could easily be revisited as having been an abuse of due process committed by an activist court, and had really nothing to do with the merits of the case.

In other words, having just won a bloody and brutal war, and wanting to prevent a relapse, it looks like the court took an unrelated but available opportunity to unilaterally impose their will, and in effect legislate from the bench.

I certainly don't blame them for having that mindset, and I'm quite glad the Union won the civil war. But bad case law is bad case law, and even if it was ROCK SOLID it would not matter in the least if secession efforts get strongly underway.
Please verify you're human:

Reason for reporting: