Tag Archive for 'texas-v-white'

Ignorance of the law…

Published February 17th, 2010 in Political Well Being. 0 Comments

The comments of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are disturbing. In a letter addressed to him on the secession issue, he claimed that there is no right for a State to secede. His comment is in variance with previous the Supreme Court of Texas v. White. Such a comment raises concern as to whether he is familiar with the law and is competent to render a decision on the matter. When he uses the Pledge of Allegience as supportive evidence for his position, there is a real problem.

In the Texas v. White case, often cited by anti-secession forces, the issue in question was the legality of the secession of Texas from the Union. The case refused to examine the legality of how Texas joined the Union, even though that was a key issue in the case, since the secession convention of Texas merely undid the illegal acts done which led to annexation. The annexation of Texas was illegal in that 1) It was done in violation of the US Constitution 2) It was done in violation of the Texas Constitution 3) Military occupation occurred prior to the citizens voting on the issue. The whole annexation was rigged. The SCOTUS court refused to look at those issues and merely took a stand that the way Texas left the Union was not acceptable. The decision was not a unanimous one either. Bear in mind that the legality of secession was never settled. The SCOTUS refused to try Jefferson Davis because they would have had to deal with the issue. But, …Justice Scalia does not want to do the sweat work of research himself to be able to adroitly handle such legal matters.

His comment which is variance with case law along with his use of the Pledge for support of his position raises serious concerns. Either he is ignorant of the law regarding the secession issue or law schools spend more time on indoctrination than education.

His comment is further troubling in that in Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS resorted to using international law for its ruling. The use of international law creates problems since ‘Secession’ is a recognized option in international law. As a member of the SCOTUS, he needs to decide which body of law he will use in considering the matters before them. Rather than pick and choose, he needs to be consistent. Are we under the Constitution, (which the founders said allowed secession) or international law (which does allow secession). His comments makes it clear that the SCOTUS is resorting to cherry-picking what set of law they are using and that they are being intellectually lazy in dealing with issues such as secession.

William Rawle’s book on the Constitution addresses the issue of Secession. The founders considered it an option. Perhaps Scalia is ignorant of such scholarship or perhaps he does not want to do the work of researching the matter like a judge should. Prior to Texas leaving the Union, the best legal minds in the State considered the option long and hard before calling for a Secession convention. Scalia may need to spend some time on this matter as well.

In order to render decisions on law, the judge must be consistent in applying the law. The judge needs to be well versed in the law, and the case law that has been established. Using the pledge of allegience as supportive documentation is shabby legal work (not to mention lazy).

His comments reveal more about his thinking process than he would probable be comfortable with. It shows shallow reasoning, the elevation of popular opinion above legal precedent and limited scholarship on States Rights issues.

In a free South, there would be an educated judiciary. It would be expected that the court would have persons who have demonstrated scholarship, an awareness of the law and judicial wisdom rather than persons who have won a popularity contest. Even I, as a layman know that using the Pledge amounts to hearsay, and is not admissible as evidence in a court case addressing an issue as important as people deciding for themselves what is the best government for them. The true government of the people, by the people and for the people rather than decided by a court that is ignorant of the issues.

Liberty for Texas and the South!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Why can’t we leave?

Published August 13th, 2009 in Culture, Current Affairs and Political Well Being. 0 Comments

Whenever I pose the question, “Why can’t we leave?” (referring to Texas leaving the Union), the answer is often, “Because it is illegal” . They then make reference to the staged case of Texas v. White, as their source. Had they read the ruling, in typical government bureaucratic style, it does not say secession is illegal. It merely adds more layers of government approval before it can happen.

In some cases, the responder makes reference to the vote where Texas re-joined the Union. What they often leave out is that many voters were not allowed to vote in that election due to the 14th amendment. The disqualification of voters is typically a civil rights concern, especially when it is done in disreagrd of the law, but ‘certain’ ethnic groups were disqualified from voting in the aftermath of the war, but since they had no voice at the time, they were not allowed to vote or speak out.

Even in the first election to join the stinkin’ Union, there were Federal agents working behind the scenes to meddle with the election process. Even the first election was not a fair one. If one wishes to be techinical, both elections to join the Union were riggedl in one form or another. This is an item that one is rarely told in government schools.

Another item that they don’t tell you in the schools is that neither Jefferson Davis nor Pendleton Murrah surrendered the government of Texas to the Yankees. It was conquered, not surrendered. The authority of the vote of the people was never surrendered. With that in mind, it is not necessary to secede from the Union again. All that is needed is to reaffirm the original secession, transfer all federal property over to Texas, and decide how to settle Texas’ share of the federal debt.

(One idea is to sell the federal lands, and then take those profits and apply them to the debt. The hard part is that the Hussein regime has made any settlement of the debt question difficult. At the same time, with the legitimacy of his office holding being in quesiton, the legitimacy of Texas’ share of the debt is also of dubious legal standing. If the money lenders in China knew the precarious legal situation he is in, they would not have leant him the money they have.  An axiom of common law is that when laws are passed in a deceitful manner or in disreagrd of the law, they are of dubious standing. )

Back to the question. “Why can’t we leave? ” We can, the more important question to answer is “When do we leave?” “How do we get started?”

Liberty for Texas and the South!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Secession is legal

Published April 22nd, 2009 in Culture, Current Affairs and Political Well Being. 1 Comment

A friend of mine brought to my attention an article written by Andrew Lang in the Houston Chronicle. It was entitled “Want to secede? Better think again”. The author identifies himself as a graduate student in history at a Texas university.

His awareness of history is lacking, which says a great deal about the university, which he left nameless. He claims the issue of secession was settled twice before. I beg to differ with him. Let me start with his second claim first, the “Union army during the Civil War”. His rationale is the same rationale that says occupation makes things right. Occupation has never made it right and never will. It has led to numerous conflicts in Israel, Tiawan, East Germany, Hong Kong and other locations. His logic is the same as ‘to the victor go the spoils’.  According to Lang’s logic, the occupation of the North American colonies by the British meant that the British were the legitimate owners of the east coast, since they occupied it. Occupation does not settle issues. If it did there would not be conflicts in Gaza, Tibet or Tiawan. His stance is once that supports any regime occupying a location or people against their will.

His fist point is wrong. The court case of Texas v. White did not make secession illegal. If he had read the opinion rather than some pointy headed interpretation of it, he would have known this.

In the opinion, the Chief Justice states:“…the Union is indestructible and not dissoluble by acts of a state, the government or the people. Secession could only occur in a revolution with the approval of all the states” The Chief Justice does say that the union is indestructible and then turns around and gives the specifics of when secession could occur. Granted, this is typical legal double talk, where he covers himself both ways. Nowhere does the document say it is illegal, treasonous or un-american. The ruling is often cited as proof that secession is illegal, although this ruling like Row v. Wade was a  case where the court overstepped its authority to take a stand. It was over reaching in order to put forward an agenda. At the time, the United States needed a court case so that it could justify repudiating the debts of the Confederacy. The court did not have a case against President Jefferson Davis, for treason or any other allegations.

In making the ruling, the judge told the State of Texas it had to pay a bond holder money owed him. The judge then decided to rule on the legality of how Texas seceded. Chief Justice Chase convieniently chose to only consider select pieces of information. He cherry-picked his issues. He did not want to consider the illegal circumstances surrounding annexation or how the secession convention merely renounced an illegitimate act in order to secede, he only attacked the secession itself, taking the events out of context.  The ruling was taken to apply to all the States yet other rulings of SCOTUS that validated issues related to secession were ignored (these mainly pertained to debts incurred and who was responsible for them. When a person has a debt incurred, the payment of that debt establishes legitimacy.)

In formulating his decision, since he was a radical Republican, his theory of the case was that secession was illegal. Chase had to have the ruling in order to justify the questionable actions taken by Congress with the 14th amendment.  He needed a precedent in order to support the whole legislative agenda of the radical republicans. In writing his opinion, he chose the ‘indestructable’ portion out of the Articles of Confederation, and the responsibilities of a State from the Constitution. It was a classis cut and paste legal decision.  It said what he wanted it to say, even though he had to take material from various sources to make his point, rather than allow the consistency of the documents remain intact. Chase had an agenda and forced the decision on the people. Although he said that Texas never left the Union, the legal rights of Texas had been removed and Texas was not allowed representation in Congress, which is a no-no if we had been a State.

The whole ruling was dirty. Once the Supreme Court had it ruling, people did not want the issue opened up again, so the legal scholars often say, “it was settled” rather than have to seriously examine the merits of the case.  The establishment did not want their precious Union to come unravelled, so they avoided the case like the third rail.  If the case was honestly scrutinized, it would not stand up. Rather than risk a possibility that it could lead to the undoing of many other policies and decisions, the legal and judicial communities have left it alone.

Liberty for Texas!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Secession=Success

Published September 9th, 2008 in Culture, Current Affairs and Political Well Being. 1 Comment

Secession is in the news again! With all the attention on the Alaska Independence Party, people are again taking notice of Secession as a political option. Even in the pop culture blog, BoingBoing, the topic of secession has appeared. I was encouraged to see that the first comment mentioned how Texas needed a re-invigorated Secession movement.  We do need a re-invigorated secession movement. The article also plugs Thomas Naylor (of the Second Vermont Republic) and his recent book on secession. The promise made between the Union and the States needs to be revisited. Is the Union taking into consideration what the needs of the States are? Have the needs of the States become too diverse for the national goernemnt to deal with? Do the elected representative actually represent the views of the people? Have the number of people represented by each representative become too large? Such questions need answers, which secession provides a solution for by allowing more government to become more accountable. Rather than a centralized government that is out of touch, secession provides a government that is more accountable to the people. It provides a government that reflects the views of the people rather than special interests or big business.

In a humorous aspect, Whoopi’s mistake of confusing secession with success, may be the reality we need. Success=Secession.  The liberal and conservative media both view secession as treasonous, despite that that is how Texas and the United States both began. Although it is good for the goose, the gander better not consider the option. According to the empire’s policy secession is good for Kosovo, but bad for South Ossettia. Secession was good for Ukraine and Georgia, but bad for Quebec. The inconsistency of the empire is appalling. Although many CONgress critters and lawyers spread the propaganda that secession is illegal, they are mistaken. The Supreme Court NEVER ruled that secession was illegal. The Texas v. White case that is often cited, actually allows for secession. The Supreme Court ruling merely complicated the process, it never made the process illegal.

The other argument is that it is un-american. Given that the foundations of the empire are based on secession, this is a fallacious argument. Nothing could be more American than secession. America is founded on secession. America just does not want anyone seceding from it’s Union. The myth of the empire is based on putting the Union first, above all the states and above God. This myth must be challenged and dismissed. People need to put their communities and States a primary consideration, they need to put God ahead of the Union, for when Union replaced God, you have worship of the Nation State.

Free Texas!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Under fire in Texas: Where else did you expect?

Published January 31st, 2008 in Web/Tech, Culture, Current Affairs and Political Well Being. 3 Comments

The Texas based company CDNN Sport of Abilene, Texas is in the spotlight. It seems that Citi bank is refusing to honor credit card sales to the company. Citi merchant services is claiming that CDNN sells firearms over the internet which they oppose. Citi believes that firearms sales need to be face to face. Citi merchant services is taking on the role of implementing federal policies. Citi merchant claims:

“…..due to the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment. Keep in mind that a violation of the Gun Control Act occurs when a gun offered online is sold to an individual in another state; the act prohibits selling a handgun to a resident of another state. Shipping across state lines is also banned, yet guns for sale online reach people across the country. We at Citi Merchant Service are unable to monitor or track adherence to these Gun Control laws.”

The action taken by Citi raises many concerns. The first is the freedom to purchase firearms by credit. The freedom to purchase firearms, and by extension any ‘politically incorrect’ items over the internet is under fire. Anyone who sells products on the internet should be concerned with this action.

There is also a concern as to whether it is up to businesses to implement intrusive federal policies. It is not the business of Citi merchant services to police such transactions. Why don’t they police the charges at strip clubs that may involve the purchase of drugs? Why don’t they scrutinize those kind of transactions. I suppose they also underwrite charges made on gambling, even across state lines into areas where it is not allowed. Did they take stands on those issues? No, Citi merchant services said nothing on those behaviors.

There is also a concern on the Citi side which is can a business choose who they decide to do business with? By extension, can business owners refuse services or goods to those whose political views or practices run contrary to their own? This could be used to refuse services to those involved with abortions, RU-486 and other accursed practices.

There are potential freedoms at stake on all sides in this issue. One thing is clear, which is that federal policies are intrusive. Their very own policies are interfering with interstate commerce. Although they are interfering with commerce, what is the likelihood that the Supremes will hold the empire accountable to its own policies and violations of its own laws?

It is also of interest that most major losses of freedom that occur in the empire are attacks on the laws of Texas. History is filled with the many times the courts of the empire have tramples the rights of its subjects beginning in Texas. It was Texas law that was attacked in Rowe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, Texas laws were under attack in Sweatt v. Painter, which began set asides and affirmative action forced on the States, Texas law was attacked in Texas v. White, which removed States Rights, Texas law was attacked in Lawrence v. Texas,  which legalized homosexual behaviors,Texas law was attacked in Johnson v. Texas, which legalized burning the flag. What is it about Texas that attracts attacks from the empire like a lightning rod. Texas has served as the exemplary whipping boy for many of the oppressive decrees of the empire, where they force policies on us that the people would not have chosen themselves. The empire knows that, which is why the courts are used rather than the legislature to carry out their reconstruction policies.

This situation bears watching since many potential freedoms are at stake and precedents are likely to occur in this matter.

Free Texas! Free Dixie!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Authorized Histories

Published January 16th, 2008 in Books. 2 Comments

Russia has produced a new ‘authorized’ text book for its schools. As typical of ‘approved’ textbooks, it places emphasis on the good things the centralized government has done and minimizes or avoids what they have failed at. Michael Tennant wrote an article on Lew Rockwell addressing this and how akin it is to American textbooks and the revisionism present in them. He likens it to purchasing an ‘authorized’ biography which only reveals the desired information. Although there were times I had hopes that my history of Texas would be used in the schools, it’s lack of political correctness would be a stumbling block. Issues such as the Waco horror, riots in Paris, Houston and Brownsville, the Plan of San Diego and the illegal seizure of New Mexico from Texas. It addresses the massacres and ethnic cleansing that were part of Texas history. The accomplishments of many Texans are also addressed regardless of race, gender or creed. It also addresses the many extra-Constitutional illegal actions undertaken by the US government in annexing Texas, including bribing government customs officials, using threats and bribing Congressmen to get their way. Since no one is supposed to question the legality of what occurred, the mainstream culture would say it is unacceptable. Years ago I took an oath to defend the Constitution. When I discovered the blatant disregard the Empire has had toward the Constitution regarding how it dealt with Texas concerning annexation, secession and reconstruction I recognize that it was wrong. Although some critics say that the Empire was right in its actions, (like this one from a law professor) the facts say otherwise. The Constitution says all States will have equal rights (Texas was given permission to do things other states can not, e.g. have larger extra-territorial jurisdictions, and be able to divide into four states),  No State is supposed to be divided to make other states (e.g. land was TAKEN from Texas to form New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming). This is not to mention the voter fraud associated with a so-called free election. Having an election under the supervision of US troops does not constitute a free election.

The lawyers often cite Texas v. White, which was a scam of a legal decision. The court purposely only examined questions about the legality of how Texas left the Union, but refused to examine how they joined the Union, even though the delegates only undid what had been done in 1845. The law professor Ralph Brock also needs to examine the legal papers produced during the war where Texas was often referred to as its own nation, many prominent Texans knew that then such as Governor Pendleton Murrah and Sam Houston, but I guess he does not consider them valid sources of information.

Beware of Authorized histories in that they will only give you the party line. If you want the real scoop on historic events as they played out, rather than what the spin dictates, read history drawn from primary documents of the times. In order to be free, we must have a true history. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free”.

Free Texas!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Secession was good then and its good now.

Published November 10th, 2007 in Culture and Political Well Being. 0 Comments

Secession is a sensitive topic for many. It is a serious topic needing consideration. First let’s consider the facts:

1) It was the course of action taken by the American colonies in 1776.

2) It was the course of action taken by Texas from Mexico in 1836.

3) It was course of action taken by the majority of Southern States in 1861.

The political cesspool of today wants to say that secession is illegal or treasonous. If it was not treasonous in 1776 or 1836, what made it treasonous in 1861 or even today? No Southron was ever tried for treason. There was no trial for President Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. Why? Because there was no legal case against them. During the early days of occupation, the Republican Congress was running roughshod over the people of the South. If they had any case or evidence to try someone for treason, they would have done so.

In some legal circles, they will cite the case of Texas v. White. They claim that Salmon Chase ruled that secession was illegal. If you take a closer look at the facts, several things emerge. 1) The court only considered Texas, and not the whole south. 2) Texas did not technically secede in 1861. Texas rescinded the Congressional action of joining the United States. Since there was no formal secession, the court ruled an action was illegal that did not even occur.In other words it was a bogus case that was used to further the political agenda of the Washington power structure. 3) The court refused to consider the legality of the admission of Texas, knowing that it did not have firm legal footing.

Many historians will cite the Texas v. White case as the reason secession is illegal. This strategy is used to silence the arguments with the uninformed. The reality is that that Supreme Court ruling did not decide anything other than who was going to pay the plantiff. For too many years, people have used the opinion of Salmon Chase as law, “States Rights died at Appomattox”, to say that secession is treason, when it is a farce.

The fact remains that the Occupational Congress has ruined the economy, allowed more immigrants into the land and increased taxes to where 50% of what is earned is taken away from us. Upon leaving, the South would have the fourth largest economy in the world, be able to set its own financial policy, would not responsible for 170+ military bases around the world. Southron sons and daughters would be at home, rather than on some foreign soil. The policies and laws would reflect the values of the people better than the current regime. There would not be Federal laws dictating the size of your toilets or other types of micromanaging. The Southern people would be better off with secession than staying in a Union that is about to go into the financial toilet and that Mohammedans plan to take over by 2050.

Free the South!

J Murrah

Technorati , , , , , , , , ,

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Find Out When We Post



Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Resources




None But Texians: A History of Terry's Texas Rangers


Texans Always Move Them: A True History of Texas

Join the LOS
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping