1. 7th Amendment ...
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
4/20/2017

2. Trial by jury
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has treated the 7th amendment as preserving the right of trial by juries in civil cases as it “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted.”
4/20/2017

3. Trial by jury
The right was to “a trial by a jury of twelve men, in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is against the law or the evidence.”
Decision of the jury must be by unanimous verdict.
4/20/2017

4. Trial by jury
The Supreme Court ruled that federal district court civil juries composed of six persons were permissible under the Seventh Amendment and congressional enactments.
4/20/2017

5. Trial by jury
The Amendment governs only courts which sit under the authority of the United States, including courts in the territories and the District of Columbia, and does not apply generally to state courts. 
Parties may enter into a stipulation waiving a jury and submitting the case to the court upon an agreed statement of facts.
4/20/2017

6. 8th Amendment
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel & unusual punishment inflicted.”
4/20/2017

7. Bail
“This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.”
Bail is “excessive” in violation of the Eighth Amendment when it is set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the asserted governmental interest. 
4/20/2017

8. Bail
The function of bail, the Court explained, is limited to preventing flight of the defendant prior to trial to safeguard court’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence.
“the only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.”
4/20/2017

9. Bail
How deny bail? Detention pending trial of “arrestees charged with serious felonies, who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community, may deny release.”
4/20/2017

10. Bail
If the only asserted interest of bail is to guarantee that the accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty, then “bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.” 
To challenge bail as excessive, one must move for a reduction, and if that motion is denied appeal to the Court of Appeals, and if unsuccessful then to the Supreme Court Justice sitting for that circuit.
4/20/2017

11. Excessive fines
“Clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government.”
At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, “the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.” “the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government.”
4/20/2017

12. Excessive fines
The Court’s decisions have been about protecting indigent (poor), who if cannot pay a fine would be sent to jail.
If fine unreasonably high poor never able to pay & sent to jail.
Inapplicable to civil jury awards
4/20/2017

13. Cruel & unusual punishment
Supreme Court on 8th nor cruel & unusual punishment inflicted due to history of British use: “Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, disemboweling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive], and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution.”
4/20/2017

14. Cruel & unusual punishment
Furman V. Georgia 1972: Death penalty unconstitutional until objections corrected in law. Required consistency in application of death penalty. Invalidated death penalty for rape.
States required to enact new death penalty laws aimed at overcoming the court's concerns about arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
Required bifurcated trials, with separate guilt-innocence and sentencing phases, and imposing standards to guide the discretion of juries and judges in imposing capital sentences, were upheld in a series of Supreme Court decisions.
Standards? What about juveniles of any age? Mentally ill? Crimes other than murder, like rape? What about those who are AGAINST abortion, even to save the life of a mother, but who are FOR capital punishment for a long list of crimes beyond murder and who seek to significantly curtail the judicial review of death-row appeals in light of known innocents executed? See this link
You can listen to San Antonio former District Attorney Sam Millsap, my cousin, talk about one of his death penalty cases at The National Council of the Churches USA is composed of a wide spectrum of denominations representing 45 million persons in more than 100,000 local congregations and they have the following interesting unified positions on the death penalty
See this PBS Frontline video on Todd Willingham’s execution for arson murders after experts proved he was innocent.
4/20/2017

15. Many Religions Debate
Regarding criminal justice and influences on the authors of the US Constitution in writing the Bill of Rights to better protect the innocent - the following is the debate about protecting innocent in Genesis 18:20-33.
20 And the LORD said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD. 23 Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” 26 So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.” 27 And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” 29 He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” 30 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 And he said, “Now behold, I have [f]ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” 32 Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” 33 As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place ... End of citation. Thus you have examples going back to ancient times debating how to protect the innocent.
4/20/2017

16. Religion Based Law
“Judicium dei” is the judgment of God. Early Saxon and English law mandated judicial judgments based on trials by ordeal or by physical combat.
It was believed that the accused, if innocent, will be discovered through divine intervention in this process. Innocence was established if the "trial" produced no evidence of injury. For example, in an ordeal by fire the accused is innocent if uninjured when forced to handle a red-hot iron or to walk barefoot and blindfolded over nine red-hot plowshares.
A belief that the accused will not be injured if he was innocent because he will be protected by God. And there was the thought if we make a mistake on earth condemning/executing the wrong person – no big deal because an all powerful God will makeup for it in heaven. There are those who still believe in such nonsense today.
There are those who believe there should be a death penalty reserved for the worst murder crimes, when there is no doubt of guilt. But therein lies the problem with imperfect humans committing crimes, next of kin and society’s demand for justice, imperfect humans passing judgment - imperfect witnesses, imperfect investigators, imperfect judges who care more about getting elected than justice, imperfect juries. We are FOR convicting the guilty, but all reasonable people are OPPOSED to convicting INNOCENTS. You are responsible for reading this hyperlink story about such a wrongful conviction where this man spent years on death row – being tortured every day with the thought this would be his last day – all due to prejudice & incompetence that framed an innocent man. This guy was lucky only in the sense that the US Constitution’s protections enabled him to appeal and only because lawyers decided to fight for him, otherwise, he would be dead as other innocents condemned.
4/20/2017

17. Cruel & unusual punishment
The Court approved electrocution as a permissible method of administering punishment. A divided Court held that a second electrocution following a mechanical failure that injured but did not kill the condemned man did not violate the proscription.
4/20/2017

18. Cruel & unusual punishment
Imprisonment:
“Conditions in prison must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment. Conditions may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. But conditions that cannot be said to be cruel and unusual under contemporary standards are not unconstitutional. Conditions may be restrictive and even harsh, but may not create or maintain prison conditions that are inhumane to inmates generally.”
Don’t be STUPID thinking you are going to arrest and punish those who violated laws (especially non violent laws) – and send them to prison – that costs tax payers $40,000 a year to warehouse them in secure “cages” from which they cannot escape – in a broken prison system that does nothing to rehabilitate offenders BUT does everything to teach them how to be better violent criminals in an effective prison street college. Understand we do not intend to keep non violent offenders in prison forever (punishment has to fit the crime and is expensive) and thus we release them to be your next door neighbors. Do not be shocked when these excellent students then commit even worse crimes against YOU and your family and friends - so there is increased cost to you and then we send them back to prison street college and the cycle continues! Thus, we MUST reform the way we re-educate offenders and it is an emergency problem that must be solved, unless you would like to continue being victims. Not all guilty can be rehabilitated, and those who cannot must remain locked up.
4/20/2017

19. 9th Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
4/20/2017

20. Rights retained by the people
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary (because each individual state would know what rights people should have – but would vary from state to state), the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that in as much as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those (if not listed – you do not have it).
4/20/2017

21. Rights retained by the people
Supreme Court said: “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.”
“To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep–rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth.”
Just because right to privacy not specifically mentioned in constitution doesn’t mean we do not have this right. Think how privacy is implied in 4th and others.
4/20/2017

22. Supremacy Clause – Article VI – to help understand Amendment 10
Article IV adds complexity which states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution (literal words or interpretation) or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; ….” This includes members of the military and all civilians employed by the federal and state governments.
All of the above was necessary due to failure of Articles of Confederation to solve nation’s problems when the 13 states after the Revolution (Articles of Confederation ) could do their own thing, which divided the USA and made it weak. There was no national unity. Citizens viewed their country as their state – not the USA. We could not force states to cooperate to help solve national economic and national defense problems when our survival depended on it because they were selfish. Each of the original 13 states could go its own way, even in face of 1786 depression & war, opt out of helping the nation, refuse to finance it. There was no national coordinator, no coach to call the plays for the national team, no quarterback. Article VI of USA Constitution REQUIRED a change – NOW the US Constitution, laws of Congress, and treaties negotiated by the POTUS and ratified by the US Senate are supreme over anything states want to do. There are exceptions when federal law goes too far.
4/20/2017

23. Necessary & Proper or “elastic clause” (Article 1 section 8) – to help understand Amendment 10
The “elastic clause” adds complexity which states Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary & proper for carrying into Execution of the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” If one does not understanding necessary and proper, he cannot understand the 10th.
Subject of debate between founders. Hamilton, Washington & Madison argued for Congress to exercise broad range of implied powers. Jefferson concerned giving Congress too much power; argued "necessary" was a restrictive adjective meaning essential only & his view if adopted would strengthened States' Rights. Events helped foster the growth of strong central government. Debate over the Necessary and Proper Clause came to a head in landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland 1819.
Background: Bank of United States established branches throughout states. But state-chartered banks resented competition & got state legislatures to restrict
Bank of United States operations. State of Maryland imposed a tax on Bank of United States operations, when James McCulloch, cashier of Baltimore branch of Bank of United States refused to pay the Maryland tax, the issue went to court. Question before U.S. Supreme Court: does the state or national government hold more power? Central was Court's interpretation of Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court held (Chief Justice John Marshall): state of Maryland (or any other state) could not undermine an act of Congress. States were subordinate to the federal government. Ruling established Congress could use Necessary and Proper Clause to create a bank even though the Constitution does not explicitly grant that power to Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion not only endorsed the constitutionality of the bank, but went on to uphold broad interpretation of the federal government's powers under the Constitution. The case quickly became the legal cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power.
The elastic clause is one of the most powerful in the Constitution & used for so much in history for all types of federal actions including requiring racial integration in the states and even Congress passing Obama health care law.
Here you will find a legal discussion about the 10th before the US Supreme Court whose decisions on the “necessary & proper clause” changed the 10ths meaning forever.
4/20/2017

24. 10th Amendment
The 10th states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
1st 9 amendments protect individual rights. 10th protects certain state government powers – not individuals. States gave up much power to create new Constitution/new federal power, but insisted to affirm their role in federalism. Question: How do you solve serious people problems nationwide – providing uniformity from one state to the next, like civil rights, job discrimination, safety in the work place, and working conditions, when state power (elected leaders) in some states do not want the problems solved? A key element of human nature is conservative resistance to change, including elected leaders, and an unwillingness to help constituents (often due to influences of money interest groups who do not want the change).
From beginning there has been major dissension between advocates of state or federal powers - Chief Justice John Marshall said this will continue “as long as our system exists.” Some argued “state sovereignty” power is equal or greater than federal power, while others argued nationalism – the supremacy of federal government power.
Nullification theory or state “compact theory” … sovereign States created the Union and thus they have the right to invalidate any federal law THEY deem unconstitutional – that States – not Federal courts – are ultimate interpreters of national power (ignores new legal relationship). Jefferson & Madison advanced (after constitution & amendments ratified) in response to Federalist majority Congress passing Alien & Sedition Acts 1798 that increased residency requirement for American citizenship from 5 to 14 years, allowed Federalist president to imprison or deport aliens who he deemed dangerous to USA, restricted speech critical of Federalist federal government. Madison & Jefferson viewed these Alien & Sedition Acts as a crisis because they were authored by opposition Federalists (like conservative Republicans today) designed to decrease number of Irish & French voters who disagreed with Federalist party and supported Thomas Jefferson & Democratic-Republicans (precursor to Democratic Party). Virginia & Kentucky passed laws stating that when the federal government exceeds its powers, the state could refuse to obey. During the War of 1812 with Britain, President Madison regretted his “nullification” position because New England states’ conservative Federalists threatened to secede from USA at the Hartford Convention 1814 due to their opposition to the war with England causing them to refuse to cooperate with the national war effort including resisting sending troops & financing, and were opposed to the Louisiana Purchase. (Think about how sovereign individuals join in marriage to create new legal relationship and you cannot just walk away avoiding legal liability).
4/20/2017

25. Can States Secede from USA?
The answer in Article 1 of the US Constitution is technically yes BUT only with permission of USA Congress. Unilateral is not legal and causes reaction – even federal law enforcement arrests and military force. Remember, the Constitution is supreme over all, not national or especially in this case – decisions by state leaders.
Consider previously mentioned Constitution powers, court cases, and the following denied to the States without permission of Congress.
Article 1, section 10, clause 1: “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.”
Article 1, section 10, clause 3, “no States shall without permission of Congress keep troops or ships of war … or enter into agreements with another State or foreign powers, or engage in war.”
Article 4, section 3: “nor any State to be formed by the jurisdiction of 2 or more states - without consent of the Legislatures of those states concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Amendment 14 section 3, no person is eligible to hold ANY government job at the national, state or local level if engages in insurrection or rebellion against the USA, or gives aid or comfort to the enemies of the USA. (This was not in effect until right after the Civil War in 1868).
4/20/2017

26. Secession & Disastrous Civil War
In early 1830s South Carolina threatened to secede over the issue of federal tariff collection but President Jackson threatened force and the crisis was averted.
New conservative Supreme Court decisions prohibited Congress actions over states (Dred Scott v. Sanford 1857), deciding Congress had no power to regulate slavery in States.
Famous Ableman v. Booth 1859 Supreme Court case opinion: State courts cannot contradict federal courts or rule federal law unconstitutional. (Supremacy clause Art. 6) This case happened because northern states tried to block Congress’ pro slavery Fugitive Slave Act 1850 (requiring all runaway slaves to be captured in either slave or free states and returned to their owners). Northern free state courts tried to block a law passed by the US Congress, but they failed. The federal government is supreme.
In 1860 South Carolina did secede from the USA illegally, followed by 10 other southern states and the result was disastrous.
Civil War South seceded to defy Lincoln to protect slavery (to stop it would undermine southern commerce & civilization.”) Alexander Hamilton Stephens served as vice president of the Confederate States of America (CSA) during the Civil War ( ) said in his Cornerstone Speech: “our new Confederate government is based upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.” The North went to war to defend itself, protect the Constitution, keep USA together & later to end slavery. All the goods produced in the entire southern CSA only equaled that produced by New York. Hopeless cause. (Read following link)
4/20/2017

27. Secession & Disastrous Civil War
Confederate Col. John Ford (R.I.P.) of South Carolina and his men started the Civil War in Texas where the 1st blood was spilled between the states on 4/1/61 when Tejanos (Texans of Mexican heritage) like USA supporter Ochoa were hanged. Ford captured and killed 20 of Ochoa’s Tejanos (USA supporters). Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted further on April 12, 1861 when Confederate artillery opened fire on United States military (treason) in a Charleston Harbor Fort Sumter that surrendered 34 hours later with no combat casualties Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back.
4/9/1865, Lee surrendered to Grant. Texas refused to surrender! May 13, 1865, last land battle of Civil War fought at Palmito Hill, near mouth of Rio Grande River, and was a victory led by Col. John Ford, commander of the “Calvary of the West” which never lost a battle in the Civil War.
Of the 31 million USA population (2014 Texas population 27.2 million), 2.4 million served, 1.1 million military casualties (623,026 killed equal to all dead in all 170 USA wars to date). Perhaps another ¼ million civilian casualties. Equivalent of about 11 million casualties in today’s population. 1 in 10 USA troops killed/injured; 1 in 4 Confederate Rebels killed/injured.
On June 2, 1865, Gen. EJ Davis represented the USA at Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith's surrender of the Trans-Mississippi West Confederate Army -- the only significant Confederate army left.
4/20/2017

28. Texas v. White 1869
The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, ruled in this landmark case: “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the
Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? --- When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States (through representatives in Congress).”
4/20/2017

29. Supreme Court Evolution of 10th
Another conservative Supreme Court’s decision (Hammer v. Dagenhart 1918) overturned Congress’ restrictions on states permitting inhumane child labor. Later reversed.
1930s through 1960s – a more liberal Supreme Court permitted expansion of federal power in wake of Great Depression & World War such as in (United States v. Darby Lumber Company 1941) declaring Congress had the power to set wage and hour regulations in states (contrary to state wishes) among employees of companies in the state engaged in interstate commerce who treated employees unfairly. This court declared that the 10th Amendment is “merely a truism (trite, banal, cliché, platitude – not necessarily truth) that all is retained which has not been surrendered to the national government and the 10th is NOT an independent source of state power.” And “From the beginning and for many years the 10th amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”
Again the question: How do you solve serious people problems nationwide – providing uniformity from one state to the next, like civil rights, job discrimination, safety in the work place, and working conditions, when state power (elected leaders) in some states do not want the problems solved? A key element of human nature is conservative resistance to change, including elected leaders, and an unwillingness to help constituents (often due to influences of money interest groups who do not want the change).
In Brown v. Board of Education 1954 the Supreme Court ordered an end to state mandated segregation of races in education – all due to White Supremacy laws and attitudes of White superiority over all other races. Due to White violence, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy sent in the U.S. Army troops and US Marshals to protect minorities. The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that gave minorities rights nationwide against discrimination (minorities could not use any place used by Whites like restaurants, hotels) and gave voting rights for all races even though violently opposed by many Whites – especially in southern states like Texas. Listen to this one minute You Tube part of a 1963 speech by Alabama Governor George Wallace proclaiming states’ rights to ensure “segregation forever” Watch this short You Tube video about White Alabama State & local leaders, typical of many southern states including Texas, who were violently furious at Black Americans who peacefully protested state denial of basic human rights for their race Should state or national law be supreme?
4/20/2017

30. Supreme Court Evolution of 10th
From 1937 to 1997 (50 years) the Supreme Court overturned just one federal law.
In Frye v. U.S the Court said: “While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance. The Amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs the States’ integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system.”
Beginning in late 1990s a conservative Supreme Court reasserted certain state rights, such as stopping Congress from requiring states to do gun background checks (Printz v. United States 1997) declaring it was not within Article One Congress commerce power. From 1997 to 2002 a conservative Supreme Court struck down 25 federal laws that restricted states. (Still mall amount overturned a percent of the whole)
In 2003 Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act signed by President George Bush to force all states to stop this routine prison crime. The problem causing the act is a lawless state prison and jail environment where men and women are too routinely raped by inmates and even guards. When judges & juries sentence offenders, even non violent ones, should they add instructions to the “shop lifter thief” like: “you are sentenced to a year in jail to punish you for your crime, and in addition we sentence you to be raped by other inmates and guards any time they want.” Of course they would not because it would be unconstitutional cruel & unusual punishment, but that is the understood effect of being sentenced to prison – there is extraordinarily high risk of rape. So who should win in 2014 when Texas Governor Perry refuses to comply with this federal law designed to stop prison rape?
4/20/2017

31. Can States Secede from USA?
The Constitution provisions mentioned, as reinforced by Supreme Court decisions, and war answers an emphatic no without permission from Congress.
But you will never get that permission without a federal fight – even war (been there done that). Congress will never permit Texas to leave. It will send military might and arrest officials to stop any such nonsense.
In 2013 the USA GDP was a $16.8 trillion economy, and in 2012 the Texas state GDP was a $1.4 trillion economy, 2nd behind California.
If Texas was a sovereign country, it would be the 14th largest economy in the world. You think the USA will let that go?
The federal government has spent perhaps trillions investment in Texas since 1845 such as in interstate highways, military bases, airports, air traffic control, other federal installations like NASA and national parks and much more. Then there is all the federal grants that help state education and police and more. Then there is the value of ports like Houston critical to the USA economy. Those are only a few reasons why the federal government would fight any actual subversive movement.
As Texas v. White 1869 Supreme Court case declared: states are NOT free to leave the union - the United States is an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. Accordingly, no state may unilaterally secede.
The Civil War was started in the 1860s by Southern state ignorant demagogue leaders willing to fan the flames of revolution among ignorant citizens and it caused horrific casualties - equivalent to 11 million with today's population. Texas Governor Sam Houston in 1861 refused to take oath to Confederate States of America & resigned to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution. Houston tried to tell Texans that secession and joining the Confederacy wouldn't work. He warned of "rivers of blood," a generation left dead or crippled by war and the ultimate defeat of the South at the hands of the industrial superior North. In a November 1860 letter he asked: “after enduring civil war for years, will there be any promise of a better state of things than we now enjoy?” All his prophecies came true.
4/20/2017

32. Free speech or rebellion, insurrection & treason?
Gov. Perry & Tea Party activists and some other Republican political candidates (SECEDE Kilgore for governor) from time to time say Texas can legally and unilaterally secede from the USA. Are they right?
Consider the Constitution powers mentioned, as well as the many Court cases on the previous slides that affirm national supremacy and deny state secession power without permission of Congress.
Can states secede from USA? Only ignorant uninformed uneducated persons will believe states can realistically do so. Among any intelligent knowledgeable thinking person it is a settled question. The answer is no!
Amendment 14 section 3, no person is eligible to hold ANY government job at the national, state or local level if engages in insurrection or rebellion against the USA, or gives aid or comfort to the enemies of the USA. Some say if they hate the USA so much they should stop bellyaching and should take their unpatriotic treachery to another country, rather than try to drag the nation into another disastrous event. The question is, what country would take them? Then again, there is free speech that should not be stopped unless is “clear & present dangerous speech” that the evil is likely to occur before a full discussion is possible. By encouraging them to continue speaking permits us to identify the fools among us.
4/20/2017