RC>Better check the Flag Code - you are in error. A state flag
RC>is flown below Old Glory when both are flown on the SAME
RC>pole. When flown on separate poles, Old Glory is flown in
RC>the superior position - the right. The subordinate position
RC>is on the left, even when flown at the same height.
RC>Next argument?
 
      I would prefer to corrcet this one.  It is inappropiate to fly
the Texas flag on the same pole in a subordiante position to the US
flag.  While this may apply to other states, doing so violates proper
protocol with the Lone Star and formally, it may only be flown
alongside the United States flag on a pole of equal size, or equal
height, and with a banner of equal measurement.  
      The proper protocol does, indeed, defer the superior position to
the US flag but only the position, nothing else.
 MA> Second, Texas reserves, and federal courts have recognized
 MA> the reserved right of Texas, to subdivide into as many as
 MA> five states if the desire is ever present. No other state
 MA> has this right. 
RC>Wrong. That is not unique to Texas. Not only is California
RC>is even now entertaining that idea, but it has been
RC>utilized by other states in the past. 
 
     With congressional approval, however, Texas reserves that right
unilaterally and requires no congressional approval.  
 
 MA> If your argumement is, as you suggest, that once we were annexed
 MA> all former national rights were ceded, then hoiw can the purchase, by
 MA> the United States from Texas, of a third of our national territory in
 MA> 1850 be explained. If, as you suggest, Texas territory is American
 MA> territory, where would be the motive to compensate Texas for the loss
 MA> of half of New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and
 MA> Nebraska?
RC>Red herring - Texas re-entered the Union under current
RC>conditions AFTER the Civil War - not in 1850.
 
      According to White vs. Texas (1868), which is still considered
the definative Supreme Court decsision on secession, Texas never left
the Union, the act of secession was unconstitutional, and therefore
could not "re-enter".  It never left.  Therefore, all terms of
agreements between our nations remain in effect.
     If you wish to take the alternative course and declare the Supreme
Court in error and state that Texas did seceed, acknowledging the
constitutional right to do so, then we are no more than a conquered
nation under foreign occupation.  Which is it?
 MA> [...snip...] Also, our own courts have ruled that Texas
 MA> cannot violate the bi-lingual provisions of our treaty even
 MA> if we ourselves desire to alter them. 
RC>Irrelvant until ruled upon by the Federal Supreme Court.
 
   It would be interesting to see that happen.  Again you are left with
a Catch 22 situation.  If the Supreme Court declares our treaty null
and void, then lawfully, we ought to revert to the position previous to
the treaty which was a state of independence.  On the other hand, if
the Supreme Court recognizes the treaty and rules in favor of this
position, we are accorded acknowledgement of all our independent rights
under the treaty including the right of severance if we can demonstrate
violations of the treaty by the United States.  
   It would be quite interesting to hear that decision.
RC>You've yet to produce any argument substantiating that
RC>claim.
 
       Arguments are interesting things.  Often revelance becomes the
pawn of public opinion.  Today, of course, litle of what I have to say
has any value at all simply because there exists no strong motivation
or desire on the part of Texans as a whole to move towards
self-government.  Tomorrow?  Tomorrow is a different day and things
considered irrevelent and incidental today may very well become
important issue tomorrow.   
 
                                    /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------