-=> Quoting Mike Angwin to Robert Craft <=-
 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?
 MA> 
 MA> I would prefer to corrcet this one.  It is inappropiate to fly
 MA> the Texas flag on the same pole in a subordiante position to the US
 MA> flag.
 According to whom? The Republic of Texas people? It has been a long
 time since I have had to apply this knowledge, but I seem to remember
 that, on an Air Force base, the state flag is typically flown on the
 same staff, below the Stars and Stripes.
 MA> While this may apply to other states, doing so violates proper
 MA> protocol with the Lone Star and formally, it may only be flown
 MA> alongside the United States flag on a pole of equal size, or equal
 MA> height, and with a banner of equal measurement.  
 MA> The proper protocol does, indeed, defer the superior position to
 MA> the US flag but only the position, nothing else.
 Until such time as the people of Texas earn the privilege of
 independence, Texas *is* only one state of fifty, and the same laws
 apply in Texas, as apply elsewhere. Granted, we have too many federal
 laws, but that doesn't change the fact that Texas is no more
 privileged than any other state.
 
 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.
 MA> With congressional approval, however, Texas reserves that right
 MA> unilaterally and requires no congressional approval.  
 Guess again, I am no great legal scholar, but for the new states to be
 admitted as states, would require Congressional approval. Bottom line,
 any special provisions of the original treaty of annexation(or whatever
 it was called) no longer apply.
 RC>Red herring - Texas re-entered the Union under current
 RC>conditions AFTER the Civil War - not in 1850.
 MA> 
 MA> According to White vs. Texas (1868), which is still considered
 MA> the definative Supreme Court decsision on secession, Texas never left
 MA> the Union, the act of secession was unconstitutional, and therefore
 MA> could not "re-enter".  It never left.  Therefore, all terms of
 MA> agreements between our nations remain in effect.
 MA> If you wish to take the alternative course and declare the
 MA> Supreme Court in error and state that Texas did seceed, acknowledging
 MA> the constitutional right to do so, then we are no more than a conquered
 MA> nation under foreign occupation.  Which is it?
 The I am not aware of this Supreme court ruling.
 RC>You've yet to produce any argument substantiating that
 RC>claim.
 MA> 
 MA> Arguments are interesting things.  Often revelance becomes the
 MA> pawn of public opinion.  Today, of course, litle of what I have to say
 MA> has any value at all simply because there exists no strong motivation
 MA> or desire on the part of Texans as a whole to move towards
 MA> self-government.  Tomorrow?  Tomorrow is a different day and things
 MA> considered irrevelent and incidental today may very well become
 MA> important issue tomorrow.   
 Which renders the Texas independence movement itself irrelevant.
 david.hartung@mcione.com
 Ilks of Metropolitan Walls/LENS
 Proud member of White House Enemies database
... Guns don't kill people, it's the bullets. Guns get them going faster.
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.21 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------