TEXIT Q&A: Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling Shows Federal Entanglement
Eric asks about the Supreme Court's Texas redistricting decision. The ruling demonstrates exactly why federal oversight undermines Texas sovereignty.
Page 4 of 17. Newest stories are on page one.
Eric asks about the Supreme Court's Texas redistricting decision. The ruling demonstrates exactly why federal oversight undermines Texas sovereignty.
Daniel Miller explains TNM's position on territorial expansion: counties must first secede themselves before Texas could consider annexation post-independence.
Critics claim the Constitution has procedures for admitting states but not removing them. This myth ignores the 10th Amendment and confuses silence with prohibition.
Lee asks about US-Texas negotiations after independence. Here's how international law and precedent guide property division talks.
Lee asks about Texas National Guard deployments to Illinois and the role of the Texas State Guard. Here's the TNM's clear position on keeping Texas forces at home.
Daniel Miller answers Chris Powell and John Bolgiano's question about Republican Party of Texas failure to enforce Rule 44 ballot removal after White House interference.
Mr. Mike and Lisa asked about Medicare and SSDI benefits after Texas independence. Here's the comprehensive answer based on federal law and TNM policy.
The Supreme Court never banned secession. Critics misread Texas v. White to manufacture legal barriers that don't exist.
Chismar asks about Texas's legal stance on Sharia courts and how independence would address them. Here's the constitutional answer.
Dustin asks how Texas could transition from donor state to federal funding recipient. Daniel Miller explains why independence beats Washington's rigged game.
Daniel Miller directly addresses Buddy's question about whether Texas is too large to function as an independent republic, explaining why size is an advantage.
Chase's 1869 decision relied on the defunct Articles of Confederation and Constitution's Preamble—sources later ruled invalid by the Supreme Court itself.