TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Texas = 5 Texases? From:Marsha Kamish <MKamish -at- STEWART -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:04:22 -0600
To all those who take exception to Texas being allowed to divide into five
states, please check this site: http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm
There are lots of interesting links from there as well. Have fun!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Nelson [SMTP:ednelson -at- ripco -dot- com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 1:25 AM
> To: mkamish -at- stewart -dot- com
> Cc: ed -dot- nelson -at- syslink -dot- mcs -dot- com
> Subject: Texas = 5 Texases?
>
> Hi, Marsha...
>
> I really suspect that my question i very likely too far off topic for the
> CEL bandwidth, but it's one that has been bugging me for some years.
> I've heard often Texans' reference to their "constitutional right" to
> become five states. And I'm continually curious about that.
>
> Is this "constitutional right" something granted to Texas by the U.S.
> Constitution? (If it is, I've never heard any citations -- even
> approximate -- in support of the contention.) Or is it something that
> Texans have in their _own_ constitution? What makes this right
> "constitutional"?
>
> And if it's the latter, and in the (we both recognize unlikely) event
> that the state chose to exercise it, do Texans anticipate that all five
> resultant states would automatically be admitted to the Union? -- without
> the need for any federal action? Is there any rational support for
> assuming the hypothetical four "new Texases" would apply for such
> admission? Surely they couldn't be required to, could they? But on the
> other hand, if they did _not_ so apply, would they have, in effect,
> sought to secede? Does this whole hypothetical, unlikely and convoluted
> as it certainly is, include an assumption that such secession would be
> greeted with equanimity? If not, how might it be greeted?
>
> I freely concede this whole business is a wildly "blue sky" concept.
> Still, you'll probably agree it's one that Texans talk a lot about. So I
> can't help wondering about (1) the details of its basis and (2) the
> implications that seem necessarily attached to the "right" we hear so
> much about. It doesn't seem to me likely that the concept has gotten so
> much discussion without it having been given _some_ more careful thought.
>
> And who better to ask about it than a Texas editor who raises the issue?
> Hope you don't mind. Thanx, too, for all the reading. (Seems that when
> I get started on a keyboard I find it hard to stop<g>.)
>
> Best regards. ---ed
>
> ednelson -at- ripco -dot- com // ed -dot- nelson -at- syslink -dot- mcs -dot- com
