The Daily Kos had a survey done by something called Research 2000 that’s getting mentioned quite a few places ( how I heard of it ) :
That sure looks like a movement to me, assuming the numbers are true.
EDIT : I see **Captain Carrot **beat me to it.
A movement is a group of people actively promoting something. So no, it’s not a movement.
The state of Texas was never OUT of the Union. They were temporarily prevented from exercising their otherwise constitutional participation in our federal scheme of government. The return of those rights to them did not invalidate their original admission.
No, that just means that it’s just getting started.
That’s a, shall we say, interesting way of phrasing what could otherwise be covered by the single word “seceded”.
DSY is a lawyer – of course he’s going to fancy it up! 
But he does have a point – whatever was the apparent state of affairs, what with Texas joining the CSA and all, the legal position is that the state legislature unconstitutionally deprived its citizens of participation on the Union government, which they were unable to detach the state from de jure, and Reconstruction served to put the state back where it belonged and legally always had been.
Kind of like how the Catholics feel about divorce… the courts may have legally dissolved the marriage, the couple think they’re divorced, but the Church knows they can’t “really” undo a valid marriage.
Please do, pretty please. I do it as often as I can. I just wish some folks would do it in the Governor’s presence a little more often. Then maybe ours wouldn’t be such loud jerks.
State Defense Forces (separate from the National Guard) are not unique to Texas.
Texas is a state of the Union. It has no special status in this regard. That it was an independent republic, recognized as such by the U.S. before joining the Union, now means absolutely nothing in terms of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
How so?
Can you give me an example of this tyranny?
(Hint: raising taxes is not tyranny, any more than it was tyranny back when Texas “resident” Bush the First did it.)
Was this not, in fact, President Lincoln’s opinion on the legal status of the Confederate States?
We’ve never had a court-appointed president. Deal with it.
I’m sure Presidents Tilden and Gore will be happy to hear you affirm that. 
I think you’re right – any Civil War scholars around who could confirm it?
Uh, no. If the states had actually “seceded,” then they would have had to be readmitted to the union, following the same procedures they had to follow to be admitted in the first place (with the exception of the four states which attempted secession that were original colonies). But, since they never actually seceded, they didn’t need to be re-admitted. Which was VERY important, actually, since if they HAD been considered to have accomplished a valid secession, then the Union could have imposed all SORTS of conditions upon readmittance. In the case of Texas, one can easily imagine that it would have been split up, and pieces of it attached to various of the unadmitted territories, such as taking the panhandle and giving it to what became Colorado.
I didn’t, I suspect, make my point (now known to be a misunderstanding) clear. There were conditions set, there were acts passed by Congress and signed by the President. I did not understand what this was, if not readmission.
What I have been (lo, these many years) thinking of as readmission was actually an act of Congress acknowledging that the states had met the conditions set for a restoration of Congressional representation. For instance, in Texas’ case, they had to write a new constitution that allowed for universal male suffrage and ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Then Congress passed an act that Texas had restored a republican form of government, and their Representatives and Senators could again be seated.
At least, that’s my current understanding.
Right. As I said, they never seceded.
I dealt with your boy for 8 years. So did this country & the world.
Thanks a lot!