Ok @Phil , first I want to thank you for providing the link.
2nd, I'm lagging by almost 20 minutes, so my comments may seem way out of context.
3rd, if you go to page 9 of the document (pg. 15 of the .pdf), you see the verbiage "controvers[y] between two or more States" .... that's where I'm seeing the setup. Think in terms of Hobsian Contractarianism, assume there is not law, not of nature, nor God, nor human, but that which two or more contractors agree to. Now recognize, regardless your possition on the above, no moral obligations exist but those which are mutally honored by parties involved, and enforced by parties involved.
Now, here is the kicker, what was Texas original 19th Century agreement upon entering into Union with The United States?
This was talked about on the internet way back about 5 or 6 years ago, but people have forgotten. Texas, is the only state which, as part of it's original legal contract with the at the time existing states of the union, included that it already has standing approval to succeed from the Union ... I don't have the time or expertise to go all the way into detail while I'm sitting here...but I was a Texas Citizen for 16 years before I quite Hewlett-Packard and moved to Belize ... I lived walking distance form the capitol, and I used to read and talk about these things all the time....I think the argument they are slowly building up to is along the lines of "Ya'll 50 states better get ya'll 'lection shit figured out ... or you're fixin' to be 49"
