Texas secession?

[Charles Brown]

And among the last in education, last in healthcare, and last in job creation.

The only reason Texas' economy is doing so well is they have more direct access to cheap labor.

Oh and at least 90% of the state is a desert.

[Charles Brown]

I hope not. I'll be out of a job. Unless, of course, Texas creats its own Border Crimes Investigations Agency.

[W. Rabbit]

Already covered Charlie Brown....kick and a miss.

Here's the new, post-secession map:

[W. Rabbit]

[itwasntme]

Cocaine is a helluva drug!

Tell me about it.

[Charles Brown]

Already covered Charlie Brown....kick and a miss.

Here's the new, post-secession map:

I was too lazy to read the whole thread.

[goodlun]

I hope not. I'll be out of a job. Unless, of course, Texas creats its own Border Crimes Investigations Agency.

Think about how much more border protection they are going to need.

[Styygens]

It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
...
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. US Supreme Court (Texas vs White - 1869).

The entire Texas v. White decision can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0700_ZO.html

I think you missed some relevant paragraphs from part of the decision you quoted.

It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

The holding of Texas v. White was that states do not have a right to secession; the Union is perpetual and indissoluble. I'll admit that some sources I looked at more narrowly defined this as, "states do not have a right to unilateral secession."

So what are we to make of the final statement, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"?

The first instance is obvious. If a state or states mounts a successful rebellion, then to the victor belong the spoils and the state can rightfully declare a revolution which has thrown-off the yoke of the US Government. But a revolution is an extra-legal solution, where as a secession is legal process.

But what of the "consent of the States"? You note:

I do not find anything in the US Constitution that forbides a secession if both the secesionist state(s) and the Union agree there is sufficent cause and freely consent.

I'm sure you did see Article IV, Section 3, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...cleiv#section3) which outlines the process to admit new states to the Union. The US Constitution is entirely silent on a similar process for states leaving the Union. This is not an oversight. The issue was raised at the time of ratification, and the Anti-Federalists called for such a process. The Federalists' feared the secession provision would undermine the Union, and their position carried the moment.

Without a defined process, we have no way of truly determining the requisite "consent of the States." Possibly the Amendment Process in Article V (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev) could be used either to provide a secession process amendment, or amend the secession of a specific State.

However, the Amendment process is intentionally difficult, and even popular proposals fail to become ratified Amendments. Given the intertwined nature of modern society, there are many reasons why states might not acquiesce to the secession of a sister state. Not the least of which is the strong historical and legal precedent that once a state joins the Union, it cannot leave. I sincerely doubt the chances of any kind of Secession Amendment passing.

[doofaloofa]

Bags be Humongous, Ruler of the Wasteland

Isn't it a bit commie/facist to say no state can leave the Union?

Will the US deal with Texas as Russ.Fed. deals with Chetchenya?

[Tom .C]

Bags be Humongous, Ruler of the Wasteland

Isn't it a bit commie/facist to say no state can leave the Union?

Will the US deal with Texas as Russ.Fed. deals with Chetchenya?

More like an Irish/English thingy