Texas secession?

[doofaloofa]

More like an Irish/English thingy

Grand so!

It will only take 800 years to resolve...and counting

[DCS]

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


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.

That it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, process I agree, but about the "Consent of the States" issue I think there is some kind of provision in #13 of The Articles of Confederation.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

BTW, I find this fictional map interesting too.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

[W. Rabbit]

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

No, it's just business. America has invested heavily in Texas and Texas can't just decide to sever ties because it's *sniffle* butthurt about an election. Lord knows we had to deal with Bush for 8 years and no one seceded.

Do you have any idea how much federal money (taxpayer money), has been pumped into Texas in disaster funds alone? Take that FEMA disaster count (300 something) and multiply that by a few hundred million at least...it's a nice big number.

Everything in Texas is bigger, yep including their liplock on the federal teet, whether the secessionists realize it or not. Hell even Rick Perry is now backing away from his secessionist statements now...

The people who want secession....literally have no idea that their state relies on the Union for survival.

Think the cartel gangs are a problem now, with all the Federal support Texas gets? Wait and see what would happen if all Federal law enforcement and US military were pulled out of Texas...

[Styygens]

That it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, process I agree, but about the "Consent of the States" issue I think there is some kind of provision in #13 of The Articles of Confederation.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The Articles of Confederation were entirely superseded by the adoption of the United States Constitution. As they have no legal effect, I don't think they would be used to help provide a process for a state leaving the Union.

Even if it did have an effect, that clause also indicates the Union is perpetual.

I think the other thing to keep in mind about the apparent "revolution or consent of the states" exception in the Texas v. White decision is the historical context. The decision is from 1869, a time at which the possibility of a state's rebellion was not theoretical. Moreover, "the consent of the States" was not merely to be guessed at, but recently had been in action; there was no consent given. In fact, the position of the US Government had emphatically been that no consent would be given to dissolve the Union. It could very well be that the phrase was a legal and polite way of saying, "when you win the next violent disagreement or hell freezes over!"

[evilstan]

Why is it only people outside of Texas seem to be talking about this whole secession thing?

[Permalost]

Think the cartel gangs are a problem now, with all the Federal support Texas gets? Wait and see what would happen if all Federal law enforcement and US military were pulled out of Texas...

Holy ****, can you imagine?

[goodlun]

Holy ****, can you imagine?

yes
Juarez comes chiefly to mind.
Although I do wonder how much of a drug corridor Texas would still be as a different country. What is the drug consumption like in Texas itself?

[jedtex88]

yes
Juarez comes chiefly to mind.
Although I do wonder how much of a drug corridor Texas would still be as a different country. What is the drug consumption like in Texas itself?

In or outside the Austin city limits?

[goodlun]

[judoka_uk]

What percentage of the US armed forces are Texan and what proportion of US military hardware and installations are in Texas?

As in some theoretical secession scenario it is not unthinkable that many Texans serving in the US military would withdraw their service and re-join a hypothetical Texan military, similarly with hardware and kit.

Would the remaining states really want to enact sanctions against/ go to war with Texas to recover the planes, tanks, ships, nukes, etc... stationed in Texas?

These are questions that have arisen as part of talk around Scottish independence and would have to be answered if Texas ever voted for independence. Scotland, being run by socialists wants to get rid of the Crown's nuclear weapons, however, Texas would doubtless want to retain the Federal nuclear weapons stationed on it's soil.

These all raise interesting questions as to how military resources would be apportioned. That is even before you get onto questions of national debt and the like.