It doesn't. States rights advocates would have never ratified the constitution if it had that language as many were wary of establishing a federal government even though the articles of confederation had proved to be highly problematic. A supreme court decision during reconstruction ruled that Texas had never legally left the United States despite "joining" the confederacy. It's not the most convincing brief as it's constitutional basis is very very general. It's thought that the bigger issue is that the events surrounding the civil war established the illegality of secession. You had federal actions taking arms against states without any reprimand from the courts. There are a number of other tid bits like there was never a treaty to end the civil war. There were just a long list of surrendering southern forces and a declaration by President Johnson that the insurrection in southern states was over. Late Supreme Court Justice Scalia had this to say, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") From a legal/technical perspective, no state has ever succeeded from the union and all declarations of Succession were retracted at the start of reconstruction. TLDR:Ehhhh. Precedence suggests the federal government will take to arms to keep a state from succeeding with no judicial question as to their right to or their right to ignore any declarations of Succession from any state.
Secession is stupid. But, I'm annoyed about arguments about 'rights' to secede or the legality of secession. The colonies didn't have a right to secede from Britain but they did anyway. The French didn't have a right decapitate their king but they did it anyway. And a bajillion other examples. If Texans want independence, it'll be a fight (military or political) -- the law and rights don't enter into it.
Obviously you can revolt. I think the question is if there was some kind of legal procedure that is sanctioned somewhere in the law or constitution that would legally compel the U.S. to recognize the independence of a state if it choose to succeed. The Supreme court flat out said there is not and the only way to leave the union is through a revolution. I don't think this question is stupid at all from a constitutional and historical perspective. I'm a history nerd though. I would highly recommend "The Presidents" TV series. It's a great walk through of each presidency and the different political climates. It starts to get very interesting once they started slowly creating states out of the Louisiana territory and acquiring new land like Cali, Florida, Maine etc. It's how I found out that we have already had a gay president. https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/the-presidents/id272208661#
The majority of Texas is not interested. Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Corpus, and Ft Worth would all wanted to stay (they are blue). Good luck leaving without those cities.
Arkansas is solid, the correct answer is Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama/Georgia/Florida/South Carolina. However, other than Miss/Alabama, there are great things to see and/or experience in all those other states.
Of course that will never happen, and it's silly to even talk about it. Southern Cali will rejoin Mexico before Texas does anything, which means never I suppose.
The rest of the country would really have to go to the dumps for this to happen. You know, like electing Trump or something. Cruz for POTUS of Texas!
Hey, Mississippi is home to the blues museum in clarksdale. And the greatest literary author in the history of the US came from MS, so it's not all bad.
One can hope. I love my Rockets, but Texas is holding the rest of the country back. If it's not Texas, I hope Northern Cali, Oregon, Washington secede to join with extreme Western Canada to form "Cascadia".
I don't think the question is stupid. I just think it looks too narrowly. If you believe in national self determination (which may be a bit antiquated now), as secessionists do, why concern yourself with Constitutional rights when your claim is to human rights?
Well done. Listening to a con law pod on this recently. The compact theory isn't the worse legal theory out there. Many scholars and politicians have throughout history believed that states can legally leave. There are some points against the compact theory: - evidence of the Constitution being an unbreakable union is in some of the Federalist papers by Madison - the Supremacy Clause - When NY was debating ratification, with the new USA already formed due to 9 states agreeing, many Anti-Feds wanted a written guarantee of the Bill of Rights to prevent federal overreach, and that if one never came, a written backout clause for NY. NY kind of liked being a big dog and didn't want to join the rest, but also feared being stuck in between the USA on each side. Anyhow, the Feds refused to give that backout clause because it's not a compact of states voted by state legislatures, instead it's an unbreakable union voted on by not the legislatures, but the people. - It's a Constitution, not a treaty, not a compact, not a confederation. As Houston does not have a unilateral right to leave Texas, Texas does not have a unilateral right to leave the USA. "Sovereign" states appears in the Articles of Confederation, but never in the US Constitution. (aside - George Washington was president prior to North Carolina and Rhode Island joining the country under the new Constitution) - Lincoln argued in this manner as to why he never considered those states in rebellion as actually seceeding. If you can officially withdraw, then any state can just create treaties with foreign governments.
It’s an interesting legal question but practically it’s already been answered. No a state can’t secede. Theoretically yes a state could successfully secede if they bring enough force to bear but then that’s no longer an issue of the Constitution. That’s in theory but again practically I doubt a majority of Texans want to secede. This state legislator can ask for a referendum but I’m pretty sure what the answer is and all this will do is waste state resources and further divide and inflame people. Which I suspect is the point of this .
if there was a way to cut out all the red parts and leave the sane, rational people, I wouldn’t object at all if Lubbock, Waco, and the rest of the middle of nowhere places want to secede, bye we’ll be Texas, and u dumb MFers that wanted to secede can be Texass
Its been answered legally too. In Texas v. White, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Confederate States never actually seceded because states can't unilaterally leave the US. There is no option for secession. The Supreme Court 100% closed the door on that after the Civil War.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ How many times do you guys need to be corrected that Texas cannot legally secede from the Union. Doing so would only be done essentially by going to war with the United States... a war Texas would lose overnight especially since half of the state would object, and would rally in the streets in opposition to the fascist right wing government of Texas. You have no military You have a government that would be so far right, and autocratic, half the country would not want to fight for it, or would leave You have dissent on the streets You have no security at either border (border patrol would be gone overnight) You would have a southern neighbor in Mexico with a history to exploit of ownership of Texas which would increase the likelihood of them invading north You have no FEMA aid when the next Hurricane strikes The country of Texas would be a hot F-ing mess.
Coolio. Like I apparently said in 2016 secession is stupid, but I'd be happy to have a referendum on it to take the temperature of Texans.
