First I don't believe that Texas will or should secede but I do believe that the Governor was using the threat of that as an illustration of how upset he is with the way the current administration is running the country.

 

I have no problem at all with taking that position as an illustration of dissatisfaction.

Given what happened last time someone tried to secede they probably should rethink that move.

 

Don't mess with Texas:D

I'd be in favor of amending the Constitution to allow any state to secede based on a 2/3ds vote of the people in that state. Why should we force some state to be a part of the United States anyway? Seems almost un-American to force the people of a state to continue to be part of the United States if they don't want to part of the U.S. If they leave they can't come back unless they are accepted by a requisite number of states. What wrong with allowing states to secede?

I'd be in favor of amending the Constitution to allow any state to secede based on a 2/3ds vote of the people in that state. Why should we force some state to be a part of the United States anyway? Seems almost un-American to force the people of a state to continue to be part of the United States if they don't want to part of the U.S. If they leave they can't come back unless they are accepted by a requisite number of states. What wrong with allowing states to secede?

 

That question was asked in 1861 and answered in 1865 and in spite of the inflated egos of many Texans the answer would be the same today. Voluntary participation would be the end of the United States.

I suspect that Texas would do quite well on its own.

I suspect that Texas would do quite well on its own.

 

That's an interesting thought, can you elaborate?

 

I think the opposite but would love to hear some reasons they might succeed.

I wonder how they could afford a military for defense, an infrastructure for a state that size, and how business might do if they were cut off from business with the other 47 mainland states.

 

If they raised enough tax money to fund all of that, how well do you think the tradeoff might be to Texans then. Afterall, the military bases would lose funding that are there (They are US bases, not Texan ones) and while they would have oil to spare how would they market it with a spurned nation surrounding them?

I'd be in favor of amending the Constitution to allow any state to secede based on a 2/3ds vote of the people in that state. Why should we force some state to be a part of the United States anyway? Seems almost un-American to force the people of a state to continue to be part of the United States if they don't want to part of the U.S. If they leave they can't come back unless they are accepted by a requisite number of states. What wrong with allowing states to secede?

 

Even though I disagree with any path to allowing secession, LN you have stated what I would consider the most "American" way of secession.

 

Texas v. White(1869)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html

 

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.

 

I agree with TA and the first sentence posted from the opinon. Our Union is "complete,...perpetual, and ...indissoluble." The Preamble states a "more perfect Union(whatever that can be interpreted to mean:D). However, you post something that I would say is affirmed by the Court in Texas v. White. If an Amendment was ratified that allowed secession, it would certianly have the consent of the states; as 3/4ths would have to approve an amendment to be ratified. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would support and defend it as a part of the Constitution, if were to be so.

That question was asked in 1861 and answered in 1865 and in spite of the inflated egos of many Texans the answer would be the same today. Voluntary participation would be the end of the United States.

 

 

When people cite the Texas vs White case they need to keep certain things in mind: 1. it was decided almost 150 years ago; and 2. it was decided right after the Civil War. I seriously wonder if the same decision would be reached today.

 

Furthermore, it applied the Constitution then in effect. In my scenario, the Constitution would first be amended to permit secession before secession could occur. I know of no provision in the Constitution that prevents the Constitution from being amended to permit secession. If you know of one, please point it out. Furthermore even if there is such a provision, couldn't the Constitution be amended to eliminate that provision and then amended to permit secession? Is there some provision in the Constitution that states that certain provisions are above amendment?

 

Frankly, your comment about the US failing if voluntary participation was permitted sounds like something Putin would utter in justifying Russia's invasion of Georgia, etc. to restore the Soviet Union.

 

If voluntary participation caused certain states to withdraw because their citizens no longer want to be part of the United States and thus the United States to end as you suggest it would, I'd unfortunately be fine with it. No state should be forced to be in the United States. If revolution and the use of guns is an acceptable method to throw off a govt that the people disagree with, why can't a peaceful means such as secession be acceptable?

 

Personally I think the threat of secession would restore some power to State rights and diffuse the out of control federal power system present in modern United States. I don't think that secession would happen willy nilly; but would only occur in the most severest of situations when the people of a state become so disenfranchised with the federal govt that those citizens were willing to forego all the benefits of being in the United States in order to have self determination.

 

Please don't think I am not very loyal to this great country of ours. I am and I think my background establishes that. But I don't want to force any people; any state to belong to this country. If they want to be part of the United States, great. But if they do not, then I don't thing I should force them to belong. I ask you how united can the United States truly be when you force a people; when you force a state, by force of the gun to belong to the United States? We aren't united, rather we are a divided house constantly squabbling and struggling, unable to find consensus on things to move forward and instead tearing ourselves apart due to our disagreements. I'd rather let them leave the house and form their own one then tear mine apart due to our disagreements.