A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know, BUT could the Rest of the USA just kick another state (Not necessary Texas) out? Or is this also not possible?
The US Constitution currently has no mechanism to break any individual State out of the Union. Throughout our history, this has been interpreted as a sign that the Union is perpetual, and not able to be dissolved. This got put to the test in our Civil War, where a bunch of states up and said “We’re Leaving” and the Federal Government said “You can’t just do that”. They fought a war over it, and the Federal Government won, proving its position correct by force.
With that said, the US was founded as a government of the People, and so if the people want to carve out a way for States to leave, they must first establish a mechanism via amending the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) coupled with 3/4 of State Legislatures ratifying it.
There is a provision, though, to make States out of other States. Maine and West Virginia were both formed out of land that belonged to Massachusetts and Virginia.
Eh. They just leave. Not being prohibited to do so isn’t the same as not being allowed to, that’s why they had a war last time. There is a very strong argument that Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal, he just wasn’t philosophically wrong and also won.
It’s laid out very explicitly in the COTUS (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The funny thing is that during the civil war, West Virginia seceded from Virginia, and Congress voted to allow it and they were accepted into the union. There are a lot of people who argue that when that happened it was unconstitutional. However, it has never been tested, as far as I know.
That would almost imply the Confederacy had legally left the USA, and Wrst Virginia legally left the Confederacy and joined the Union. Basically you could say none of this was un constitutional if the Confederacy was not a part of the USA at the time.
I would be doing it a disservice to try and explain it myself, but there were a lot of legal theories on how they could justify WV without justifying the Confederacy leaving the union. It’s an interesting topic.
Seems like it’d be easier, more honest and less “Jump through hoopy” to just say they left and we reconquered them. Unless you really don’t want think states leaving is legal when it probably is.
But specifically for kicking a state out I don’t think the bar is that high. If the legislature and executive agreed then it could be done very quickly.
No lol your second statement is literally just wrong. The only way to do anything like this would be through an Amendment, which equated to literally changing the rules bc the current rules do not allow for it.
“Just” passing an amendment requires more than 75% of states to ratify the amendment. So even if all of Congress decided nuts to Delaware, we’re moving them out, it would still go to the state of legislatures to be formalized
Oh no the amendment is for if a state wants to leave. Since there’s no standard around kicking a state out at all, it defaults to 50+1 votes in Congress and a President willing to enforce it
No. SCOTUS does not have to agree to everything. In fact there’s no Constitutional power for them to take a law up for review without a case. They gave themselves that power.
I find it implausible there would be no challenge, so scotus would have to agree either passively by refusing to take the case or actively by taking it in order for its legality to be settled.
And I find it implausible that anybody listens to SCOTUS if we’ve gotten to the point that at least half of Congress is kicking a state out. It’s certainly not a normal political environment at that point.
it was worse than that and even dumber the UK was a founding member and had extra perks. That other EU members didn’t get and they threw all that away. Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.
Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.
and yet it’s still the most logical thing for them to do, security, trade and otherwise. it’ll hurt a bit, that sting is pride lol… but it’d still be the best thing for both the UK and EU.
otherwise eventually I see Ireland unifying and Scotland going to the EU lol.
To further add, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows for having a state leave and the Constitution is where that process would be to be laid out. So, if a state wanted to leave and the rest of the country agreed, you would need a constitutional amendment to spell out that process.
Given the high bar required to amend the Constitution, having a state leave would need to be very popular politically.
There is no “gives Texas power” about that. If Texas were to leave, the big bargaining issues would be on water rights and what to do about social security.
And yet that provision is itself still part of the constitution so really an amendment just needs to have an initial sentence to override that limitation first. If there’s actually support for a change, anything can be changed.
Sure, but once there is enough determination to deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate that there are sufficient votes to amend the Constitution once in order to do this–which, as you have pointed out, is a very high bar–then it is no harder to go through the amendment process twice in order to first drop that sentence.
Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people. For what it’s worth, I advocate for the full abolition of the Senate. It’s an anti-democratic institution. There’s no way to fix it without making it a clone of the House so let’s just do away with it entirely.
Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people.
It isn’t worded as a “rhetorical flourish”; it is worded incredibly clearly and explicitly as a prohibition:
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In fact, taking your reasoning a step further: are you likewise arguing that when the prohibition against banning the slave trade prior to 1808 was included here, that it was also understood to be a “rhetorical flourish” with no teeth behind it? If so, then why did they go to so much trouble to put it in? It seems like a lot of wasted effort in that case.
I’m unconcerned with how it was intended since that’s totally irrelevant to what it actually is.
Then why did you waste time describing what you believed was the intention behind it earlier when you said,
I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people.
Regardless, the other point that I made that you haven’t addressed still stands: they put that prohibition against banning the slave trade in there for a reason, and that reason was presumably not “as a rhetorical flourish”, so either the people who insisted that it be present were horribly incompetent at writing legal language that would preserve their own interests, or your personal opinion as to how Constitutional law works in this case is missing something important.
Then why did you waste time describing what you believed was the intention behind it earlier when you said
I never said that was the intention. I said that's what I think of it as. In practice all it does is underline a point. These same people also totally screwed up how we chose the president and vice president and failed to provide a proper mechanism for replacing a dead president.
horribly incompetent at writing legal language
Horribly incompetent? No. Flawless, or even particularly prescient? No. They got a lot of big stuff right; they got a whole lot wrong.
Because Congress has wide latitude to set its own membership by passing laws to that effect. The size of the House, for instance, used to increase on every Census, until Congress passed a law to fix it at 435. (A huge mistake, IMHO, and part of the reason why our politics are so wacky today.)
This ensures that the Senate can never re-make itself to be anything other than the body with equal representation among states, unless the affected states also agree.
This ensures that the Senate can never re-make itself to be anything other than the body with equal representation among states, unless the affected states also agree.
Yes, that is exactly my point: if this restriction could itself be eliminated through the amendment process, then it effectively does not exist.
No, you don’t get my point, if that specific clause weren’t in the Constitution then Congress could enact a law to change how the Senate is constructed. The clause serves a purpose, even if it can be itself changed via amendment.
If the purpose of that clause were to restrict the kinds of laws that Congress can pass instead of the kinds of amendments that are allowed, then why does it appear in Article V, which relates to amendments, rather than Article I, which relates to Congress?
Sure, but obviously in that case it would no longer matter whether that state had Senators or not because it would no longer be subject to the laws of the U.S. government.
A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know
I’m a history illiterate so maybe I’m wrong but I’m sure lots of countries thought that before an insurrection. Not that I think Texas would rebel but literally why couldn’t they?
If it is by the consent of the rest of the states, then yes. I’m not aware of any existing legal process, but a constitutional amendment could fix that.
Such a thing is unlikely to ever happen. Territory means people, infrastructure, and resources, so it’s almost always better to hold onto it, unless you can’t defend it.
If it gets to that point, I think its more likely to declare the state in insurrection or rebellion and send in the army to passify it, rather than trying to expunge it.
There’s some pretty valuable infrastructure in TX and many other states. They’d definitely take it back and give the idiots who are responsible for the trouble a token fine and gentle slap on the wrist. It’s an American tradition. They’ll probably execute the derps doing the actual funding though.
As a Texan who is working to create change in this state, please don’t kick us out. We aren’t only the bad things you see on the news. We can offer you:
Brisket
Big Tex
Cowboy Hats
Willie Nelson
Chuck Norris
Fried (insert any food group)
Everything cool about Austin
Czech kolaches
Boots galore
And so much more.
Help us. We are a lot more purple than the news makes it seem, and we have been gerrymandered to the point that we need more than a simple majority to create change. If you can find it in your hearts to assist us in becoming a swing state, the whole nation stands to inherit all the things that made Texas an iconic part of the country in the first place. We are worth the effort.
I’ve seen Texans in the wild go on tirades when the attendant at the store checkout says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”…
The vast majority are definitely good people, but just want to point out that the people you see in the media are real. They are here, and they are loud.
It’s also easy to forget that living in the cities doesn’t represent the people everywhere in the state either. As long as I’m in a city, anywhere in the US, I’ve never seen extremely blatant racism. But go to the wrong areas in small towns and you get jeered at for not being white.
But go to the wrong areas in small towns and you get jeered at for not being white.
I’ve seen this even in California. Oildale, CA is the most racist place I’ve ever been, including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas. But it goes the other way too. There are small areas that are predominantly black or Mexican that aren’t very safe to be in if you’re white. It’s a real shame, man, especially since it seems to be getting worse, not better.
Hey, if it all hits the fan I would be in favor of an airlift to keep sending soy milk and avocados to Austin, so they can send back some of its abundance of weird.
I guess I still thought of that as number two. And no, Taco Bell has not done that to me, but I’ve had a colonoscopy. If you haven’t, trust me. What comes out of you in the prep is worse than any Taco Bell.
I feel like a lot of people in Joe Rogan’s circle have been moving to Austin, and with his current influx of cash it seems centered around that, which means he’s most likely been looking for what benefits the ultra rich, and will vote and promote accordingly.
Like when Chappelle jokingly said we should give Trump a chance because he was trying to get those tax cuts on the horizon. For the rich. Which didn’t really sound like a joke. Which was followed by bringing Musk onstage and laughing at the poor. Left and Right aside, it’s about the money for these guys, and I’m a little bit wary about a place so willing to accommodate.
I could be wrong, but the wealthy tend to know exactly where to know and why, but it could also be envy on my part.
Texas benefits enormously on federal spending. The reason it’s not in the red: f35, helo, rocket and other mil/space production that wouldn’t occur in “The United Counties of Texas”. Also subtract some of the largest mil installations on the planet - fort cavazos and fort bliss - plus dozens of other sites like Lackland/JBSA and Carswell/NASJRB ft worth and more… shittons of federal dollars going to texas.
Take it away - poof, texas is a lot of cattle and some windmills.
Sorry for the confusion, but “in the red” in this regard is a measure of how much the Fed spends in Texas vs how much (the people of) Texas sends to the Fed. Texas is one of the few red states not in the negative.
I think you are missing a ton of Fortune 500 companies Headquartered in Texas… Dell, Oracle, Tesla, Exxon, HPE, Charles Schwab, Texas Instruments… No state has more Fortune 500 HQ’s than Texas.
Texas is a bunch of big blue cities surrounded by cattleocracy.
Lol, this was in response to the current state, tax revenues vs Federal expenditures, Texas is one of the few red states with a net positive balance, and is not just cattle. In pure numbers, Texas has more Democrats than all but a few states and their revenue is heavily driven from their cities and oil infrastructure. But, they’d be destitute if they seceded.
Honestly Texas just needs to split into five states. Not everyone in the state holds the same beliefs as the people who live in north and east Texas. The Houston and Austin areas are far more progressive and liberal.
It would’ve made sense if Yorkshire was a city, which, it isn’t.
No, what I was actually meaning was that Yorkshire was one of the historical counties of England. However, when you look at the administrative/postal counties, there’s actually 4 of them all called Yorkshire, one of them has an even longer name: “the East Riding of Yorkshire”.
So basically, if Texas want to split itself up, it should, just for shits and giggles, adopt the Yorkshire strategy, hence, the new Yorkshire.
Try counting the amount of times I’ve said “Yorkshire” in this reply.
If states fail to provide a representative government to their citizens, then the states has walked back some of the steps required to become a state. A serious SCOTUS could potentially block Senators and Representatives from a state that really gerrymanders or denies people the right to vote. In my opinion.
There is currently a challenge to remove 10% of WI representation because they removed ten percent of voters from the rolls.
Add comment