We were arguing on FARK the other night about mindless drivel. And
then someone mentioned that Texas retains the right to split into five
states.
And google seems to reveal that may be the case, but the answer isn’t
authoritative.
As five states, the people in the five states areas would have much
more power in the Senate and just as much power in the house. But
politicians would be able to ruin fewer lives and so they would have
less power.
Commonwealth is merely what the people of Virginia like to call their state. The federal Constitution provides that all states shall have a government in the form of a republic.
Isn’t there some difference between States and Commonwealths? Aren’t States governed by organizations that own property whereas Commonwealths are governed by organizations that are only stewards for the property without owning it? Growing up in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I learned something like that, I thought…
When Texas was annexed by the United States, the anenxation act stated that the territory could be divided as many as four new states of the Union. But that was BEFORE Texas was admitted as one state.
Point being, that once the United States acquired all this territory, it was unclear how they’d handle it. The annexation act left open the question of whether Texas would eventually be admitted into the Union as one big state or as several smaller states.
But once Texas WAS finally admitted into the Union as a state, that was no longer an issue. The division of Texas into several smaller units was a possibility between Texas’ annexation and its admission into the Union. After that, it was never possible.
Well, it’s still possible, astorian, but would require the consent of Congress as well as TX. But the important point is that Texas’s righs in this regard are no different from any other state.