I think the enabling act is ambiguous. It could mean that Congress can initiate the division of Texas into upto five states and if Texas gives its consent they can be admitted to the Union. But it could also be read to mean that it is up to Texas to initiate the division and once Texas gives its consent the normal admission process takes place.
First they seceded from Mexico, then they joined the United States, then they seceded from the United States, then they joined the Confederacy, then they rejoined the United States. So that’s two secessions and three unions. If they keep it up they’ll be in Elizabeth Taylor territory.
It is arguable that the Enabling Act constitutes Congress’s consent, making it true that Texas could, by act of its own legislature, divide into two to five states, under the Constitutional provisions (New states are admitted by act of Congress but if comprised of parts of existing states require the consent of the state legislature(s)) – the idea being that Congress already gave their consent in the Enabling Act. Of course, the fact that Texas de facto seceded to join the Confederacy and was readmitted may throw a monkey wrench into that argument. And it’s not one I’d care to spend more than a post or two defending – but it is worth noting.
As far as the general principle goes, Texas v White as a matter of law and the Civil War as a matter of practical power politics makes it quite clear that a state may not secede without consent of Congress, no matter what urban legends are extant about Texas’s special status. And Gov. Perry would be well advised to consult the history of the Southern firebrands of 1859-61, and what happened to them thereafter. Probably many of those statutes are still on the books.
(It would be funny, though, to see the Republic of Texas attempting to pay for every Federal bit of construction in the state – built with the taxes of U.S. citizens, and by no means the property of an indemendent Texas until they are paid for. How many miles of interstate highway are there in Texas? How many military bases? What’s been built at Big Bend National Park or Alamo National Monument, and how much did it cost?)
If you take look at the map of Texas at the time of annexation, parts of it became parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming. So Texas has already been divided into new states.
Plus there’s the dang ol’ Constitution: 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.
And after 30 years, they still haven’t seceded–nor even begun the “negotiations” on “sovereignty-association” during which the horrible problems of disentangling from a modern welfare state would rear themselves.
I have read that there were TWO seperate votes in Texas on wether or not to join the Union. One in 1845 or so and one in the early 1900’s. Both times joing the Union was defeated by the people of THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS.
This is incorrect, and if it were true, how did Texas end up in the U.S.? Texans approved annexation by a vote in 1845.
According to this
Nowhere near as much as Calfornia (only $0.78 back same year.)
And times have changed since 2005. Most recently
I cannot find figures showing what has happened to the amount of Federal taxes paid by Texans over that time however.
Even if the first part were true, this sort of vote would be in the legislature, not a referendum or some such thing. In any case, nothing you’ve said is true. Texas was not the guilty party in the initial problems with its admission into the United States.
I think it is a bit more nuanced that BrainGlutton asserts. For instance, the UN charter mentions it in chapter 1 part 1 paragraph 2:http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml.
Okay, they just call it a “principle”, but as I said in my first post, international law is a lot less tangible than national law.
Although the Boundary Act of 1850, which stripped Texas down to its current size, reiterated that:
[quote=“yojimbo, post:16, topic:493281”]
The Rep. of Ireland did not just claim this right of self determination that you talk about. They fought a War of Independence for it exactly like the US did. QUOTE]
Well they fought a war, though whether they needed to is harder to judge.
Are we concluding that the United States is right to act in Texas like the British Empire in Ireland?
There is absolutely NOTHING worth calling a legitimate secessionist movement in Texas.
Rock Perry can say whatever silly things he wants, but Texas isn’t going anywhere.
Yeah, but you’re from Austin, which isn’t really Texas, according to the two folks who told me all about the Texas secessionist movement in my link in post #2 above!
I hear this shit from Texans so often, it must be taught in their public schools. Well, public schools generally are very poor at teaching about the federal/state ralationship, but this is a particular bugbear that’s so often debunked, you think someone would tell the fucking governor of the state. No such luck.
–Cliffy
Fair joke, but the thing is, Texas in GENERAL isn’t “really Texas” any more! Even conservative, religious, middle-class white folks living in Plano, Irving, Arlington, Katy and Pasadena have no time or patience with nonsense liek secession.
Rural rednecks may think of themselves as the only “real” Texans, but demographics say otherwise. MOST of the Texas population is located in or around a few large cities. This population IS certainly more conservative than Blue Staters would like, and they prefer lower taxes. But they’re NOT interested in secession. Neither are their elderly retired in-laws down in Brownsville, who will fight tooth and nail to keep their Social Security checks coming.
If they believe this, they are wrong. You can move to almost anywhere (Cuba, Iran and North Korea might be exceptions) and still get your US Social Security – partly because you’ve already paid for it through your social security tax. If they moved to Mexico or Canada, they’d still get Social Security, so the same would happen in an independent Texas.
Even if you renounce your American citizenship? So Texians imagine their retirees are going to keep getting Social Security checks from Uncle Sugar, but they aren’t going to have to keep paying into Social Security?
Social Security is “pay as you go”. Yes, people have been fed the line that they’re getting back what they paid in, but that is completely false. Current retirees get paid from funds that come from current workers. If Texians don’t pay in to Social Security, they don’t get anything out of Social Security.
American citizens who happen to live in Texas can still get Social Security, but they will still have to pay in.
You don’t get Social Security because of your citizenship: you get it because you have worked in the US and paid into Social Security while doing so. (I am not a US citizen, and I will be getting a Social Security cheque when I go back to Australia after retirement).
What might happen, in the very unlikely event of Texan independence, is that the new Republic of Texas would take over the Social Security obligation for people living in Texas, in exchange for other concessions from the US government, such as Texas getting ownership of all the federal buildings and lands in Texas.
It’s not hard to judge at all. There was a huge majority vote in 1918 for Sinn Féin and they stood on a platform of Indepence. In 1919 they formed the first Dáil(Parliament) which was declared illegal by the British
It was also on that day that the War of Independence started.
No “we’re” not concluding anything. If you think the US in acting in Texas like the British did in Ireland then I respectfully say to you that you have no clue about either what happen in Ireland in that time or what is happening in Texas at the moment.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with some examples of the similarities between the situations?