Does this mean we could run statehood like Survivor and vote them off the island?
Yes, no doubt Texas would have to get the approval of Congress. However, legislative intent coudl swing a few votes, it isn’t completely worthless.
Couple of different questions at play here. let’s see…
Is Texas a net contributor or net receiver when it comes to services received vs. taxes paid? I’d argue there’s no real way to quantify this. Some federal services (and indeed the original idea of federal government) was to provide for things that benefited the common welfare, but it’s hard to determine what one’s share of the common is. How, for example, would you put a value to the state of Texas of services rendered by the Department of Defense? Does the DoD protect all states equally with 1/50 of its budget? Or does Texas get more protection because it has a bigger population? Bigger square mileage? Several big cities? Significant distance between those cities? Do border states “get more” from DoD than interior states? And how do you quantify whether the DoD is spending more to protect strategic targets? Is a football stadium a strategic target? What about a hockey arena? Way too many variables.
As for whether they could leave… it’s reasonably clear in US federal law that a state can’t legally secede. The zen part of the question becomes — how beholden are you to the rules of a club you’re no longer in. “Our rules say our members can’t do that.” “Yeah, well, the point was I’m not one of your members anymore. So your rules can say everyone has to wear Cheez Whiz on their heads, it doesn’t apply to me because I’m out of your group now.”
There is, to my knowledge, no international prohibition against a region petitioning the UN for recognition, establishing embassies, etc. I could be wrong here.
The most legally proper and binding way to do it, I suppose, would be for the state legislature to vote to REVOKE its endorsement of the U.S. Constitution. Then, by not being an endorser of it they’d have more grounds to claim to be declaring their independence from it.
Which is not to say that’d keep the army from showing up anyway, but it seems a step in the right direction anyway.
No, a state can legally secede with the consent of Congress. A constitutional amendment would also do the trick.
Then why can’t I hold a vote in my house, and my family will revoke our endorsement of the constitution, and declare ourselves an independent country of five acres?
The real answer is that I can do this and absolutely nothing will happen–so long as I pay my taxes and obey the law.
And a similar thing happened when South Carolina voted to secede: nothing. Until they fired on Fort Sumpter.
Well you’re not a signer, your legally recognized representation signed it. Your state was acting as a legal entity when it endorsed the Constitution.
In theory, there is a principle of self-determination of peoples. But this principle is very difficult to apply in practice, starting with the definition of what constitutes a “people” in the first place. The question of what peoples should be allowed to form independent countries depends more on politics than on grand principles. Even colonized or oppressed peoples, whose right to self-determination we may find more reasonable than for other peoples, often find it difficult to get recognition. And this, recognition, is what really makes an independent country.
If Texas really wanted to secede from the United States (and apparently it doesn’t; its governor is only politicking, which I would consider fair game), it better be able either to defend its territory, or to get recognition from other countries that have weight in the international stage. It’s almost certain that the US federal government would refuse to recognize a state’s unilateral secession, at least at first, but I also don’t see them trying to repeat the Civil War. So if the secessionist state can back its words with weapons, it may very well gain the possibility to negotiate its secession. (In this it may have concessions to make.) And if the secessionist state gains recognition from other countries, it could pressure the US into recognizing its independence. The federal government may not want to alienate countries it has relatively good relations with by being “unreasonable”.
So to the question “Could Texas secede any time they want?”, the answer is that it depends on politics and diplomacy.
But why would Mexico invade countries that are either independent, or still officially claimed by its large neighbour to the North? And whose population certainly doesn’t want to be part of Mexico? The idea makes no sense. And even if the US abandons its claim to Texas, the independent Republic of Texas may very well have other allies. As I’ve said, it would probably require them just to gain recognition from the US.
Indeed. While secessionist movements based on economic grounds exist (typically, rich regions of a country trying to secede because they feel their wealth is being sucked by the poorer regions), I’m not sure one of these movements has even succeeded once in history. Most serious secessionist movements are caused by a distinct population feeling (rightly or wrongly, but that’s always debatable) that it isn’t empowered inside of its country, or even that it’s being oppressed. It doesn’t have anything to do with money and people will support these movements even if they know that being their own country will not improve their economic conditions, at first anyway.
The PQ decided in 1974 that it would not take any action towards sovereignty before getting a majority of votes in favour of this option in a referendum. While this did help them gain power (to our collective benefit; I’m far from the only one who thinks the Lévesque government of 1976-1981 is the best we’ve ever had), it also made it much harder for them to actually get a mandate to declare independence. You can be sure that if they’d felt they had the mandate, they’d have started the negotiations.
Splitting a modern state in many parts isn’t a “horrible” problem; it’s been done many times, often peacefully, in the last few decades. But it certainly isn’t an easy problem either.
The only countries to split, since World War II, have been dictatorships or countries just emerging from colonialism (India) or dictatorship (Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).
The secession movements in democracies–Quebec, Scotland, Flanders, Lombardy, Catalonia–all have one thing in common: none of them ever actually secede. They demand (and sometimes receive) autonomy and money, and may compete electorally for decades, but they never quite cut the apron springs. I’ll believe that a modern democratic welfare state can break up when I see it.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on the historical nature of the problem. As for secessionists, I’d like to see them called the traitors that they are. They are not Americans.
Can we make the part under New Mexico part of New Mexico (I don’t like the idea, but having to drive all the way to Albuquerque or Tucson to catch a flight sucks) and the panhandle part of Oklahoma so we have all of I-40 still in the US?
Someone should ask Governor Perry if, hypothetically, he plans to give us back all our federally owned military equipment and land peacefully, or if we’re going to have to take it from him. I’d love to watch him answer that question in a press conference.
This kind of bullshit needs to be smacked down hard, and people need to be shown how much bullshit it is.
What exactly makes Texas so special, other than that they think they’re so special?
That’s a pretty unsafe assumption. They’re not individuals moving to a foreign land; they’re a new nation carving itself out. It would be absurd to think that such people would be entitled to a U.S. government retirement – they have nothing to do with the U.S. any longer. Perhaps there is no such mechanism in the current SS Act, but that’s irrelevant – Congress would have to pass enabling legislation for the secession, and you can bet this would be part of it.
–Cliffy
Our state’s shape makes a much better cookie cutter than your’s does, for starters. 
I’d love for him to take an interview on TDS or Colbert.
Growing up in Texas and spending much of my time as a young adult there, not once do I recall anyone ever saying that Texas could secede if it wanted to. I did, however, hear the “split up into up to five states” rule, which has been called into question in recent years. West Texas always seemed to get the short end of the stick when it came to apportioning resources and so from time to time the idea for that would pop up. But outright secession? Never.
Here’s another view–
If a majority of Texans really want to secede, then let’s negotiate. We’ll take back all of the military bases, NASA, and all the subsidies to Texan energy. Energy is fungible, so their production is not as important as they think.We won’t do anything to defend the border (which some Texans might applaud). There won’t be a Galveston any more, because Texas alone won’t be able to rebuild it. Texan agriculture won’t have immediate access to the USA, until they sign a treaty (how much leverage is that?). And that’s just a quick inventory.
Not gonna happen if any sane Texans think about it.
You misspelled ‘being a dumbass’. 
You know the Six Flags theme parks? They started in Arlington, as Six Flags Over Texas. And, indeed, Texas has had six flags flying over it, as it had one country/state after another claim it.