However, if they become citizens of the New Texas Republic, I expect that there would quickly be legislation passed to specify that this is considered to be a loss of US citizenship by means of “Applying for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship”.
OK, good point. Even if Texas did become hostile, nowhere in Texas is all that far from the rest of the US (especially since, any scenario where Texas goes to war with the US, they’re likely to go to war with Mexico, too, so we could also act from the southern border). It might be worthwhile to have one base in the heart of enemy territory, and maybe naval bases that can be supplied by sea, but not 15.
So as the big date approaches, we move everything out of those bases that we can, and offer Texas the opportunity to buy whatever’s left for a fair price (that they probably couldn’t afford), and if they turn it down, then we dynamite what’s left.
If I were still a resident of Texas I would be amongst the first in line to file suit against that happening. I expect it would wind up at the SCOTUS, who I hope would rule in favor of all the forced expats who didn’t want to lose their citizenship just because they lacked the economic means to flee Texas.
Greg Abbott is not a Texit supporter.
The Texit people are attempting a hostile takeover of the Texas GOP, which is why they came up with the idea of GOP-only ballot referendum:
If they ever got a solid majority for such a GOP ballot referendum, politicians like Abbott would have to cave to the idea of Texit, just as they now have to cave to Trumpism. Then, with the biggest Texas party behind Texit, they would move on to a state-wide referendum.
There really are two separate issues in this thread – Texit, which is unlikely anytime soon, and Texas government giving my federal government the finger, which is reality now.
True, but you wouldn’t be covered by Medicare/Medicaid any longer, since you’d no longer live n the US.
Which would do nothing but hurt them. The only way Texas- or any other state- can leave the union is with the consent of Congress.
The Congress we have now? If would cause massive headache to Biden and/or Democrats I could see them doing it.
WaPo says you would have to amend the Constitution. That wont happen.
So if the Constitution doesn’t allow you to back out of the union, there is a fix: Amend the Constitution.
This is not an easy fix, as such. Amending the Constitution requires approval of the amendment by either 1) two-thirds of each branch of Congress or 2) two-thirds of states at a specially-formed constitutional convention, with the amendment then being ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is difficult enough that it has been done only 17 times in 227 years, excluding the passage of the Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified.
I assume the same way as if they moved to Puerto Rico. In other words, you give them up.
Without wanting to turn this into a Brexit debate, it has been, and continues to be a sort of rolling, slowly-escalating disaster, although it is difficult to unpick how much of that was due to Brexit vs COVID, and the policies and behaviours of the incumbent government, and world economics and myriad other factors.
Britain has a lot of fresh, or worsened, or ongoing problems just lately and depending on who you ask, Brexit was responsible for all, or none of them.
‘Somehow life carried on’ is not a high bar for things being OK. Carry on regardless is sort of ingrained in our psyche; it doesn’t mean we’re OK.
Brit here, and I had thought about mentioning Brexit but realized it was a whole can of worms.
Worms that definitely need to be aired, but not in this thread.
However, what is relevant to the thread, is that a lot of the responses have been pretty extreme, imagining a zero-integration, all ties cut situation. Brexit is one counter among many to the assumption that that’s how separations typically proceed. You can’t uproot everything overnight, and some things not at all, no matter how much some people (foolishly) want to do that.
I don’t see why it couldn’t be done with an ordinary bill, at the federal level, at least. States are admitted to the Union without need for an Amendment; why would one be needed for removing a state?
At the state level, of course, it’d require at least whatever is needed for amending the state’s constitution.
The Constitution spells out the procedure for admitting new states, but is silent on the question of removing one.
A textualist could argue that that silence, and the explicit location of state admission in Article IV rather than Article I would imply that Congress does not have the power to remove a state from the Union.
An originalist might point out that to give Congress that power would also give it the power to remove a state from the protection of the federal government from invasion or rebellion (the latter particularly of the slave population), which was a fear of the early proponents of Union.
If you really want to make it clear and unambiguous, an amendment spelling out the process for Congress (and likely the legislature of the state itself) to follow would be necessary.
I think Texas v White implies how to do it.
I’d be interested in hearing more.
(And if it’s good, I might want to subscribe to your newsletter…)
- When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.
And later he repeats
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
So maybe not a blueprint. Does each House delegation vote on such a bill as a state like for President? At the time the Senators represented The State so what would the vote look like now?
This is Texas we’re talking about here—not North Korea. Americans would travel through some Nation of Texas like they travel through Canada now.
I think it’s more realistic that any Texas secession would happen via political means, not warfare.
This could probably go into the Omnibus Stupid MFers thread in The BBQ Pit, but since it’s Texas and secession…
Facebook Moms Want to Secede from the U.S. But Are Worried about Losing Government Assistance
[W]e’ll… focus on the possible outcomes of Texas leaving the union, and the outcomes that matter most to the average American, government assistance (or, welfare).
A post from the private Facebook page ‘Texas Patriots for Secession’ says:
If we secede, do we still get our Social Security monthly checks?
The article goes on to say:
Now you might be wondering, how much federal aid Texas receives in a given year, and if Texas became its own nation, could it foot the bill itself? Well, according to The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Texas will receive a total of $40 billion. Texas ranks 29th in “reliance on federal funding” and is the state with the fourth-highest yearly aid package from the federal government.
Certainly “consent of the States” would include the amendment process, since that requires state approval for ratification. It’s possible that’s what Chase was alluding to in that clause, though it would have been nice of him to spell it out if that’s the case.
The Constitution doesn’t spell out a process for admission of new states, either. Why can’t one act of congress undo what another act of congress did? The only restriction would be that the US can’t remove a state’s Senators (and hence can’t remove the state itself) without the state’s consent, and that’s why Texas would need to agree to the secession, too.