If Texas secedes...

…would Dubya have to resign?

OK, yeah, I know he wouldn’t have to resign, but say Texas did leave the Union. Our “elected” president is from Texas. What steps would he have to take before the next election? Just change states or would there be more to it? Also, other elected and appointed officials in the federal government from Texas, same question? Also military personnel.

Unrelated question, I read years ago that Texas had the right at any time to split into five states. I’ve never been able to track down the reality of the statement. Little help?

Think of it this way, He would not be qualified to be the President of the United States. Since one of the requirements is to be born in the united states, he would not qualify to be president of the US. Also see the section of the constitution regarding the amount of time one must have lived in the united states to be president.

Regardless of any other questions about the possibility of secession, I don’t believe Bush was born in Texas. I think the Civil War settled any and all questions on that issue.

That would be the secession issue, not the Bush’s birthplace issue. Man, that was a horribly worded post.

I’ll try again.

George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut.

It’s my understanding that the Civil War and Reconstruction settled the secession issue permanently. In other words, once admitted to the union no state can secede.

Hypothetically, if Texas were to secede or subdivide (which may be possible, if implausible) it would have no effect on Bush, as far as his presidency. The Senate and House would obviously be affected.

I can’t answer your first question, but about the second…

I too read somewhere that Texas had the right to divide itself into as many as 5 differnent states. However, in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, it reads –

“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 formed by the Junction of two or more States…”

So, if Texas did in fact divide itself, the act would be null and void since the Constitution supercedes whatever contract they had with the union to do that (cite).

Umm…IIRC, there was a big thing on the news a while back about some Texas militia secessionist group (admittedly it wasn’t very large at all, but it proves the secession issue hasn’t been permanently settled). They base their arguments on the belief that Texas was never really admitted to the Union, because it’s still the Republic of Texas or something.

Also, if a state cannot secede after being admitted to the Union, what if it does and successfully resists US military action? What could the US do about it?

Well, it was like four guys out in the Davis Mountains. It certainly didn’t prove anything, I think. There arguments were completely based on fantasy. When Texas was readmitted to the union during reconstruction, any irregularities from 1845 were done away with. i.e. No secession, and no division.

Well, I suppose if a state declared a secession and defeated the U.S. in a military conflict, then the U.S. would have to recognize that states independence. I don’t think this is likely to happen, in any case.

All I meant by referring to the Civil War was that it established the non-right of a state to secede. If a state attempted to do so, it would be operating under an invalid government and the United States would be authorized to conduct military intervention to supress rebellion.

The question of the right of Texas to secede or to split itself into five pieces comes up quite regularly, most recently in this still-active thread: States right to secede?. I have posted this AFU link that discusses these questions many times in the last year: http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/texas_secession.html

There’s no reason a president can’t change his official state of residency during his tenure of office. Bill Clinton changed his from Arkansas to New York last year. He voted for his wife in the N.Y. senate race while he was still president.

Even if Connecticut should secede, that would not disqualify Bush from holding office. The Constitution requires only that the president be a “natural born Citizen”. Since Connecticut was part of the U.S. when Bush was born, he would continue to be a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he could have been born outside the U.S. and still be a natural born citizen, by virtue of his parents’ being citizens.

Okay, let’s ignore Dubya who was born in Connecticut and use Jennifer Love Hewitt, a native Texan, instead.

Let’s say Texas decides to secede. Citing numerous legal and historical precedents (see Grant v Lee 1865), the United States sends in troops to bring the Texans back into the Union. But the plucky Texans resist and defeat the American armed forces. Texan independance is recognized by Congress and Texas is once again a independant nation.

Meanwhile Ms Hewitt is in Los Angeles filming Enough Already With What You Did Last Summer. Not wanting to risk her lucrative film career, she turns her back on her native state and remains a resident of California and American citizen.

In 2043, following a prestigious political career as Governor and Senator, Love accepts her party’s nomination for the Presidency. Her opponent, Cristina Ricci, tries to derail her campaign by saying Hewitt was born in Texas, a foreign country, and is ineligible to run for President. But a quick decision by the Supreme Court points out that Ricci’s accusation is untrue. Hewitt was born in the United States; the fact that the place where she was born is no longer part of the US is irelevant.

Crushed by this, Ricci’s campaign collapses. Hewitt is unanimously elected and takes office just in time to be killed along with everyone else in Washington when invaders from Zeta Reticuli launch their surprise attack on Earth. But that’s another story.

By eschewing silliness, bibliophage beat me to the punch.

So instead I’ll point out that there is a precedent here. In 1861, when Tennessee seceded from the United States, Senator Andrew Johnson, a staunch Unionist, refused to join the Confederacy. He instead remained in his Senate seat representing a state that theoretically no longer existed. In 1864, his loyalty to the United States was rewarded when he was nominated to and won the office of Vice President.

Ah, but the US government never accepted the secession of Tennessee or any other southern state. It was still a state of the US, and anyone born in it was a US citizen.

Who was the only past US president who, upon his death, was not placed in state at the US Capitol?

Wow, and for all this time I thought it had to do with state’s rights or something.

Yes, yes, very amusing. I admit this was a terrible, terrible post. I didn’t like the way it read at first, so I did some cutting and pasting, and unfortunately didn’t bother re-reading before posting. I clarified it in another post below it.

Let’s just pretend that first post never happened.

I would guess it would be Tyler, who served in the Confederate Congress.

The section in question reads in full:

I read that to mean that for example that Congress could not declare, say, the upper peninsula of Michigan a state against the will of the people of Michigan, but if Michigan itself decided that the U.P. was no longer within its jurisdiction it could then be admitted as a state. If Texas voted to dissolve itself into five states, then the territory within the borders of what was once Texas would no longer be under the jurisdiction of any state and the bits of it could then become separate states.

I would presume that the division of Virginia in 1863 would bear some relation to the division of Texas discussion. Of course the Civil War also complicates that issue.

I personally, as a Texan can’t see any reason to either secede or to divide the state, and I’m sure an overwhelming majority of my fellow Texans feel the same way. Of course, I’m also sane, unlike the Republic Of Texas whackos.

The idea of eight new senators and the ensuing increase in regional power comes to mind.

Yeah, I thought about that. I guess if Texas retained it’s cultural identity after political division, it could be seen as beneficial, but I can’t help but think in a matter of years each zone would be more concerned about it’s own interests. After all Dallas, Houston, Austin, El Paso, and Lubbock all very different places, with different political constituentcies.

I seriously doubt it will ever happen, even if it is possible.

Was the Capitol completed at the time of George Washington’s death?