I think the courts and the army would disagree.
Which courts? If Congress decided to spontaneously oust Oklahoma, all the courts in Oklahoma would suddenly have no standing to protest, any more than a court in Mexico could suddenly declare that Mexico had always been a state and protest that they hadn’t been allowed their rightful voice in the USA’s courts.
As for the army, it’s anybody’s guess how they’d react if Oklahoma was suddenly ousted. Protests and confusion, doubtlessly. But would they commit treason and attempt a coup?
You would retain your citizenship. But you would generally lose the rights that derive from that citizenship, which I think most people would regard as highly as the citizenship itself.
For example, as an American citizen living in the United States, you have rights like freedom of religion, freedom to carry a firearm, and freedom from being imprisoned without a trial. If you live in another country, you might not have any of those rights even if you are still an American citizen.
I’d imagine that the stranded citizens would be able to either leave on their own power or, if the former state doesn’t let them leave, get themselves recognized as political prisoners and demand that the US extract them or otherwise compel the former state to release them.
Why do people keep thinking Texas wants to secede? It’s California that’s trying to break off and join Mexico.
Probably because of these.
Problem with California is that it has about 830 miles of surveyed border with Oregon and Nevada, around 250 miles of geographical border with Arizona and 140 miles of surveyed border with Mexico. As an independent country, how do they go about defending their territory along an abstraction? If the US has not deigned to recognize California’s sovereignty, they are just some real estate for Oregon, Nevada and Baja to start chewing away at.
The California-Arizona border illustrates the other huge part of California’s problem: it is formed by the Colorado River. For California to survive, it has to negotiate with the US, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Arizona for the water it wants to take from the river. Without statehood in the US, that poses rather large challenges; without recognition of sovereignty, it becomes even more difficult.
The situation in Texas is little better. Texas has some 720 miles of surveyed border, and its water situation is not a whole lot better. I think the US would want to see the aggrieved state’s plan for defense and survival before considering to allow secession. After all, a departed state will still be occupied by a large number of American NBCs, who remain a concern for their birth country.
What courts? The US Supreme Court which rules on things like constitutionality. That’s what courts. You honestly think any Supreme Court wants to be the Court that lets the union dissolve?
And the army? Do you not remember reading about Sherman vs Atlanta?
John Steinbeck in Travels with Charley:
Is this actually new to you?
My guess would be you would have a generation of dual citizens who could move freely between the U.S.A. and the Republic of Texas, carrying whichever passport worked for them. Born in Texas while it was part of the U.S.A., you are both. Born in Texas to parents who are U.S. Citizens after succession, and if your parents file paperwork, you retain dual citizenship. Obviously, you wouldn’t want it to be automatic, as then third generation Texans would inherit citizenship from their parents and they’d never separate.
This runs entirely contrary to the basic premise of the decision in Texas v. White: that the union is perpetual, and indissoluble. If Texas is precluded by the operation of this concept from unilaterally withdrawing, then certainly the federal body politic cannot itself cast Texas out (with or without Texas’ consent) by vote of Congress. Something more that that would be required, something that indicates the consent of the other states making up the body politic. Thus, a convention to amend the Constitution, for example, could accomplish it, or, possibly, an amendment proposed and passed in Congress, then submitted to the states for ratification.
Texas v White says “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.”
That “through consent of the States” clause is important. It’s an acknowledgement that secession is a legal possibility. Texas remained a state during the Civil War not because secession was impossible but because it did not follow the proper legal procedure.
I’ll grant that the decision doesn’t specify how the consent of the States is given. My supposition would be that it would be granted through an act of Congress. Yours is that it would be granted through the enactment of a new amendment. I suppose somebody else might argue that the state legislatures must decide the issue. And there’s an open issue of whether the consent of a majority of states is sufficient or unanimous consent by all states is required.
This discussion presumes that congress legally passes legislation to detach the states in question. Do you honestly think that any supreme court wants to be the Court that flouts the constitution and rejects the rule of the US government?
And having just skimmed the wiki regarding the Battle of Atlanta, I don’t see how it’s relevant. That was during the war when there was an established southern army to oppose the north. If the rest of the states got sick of Oklahoma’s shit tomorrow and unanimously voted to kick it out of the club, Oklahoma wouldn’t have much of an army to protest with, compared to the US army. Which is why I assumed you thought the US army would be doing the protesting, which, as I said, I doubt would happen to the point of rejecting congress’s authority.
Aye, but the rub is having both parties agree.
In 1993 Staten Islanders overwhelmingly voted to secede from New York City (over the longstanding perception that they were being shortchanged on city services). The state legislature had to approve, which the Senate did but the General Assembly referred the matter back to the City Council, which blocked it. Armed rebellion did not ensue. The idea has still not completely died however.
I strongly suspect that while a state vote to secede might occur in California, or less likely Texas, procedural/court challenges would render the results immaterial. And I don’t see residents of either state successfully taking up arms to go off in their respective snits.
My personal opinion is that while a vote might occur, I don’t foresee any circumstances in which secession would win the vote.
To what extent do rights in the US derive from citizenship? In general the point about human rights is that they derive from humanity, not citizenship status, with fairly limited exceptions for civic/political rights like the right to vote, or the right to a passport. It may be that in the US, the courts “read down” the constitutional guarantees so that Congress is free to make laws, e.g., abridging the freedom of religion of non-citizens, but this is not the approach in most western democracies.
Obviously, in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Texas (or wherever) US citizenship status or lack thereof will be irrelevant to the question of how well or badly your human rights are protected and defended by Texan law. If the US tradition does limit protection of human rights to citizens, and if the PDRT inherits that tradition, the important question may be not whether you are a US citizen but whether you are a Texan citizen. (Presumably, many people will be both.) On the other hand, if the PDRT adopts a broader view of human rights, neither US nor Texan citizenship status may be very relevant to this question.