By this nonsense, you mean preventing a civil war? I guess that there are people in this very thread willing to see their fellow citizens die horrendous deaths on the battlefield to prop up the property value of you and yours.
Okay, since things are getting very personal (again), I’m going to take a swing at answering the actual question as posted by the OP - assuming, as stated -
Thus I get to sidestep all the Civil War and divestment issues that are making people crazy. It happened, somehow, and some compromise that made everyone equally unhappy was worked out.
So, and as pointed out by @The_Librarian - the closest recent example of such a thing would probably be Brexit, and I think it’s a reasonably close analogy.
The Texan state would initially kind of lumber on, with inertia taking care of a lot of things, but all of a sudden would be subject to border restrictions, import/export laws, visa requirements, and the like. Larger, national corporations currently headquartered in Texas would have to consider if all the perks that Texas, notoriously business friendly, offers is now offset by all the new issues above, and I suspect a number would find it not worth the effort.
So, while oil refining and production will provide a source of income, I believe the economy would sustain an overall loss, which would increase dissatisfaction within the new state. Which would mean that the New Texas Republic (NTR from now on, -snicker-) would have to increase it’s support, probably by further doubling down on it’s base as it has before. So, the next step would be things like requiring all government and business do English only (long a dream of White Nationalists across the Southwest) or other, similar measures to cater to their own.
Which would further alienate any remaining moderates in the NTR, further restrict the economy, but would likely prove to their people that “things are getting done”. Meanwhile, Texas will go further down the Putin road - the corruption of the likes of Paxton, already legendary, will be fully protected, the remaining wealth will be concentrated in the hands of the few oligarchs, but they’ll be able to keep their base focused on how ‘Old America’, ‘those people’, and their own ‘fifth column’ are keeping the bright future they promised away, but soon (two weeks!) everything will start to turn around!
So the same things that are happening right now in Texas, but with the speed turned up to about 10x.
A future Texas republic is indeed far more likely to evolve into a conservative oligarchy than any kind of bastion of modern representative democracy.
Conservatives are becoming less and less adverse to voicing those wishes but Texas conservatives are embracing them loudly and eagerly.
The Texas Constitution is a strange beast. It’s remarkably easy to amend - there are several amendments proposed and passed each voting cycle. Since ratification in 1876, there have been about 700 amendments proposed and over 500 passed.
From the date, you can guess that Reconstruction era politics and the aftermath of the Civil War were factors. The state constitution limits the powers of the state government to things specifically listed. So, many state laws that would be passed as a matter of course by other state legislatures often require a constitutional amendment in Texas.
For an amendment to pass, 2/3 of each chamber of the Texas legislature (meets bi-annually) needs to approve the amendment first, and then needs to be passed by majority vote of the electorate.
As insane as things seem in Texas and despite some very obvious gerrymandering, it would be difficult to get the 2/3 majority in the Legislature for such an amendment (there are commonly Dems who do tag along on some bills but this one would still be a stretch), much less win a majority of votes in a general election. They’d be better off trying to accomplish this by fiat or chicanery, at least for the foreseeable future.
Hey, just pointing out the simple fact that the position of folks like MandaJo had already been brought up in this thread, and the reaction of at least a few posters was, to quote the first, “fuck ‘em.”
This Texas Republican Party B.S. talk is nothing but P.R. to get out the conservative vote. Seceding is 100% impractical, if not impossible, but talking it up gives those far-right-y types something to wave their Bibles and cans of beer at while they stomp their cowboy boots and make gutteral affirmative noises.
I agree with @ThelmaLou - it’s political theater, because that way they get to have their cake and eat it too. And I’m also sure the Texas Republican Party feels much better having massive influence on the whole of the USA via their party, rather than having a slightly larger role as the rulers of a much diminished, Texas only power.
BUT - I (and some others at least) are trying to not fight the hypothetical of the OP.
So back to the OP, I already wrote a book on what I expected to happen. I also think that if the premise of the OP occurs, a large number of Red States™ would consider doing the same, but while they were working at it, they’d see the decline going on in the NTR, and instead vow to stay in the USA and “fix it from within” - then demand increasing autonomy on important conservative points (guns/god/abortion) without leaving in exchange for not gridlocking the remaining states.
And they’d probably get it. So again, more civil disobedience, less unity, and fast-forwarding to the entire USA being a failed state, or at best, a fallen power, no longer relevant on the world stage if it weren’t for nuclear weapons and an oversized military which the quasi-fascist states will support.
Texas: “I’m seceding! So, there!”
Jasmine: “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.” (yawn)
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank weighs in (gift link):
The hypothetical in this thread is that Texas is seceding, not whether Texas should secede. The complaint was that they would have to move, and would not get the current fair market value for their home once it became clear that it would no longer be a part of the US.
I doubt there is a poster in this thread that would not welcome with open arms refugees from the NTR, and the poster who you “quoted” most certainly does not represent progressives, liberals, or democrats or their values in any way, so using their quote to smear the rest of the thread was not only extremely passive aggressive of you, it was also wildly inaccurate.
If this happens (and it won’t), it happens because of Texas, not because of the US, so whining and complaining that the people of the US don’t care enough about what Texas does to itself is pretty useless.
What should we do, other than welcome refugees? How would you suppose we compensate homeowners for the lost value of their property because of the bad decisions of their elected leaders?
Which is why I favor kicking these inbred retrogrades out of the country entirely with nothing more than a couple of suitcases and a gun tote. I don’t believe every Texan (or even a large majority) is an adherent to this whiny I’ll-just-take-my-bat-and-ball-and-secede mentality. (And that last word, I use loosely.)
Not I, said the duck. MandaJo can move into the governor’s mansion if that’s her pleasure (and assuming she’s elected governor by the remainder after the Incel Exodus) but I don’t advocate her having to move out of her state because of a bunch of cretinous yahoos. Let them move. Maybe U-Haul has a discount for white supremacists.
Sure, but our system is based on the idea that certain inalienable rights can’t be voted away by the majority: that is what “limited government” means. If the majority of the country voted for a state to succeed, in the form of a constitutional amendment, that would be legal. But if the small portion of the natuon that is the Texas electorate attempted to strip me of my property and ability to continue to live as a citizen of the US, I would expect my government, the federal government, to intercede to protect those rights.
If they cqn roll into town and force states to desegregate, they can sure as hell roll into town and force states to, well, stay states.
Isn’t it one of those dual-sovereignty things, where you’re a US Citizen and a Texas Citizen at the same time, even if the state citizenship is completely based on residency?
I mean, it says as much in the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
However, you can visit from out of state without travel documents or a passport, they can’t keep you out if you have a criminal record, you can drive with an out of state license, you don’t need to exchange currency, etc. As pointed out upthread, voting is a state function but there’s little else.
Condolences, but I’m not seeing how living in a petro-theocracy would improve your situation.
But that state citizenship is something you get from the Federal Government. That’s the whole point: Dred Scott ruled that since Dred Scott was not a citizen of his home state (as a slave), he was not a US citizen and had no standing to sue for freedom. The 14th amendment is making clear that your status as a citizen, both of the nation and in the state where you reside, is guaranteed by the US Government and they have the right/obligation to protect your rights from your state government. A state can’t decide than any person or any group are not state citizens. They can’t bestow or remove citizenship. “State Citizen” just means that states can’t have two legal categories of residents. “Citizen of the state in which they reside” means your state has to treat you as a citizen. It doesn’t mean that your state has some hold on you that allows them to take your rights.
Gotcha. That makes sense. I’m guessing Puerto Rico and the rest of the US possessions that grant citizenship but aren’t states are legally weird as a result.
I think it’s just that state “citizenship” isn’t relevant. It’s why we use the word “resident” instead. A state can’t give “citizens” one set of rights and “residents” a different one, so we just use “resident”.
Not knowing @Bill_Door, his state of residence nor political leanings, I thought he was expressing his excitement at Texas leaving the US – and laughed out loud.
If he’s actually a Texan who’s this excited about his state leaving, well – hell, it was still funny.
Heck, I wouldn’t be living there. I’d be pleased as all get out to scrape Texas off like it was a dog turd stuck to the bottom of my shoe. It’s Texit! Like Brexit, only stupider!