Should Texas secede from the union?

[CRASHiC]

As I am sure many of you have heard, members of the state of Texas are discussing secceding from the union. Before we get underway, let me knock one argument out of the water. There is no provision that will allow Texas to secced of its own will. What the provision actually states is that, because of the size and diversity of the state, if it wishes, it could separate itself into 3 states.

Texas, economically speaking, could handle itself economically. Its GDP is equal to that of Canada or India, and the landscape is diverse enough to handle many different kinds of economic devlopment. Another thing Texas has going for it is a connection to the gulf. Texas's large population, abundance of natural resources, and diverse population and geography have led to a large and diverse economy. From this standpoint, Texas could handle itself quite nicely.

But politically, making odds with the US, and if Texas threatens war as one contender in the Texas Republican Governor primary has, then it will also make itself against the UN as well. Even if the they became their own independent country, the amount of enemies and potential trade restrictions they face would be huge.

But, should Texas secced? What reason does it even have to secced? The Governor mentioned it long before the health care debate begain, and since then the fire has only grown. They mention states rights, but to my knowledge, I see no signs of any state powers being infringed upon by any changes set forth by the Obama administration.

Texas, compared to most states, has an abnormally large portion of members of the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, and 'skin heads.' A governor crying states rights was during the civil rights movements. The governor's main competitor is running on the premise of being a moderate republican. Could this all be nothing more than a political charade to get some of the most extreme members of his party rallied up, feeding on the anger that exist in order to propel himself through the primary?

 

[KrazyGlue]

I certainly hope it's only a political charade. This secession idea is pretty extremist, in my opinion. There's no good reason for Texas to secced, and I really only see this as something that would increase political/social tension, if anything.

Unless there is some legitimate and important reason for Texas to secced, they shouldn't.

 

[Firus]

It's likely a political charade. Chances are there will be BIG problems if Texas tries to secede, and if the USA decides to take military action, even a state as large as Texas will likely fail to defend itself against it. It would be a pretty stupid move on Texas's part, but something as radical as that will get people riled up, so it makes sense to discuss even if he doesn't intend to follow through.

By the way, it is spelled "secede"...

 

[Lythium]

It's the same sort of nonsense you get from the Quebec sovereignty movement. Quebec will never achieve statehood, because the separatists don't really have a clue about economic/political partnership with the rest of the nation. Just because they claim to have a "unique culture" contrasted with the rest of Canada doesn't make sense either. You could say the same for Nunavut.

I have to agree with KrazyGlue on this one:

Unless there is some legitimate and important reason for Texas to secced, they shouldn't.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Texas doesn't really have a chance to secede in my opinion. Not only is there really no good reason for them to do this (as KG said), but I don't see the US letting them as it'll upset the balance of the Senate, etc. and if the Federal Government takes military action Texas really has no chance whatsoever, and the only thing that will happen is that US soldiers will lose their lives for a stupid reason.

It's most likely a charade, and a stupid one at that.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Secession is illegal, so they can't leave anyway. Just a bunch of politicians blowing hot air.

 

[Crimson King]

Secession is illegal, so they can't leave anyway. Just a bunch of politicians blowing hot air.

Breaking an immoral law isn't only a good thing, but it's the duty of a patriot. While I don't really care about why Texas wants to secede, I think they have the right, but thanks to US imperialism dating back to the 1860s, states cannot protest if the government does something they do not like. In fact, the government can tax states to ridiculous levels, and that state has to take it versus one of the REAL reasons for Southern secession was the high tariffs levied to them by the North because the South was actually outselling them.

A lot of states have spoken about secession, but depending who is in power will determine how the act will be shutdown.

 

[CRASHiC]

Breaking an immoral law isn't only a good thing, but it's the duty of a patriot

Its immoral to have a law that makes civil war illegal?
States rights don't exist.
The Federal law always wins.
This is the consistent interpretation by the Supreme Court, who determines the definition and national interpretation of our constitution. We are a country, not a loose connection of states.

Also, the southern economy was no where near as good as you say.
In fact, it was a self eating machine. They weren't manufacturing anything, only exporting farmed goods, which they would then have to buy back in manufactured form. At best, their system broke even.

 

[Jam Stunna]

There is no constitutional support for secession. At the time of the Civil War, there was a legitimate (if overblown) question as to which was ultimately sovereign, the state or the nation. Secession was still wrong then, but it was at least understandable why Southerners thought they were right.

The question of national supremacy has been settled for 144 years. States willingly chose to join the Union, and they can't leave. I don't really see how it becomes a moral issue.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Jam, just because states willingly chose to join the union over a hundred years ago doesn't mean that the leaders of those same states agree with the men that decided to join the union.

 

[CRASHiC]

Regardless, there is no legal backing for a secession, and doing so would do Texas far more bad than good.

 

[Crimson King]

Jam, just because states willingly chose to join the union over a hundred years ago doesn't mean that the leaders of those same states agree with the men that decided to join the union.

This. If you can say the constitution was an eternally binding contract, I can simply respond with "I never signed it." State ratification is a long process, but take Hawaii for example, there are STILL people upset about the decision to join the US rather than stay a legal US territory which earns you plenty of the same rights as states, minus a few needless things.

Its immoral to have a law that makes civil war illegal?
States rights don't exist.
The Federal law always wins.
This is the consistent interpretation by the Supreme Court, who determines the definition and national interpretation of our constitution. We are a country, not a loose connection of states.

And THAT is what is immoral. There should be no reason that the Federal government can out decide the will of a state. Also, the founding fathers were vehemently opposed to the idea that we are a country and not a state. Many, including Washington and Jefferson, were fine without any government, but were strong armed into it because of Britain.

 

[CRASHiC]

And THAT is what is immoral. There should be no reason that the Federal government can out decide the will of a state. Also, the founding fathers were vehemently opposed to the idea that we are a country and not a state. Many, including Washington and Jefferson, were fine without any government, but were strong armed into it because of Britain.

States have no power. A state is nothing more than someone who takes some of the responsibility off the federal government, making the government run smoothly. There is no constitutional basis for States over the Federal government. There are few if any cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled in the favor of the state.
We are a country.
Not a loose collection of States.
Even without the federal government, the states would have been a government as well, so Washington and Jefferson feelings about having no government is pointless. You can't argue that States should have power over themselves and that there should be no government at the same time, because the States are a form of government as well, and regardless of their feelings, a constitution was crafted, and has been continued to be interpreted by the Supreme Court as the Federal Government having power over states.

 

[manhunter098]

The constitution gives the states power CRASHIC (the 10th amendment). So to say that are powerless before the federal government, while true in a realistic sense, is not the way this nation was designed.

 

[CRASHiC]

The constitution gives the states power CRASHIC (the 10th amendment). So to say that are powerless before the federal government, while true in a realistic sense, is not the way this nation was designed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It gives them power that the Federal government does not take itself, and it also gives people the right to do what they wish as long as it is not restricted by law.
Many states have used the 10th amendment to attempt to stop some sort of government intervention, and the supreme court has consistently ruled that the federal government wins out. I am only aware of 3 cases in which they have ruled in the States favor, all 3 of which were 5-4 decisions, and had more to do with regulatory and law making procedures, such as one required the states to pass a law. Had the federal government made its own law, the procedure would have been constitutional. In more recent days, the court has become more conservative, and voted as such, but not to the extent that the States should feel they have a large individualistic power, and should be given the same rights as a free country.

 

[manhunter098]

But they are supporting the federal government based on other parts of the constitution, which effectively shows that the courts opinion is that the constitution allows the federal government to do so, so then there is no conflict with the 10th amendment.

 

[aeghrur]

And THAT is what is immoral. There should be no reason that the Federal government can out decide the will of a state. Also, the founding fathers were vehemently opposed to the idea that we are a country and not a state. Many, including Washington and Jefferson, were fine without any government, but were strong armed into it because of Britain.

Those who opposed it had the Articles of Confederation.
And that worked out soooooooooo well.

 

[Firus]

States have no power. A state is nothing more than someone who takes some of the responsibility off the federal government, making the government run smoothly. There is no constitutional basis for States over the Federal government. There are few if any cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled in the favor of the state.
We are a country.
Not a loose collection of States.
Even without the federal government, the states would have been a government as well, so Washington and Jefferson feelings about having no government is pointless. You can't argue that States should have power over themselves and that there should be no government at the same time, because the States are a form of government as well, and regardless of their feelings, a constitution was crafted, and has been continued to be interpreted by the Supreme Court as the Federal Government having power over states.

Uh...what are you talking about? The Constitution was initially intended to give the States more power than the Federal Government. You keep saying "the Supreme Court" did this, "the Supreme Court" did that...they're part of the Federal Government. Of course they're going to rule in favor of it. Even so, just because the Supreme Court does something doesn't mean it's 100% true to the Constitution.

Just because the states have no power doesn't mean they were not meant to have more power.

Also, what the 10th amendment says is not that the States get what the Federal Government doesn't take, but that the Federal Government gets ONLY what the Constitution gives it, and the States get everything else not listed in the Constitution.

It's pretty clear that the Federal Government has ignored that, but in theory the Federal Government should actually have much less power.

 

[CRASHiC]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate decider in how our constitution is interpreted.
Any other interpretation is void.

 

[Aesir]

Uh...what are you talking about? The Constitution was initially intended to give the States more power than the Federal Government. You keep saying "the Supreme Court" did this, "the Supreme Court" did that...they're part of the Federal Government. Of course they're going to rule in favor of it. Even so, just because the Supreme Court does something doesn't mean it's 100% true to the Constitution.

Uh what? The supreme courts decisions are the constitution. As in they're the finally say in how the constitution should be interpreted. They're the ultimate say, so you may disagree with what the supreme court says about an article in the constitution but that really means nothing since they're the finally say in how the constitution is interpreted.

Just because the states have no power doesn't mean they were not meant to have more power.

States still have power, this is evident with the fact that in Mass you have Pot decriminalized when according to the federal law it's a criminal offense.

states actually have more power today then they did during the 60's and 70's.

Also, what the 10th amendment says is not that the States get what the Federal Government doesn't take, but that the Federal Government gets ONLY what the Constitution gives it, and the States get everything else not listed in the Constitution.

The conservative out look on that is all other powers not listed is reserved for the states. But There's actually much debate on whether that still apply today. Or if even that's a proper interpretation of the constitution.

It's pretty clear that the Federal Government has ignored that, but in theory the Federal Government should actually have much less power.

Unless the supreme court decides on it, it's really open to interpretation.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

But the Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government, so who's side do you think they're going to take?

This is essentially just a cycle that's going to keep coming back to the Supreme Court, and we know they want to keep the power, so if all of this comes before them, I think we know all which way they'll be voting.

 

[Aesir]

But the Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government, so who's side do you think they're going to take?

This is essentially just a cycle that's going to keep coming back to the Supreme Court, and we know they want to keep the power, so if all of this comes before them, I think we know all which way they'll be voting.

While the supreme courts political neutrality is sometimes questioned, Gore vs Bush is a big one that sticks out for me. This argument just sounds like you're grasping for straws, considering there are many times the supreme court has kept the federal government in check. So I'm going to have to disagree they'll favor the federal government over state governments. It's not that they want more power for the federal government, it's the fact that the US constitution has supremacy over every other constitution.

I mean this all just sounds like "Well if the supreme court disagrees with my own interpretation of the law then they're just bias" Which is pretty shaky logic.