Can Texas Really Secede from the Union? Not Legally

Neo-secessionists are having a moment, even if they have no legal ground to break away

  • Share
  • Read Later
Christopher Anderson / Magnum

Downtown Midland Texas, 2005.

It’s beginning to feel a lot like the 1860s — and not just because Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln opened nationwide this past weekend. There is a secessionist movement afoot: hundreds of thousands of Americans from all 50 states have signed petitions to secede. Texas is in the lead — no great surprise, perhaps — with ABC reporting last week that the Lone Star State’s petition was the first to get more than 25,000 signatures. It now has more than 100,000.

That 25,000 mark, which at least seven states have hit, is significant. The petitions were shrewdly placed on a White House website called We the People, which invites members of the public to appeal directly to the federal government. The site promises that petitions that garner more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days — subject to some exceptions — will get a response from the White House.

What exactly are the states’ grounds for seceding? The answers are a bit scattershot. The Texas petition complains that the U.S. is suffering economically “from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending” and throws in alleged abuses imposed by the Transportation Security Administration, which could be summarized with the phrase “Don’t touch my junk.” Virginia’s petition cites, with somewhat arbitrary punctuation and capitalization, “Corruption,Lies,and Cover-Ups.Including potential Voter Fraud.”

(MORE: Why We Need a Voters’ Bill of Rights)

Scoff if you will, but it is clear that the neo-secessionist movement is having a moment. The Drudge Report, that calibrator of the far-right zeitgeist, exulted in a headline on Nov. 14: “Secession Movement Explodes.” And articles have been appearing elsewhere online with headlines like “Is Secession the Answer for Utah?” (If it is, what exactly is the question?)

Of course, anti-secessionists are gleefully responding. Chuck Thompson, the author of Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession, has written a piece titled “Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.” In it, he argues that the small-government utopia that Texas secessionists are dreaming of — a country with weak trade unions, negligible taxes and no guaranteed health care — “already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

As the petitioning and flame wars continue, though, it’s worth stepping back and asking a basic question: Is any of this legal? Can a state actually secede from the union?

It’s a question that law professors sometimes like to ponder, but the answer certainly must be no. The Constitution, which provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away.

(MORE: Why We Are Still Fighting the Civil War)

It is often said the Civil War answered this question: that when the South surrendered at Appomattox, the idea of secession was also defeated. In fact, no lesser authority than Justice Antonin Scalia — who would probably rank No. 1 or 2 in a parlor-game bet over which Justice is most likely to sign a secession petition — has said precisely this. In response to a letter from a citizen asking if there is a legal basis for secession — a letter that it is remarkable for being answered by a sitting Justice — Scalia wrote in 2006, “[The] answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

Of course, it is highly unlikely that any of these legal questions will have to be re-examined, because for all the secessionists’ petitions, they remain a perversely small minority. Even in the states that are racking up the most signatures, governors have been quick to distance themselves from secession talk. The conservative Republican governors of Alabama and Texas have come out publicly against secession, and the governor of Louisiana — whose state’s signature total was second only to Texas’ on Nov. 14 — called the idea “silly.”

(MORE: Should a Person Be Jailed for Swearing in Court?)

In fact, just like 150 years ago, pro-union forces are starting to respond with vigor. A petition recently went up on We the People titled “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.” It has gotten more than 24,000 signatures, and counting.

MORE: The Day After the Election

612 comments
TexasFirst
TexasFirst

According to this document secession is ILLEGAL because it is NOT granted specifically or even addressed by the US Constitution. What an argument. Let's start by ignoring (as this article does):

-the 10th Amendment guaranteeing all rights not designated in the constitution to the States and the People. 

- the post civil war (current) Texas Constitution Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 that specifically reinforces the right of secession (or self-determination)

-the international law found in the UN Treaty guaranteeing the right of self-determination to which the US is bound


So ignoring all those then the basic presumption here is that anything not specifically in the US Constitution is ILLEGAL. Wow, SCOTUS would have a field day with that one. It is simply the most ignorant and ridiculous argument against secession that I have ever heard.  


Texans support independence. It is neither illegal nor immoral and by nature is very Texan and even American. America gained its independence by seceding from Great Britain. Happy July 4th or "Secession Day". 


Texas will have a vote on independence just like Scotland did. Except we will win it. So for all of the Americans getting tired of hearing how great Texans think they are and how much you would like to see us gone and view Texans as holding the US back: I have good news! Your dream is coming true. Not that we need or want your help, but go ahead and kick Texas out. Somehow we'll manage on our own. 


For Texans ready for Texans and only Texans to decide what is best for Texas, then join the peaceful revolution. You can find us at:

theTNM.org


bobintexas2
bobintexas2

Texas CANNOT secede from the Union unless it can whip the USA Military.  This was settled by the Civil War.  If the USA was to COLLAPSE Totally like the Soviet Union, then Texas could just WALK OUT like the Russian States did.  


NO Way, would I like Texas seceding.  With the Iggnert Politicians we have??  You gotta be kidding.  And WORSE< the Texas Constitution - IT SUCKS!!  Don't see it happening anytime soon.  People here are BLOWHARDS it is the Official Texas Sport.


BB 

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

Adam Cohen gets it Backwards Regarding Secession


  This article is in response to Adam Cohen's poorly-titled article, "Can Texas Really Secede from the Union? Not Legally

." Indeed, it seems that that Mr. Cohen  made up her mind about this question before even preparing to write this article; and this clearly saved him much research-time, by skipping research altogether in preference of dispensing the standard status-quo misinformation.  For ineed, an objective investigation would have inevitably resulted in the opposite conclusion; aside from her disturbing jokes-- which, in her pat certainty ignore the risk of insulting the victims of a continental massacre-- her allegations were clearly Pavlovian, being standard boilerplate refutations, based on misconception and and falsehood universally spoonfed in government schools... in addition as displaying a gross lack of of knowledge regarding the subject in question.


   In this vein, historians concur that each American state ratified the Constitution as a separate nation unto itself, owned and supremely ruled by its respective People; and indeed, this is the context of the Preamble phrase "We, the People of the United States," despite common semantic misunderstandings regard that title.  However what most historians do not  know-- or dare not tell, if they do-- is that here the truth likewise proves stranger than fiction; for, again contrary to popular belief, neither did any state surrender that status via ratification, to form a single nation called "The United States of America."  On the contrary, the Constitutional union was 100% voluntary and federal among the individual states -- not national over them; rather, all federal powers were simply delegated to that government by the Peoples of the respective states, on a voluntary basis-- as any sovereign nation may do, while remaining fully a sovereign nation, and thereby retaining full final athority to overrule said delegates at will. In short, the Constitutional United States was voluntary among the individual states, just as under the Articles of Confederation before it; and all restrictions on state powers were likewise purely volitional and subject to refusal if a state's People so opted-- as noted in the Declaration of Independence, governments derived their just powers by consent of the governed, who thus had the right to alter or abolish them at will, by majority-vote in state conventions.

This is demonstrated via the absence of any express intent by any state to surrender its sovereignty as a separate nation, or to unite themselves into a  new single sovereign nation-- in contrast to  the 1707 union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England to form the single kingdom of Great Britain, wherein the respective "Treaty of Union" expressly denoting this itent. (This was, ironically the very union to which Adam Cohen likewise impudently refers, in claiming a right of scession to those nations, that she conversely-- and falsely-- claims that the American states do not share.)  As we see, however, the reverse is true: i.e. Scotland's right of secession was not unilateral, since it was not a sovereign nation, whereas the American states are indeed each nationally sovereign, just as with any member-state of the United Nations. 

Indeed, the original opposition to the  U.S. Constitution, was primarily an apprehension by the individual states that ratification would abrogate each state's national sovereignty and right of secession, thereby forfeiting its sovereign national authority to the federal government.  However in response, James Madison expressly assured them in Federalist No. 39, that ""Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."   Following this assurance, the states subsequently ratified the Constitution, with this context expressing being their full original intent. Therefore, the objective facts reveal that unilateral secession by American states is absolute, just as is the right of every state of the United Nations;  for the states of both unions, are separate sovereign nations.

This fact similarly overturns the inevitable argument regarding US Supreme Court opinions; for clearly such have no effect on sovereign nations, save by consent.

Nor could such national sovereignty been abrogated by any use of armed force; indeed, this would reduce all national sovereignty to the question of  simple brute force, rather than actual history regarding the original intentions of parties in question, and the agreements made among them. And as we see, every state was nationally sovereign in every respect.

Another standard mistake seen in the article, is the confusion of a state's law and government, for the  state itself-- which, as explained above, is actually the state's People, who are the as owners and sovereign national rulers of the state in question. As the Constitution's Preamble indicates, the People of each state simply delegated powers to the federal government on a voluntary basis, while the People retained final authority, by which they could overrule the government by popular vote in state Convention-- which indeed they did, in their act of ratifying the Constitution itself... and in doing so, seceding from the prior "perpetual" union that they had formed under the 1781 Articles of Confederation, each by the power of its own national sovereignty. 

They're lucky Lincoln wasn't around then.

BrandonMilkBoneHewitt
BrandonMilkBoneHewitt

I'm with JustinHall's comment below. Y'all act like we have to ask Americas permission to secede. Coming from a long line of Texas Native Indian blood I can tell you Texas has yet learned submission, to any oppression, coming from what source it may be. America acts like Texas needs them for some reason. America wasn't there at Goliad, Gonzalez , The Alamo or San Jacinto, so we don't need them now. Most of the 49 don't understand Texas has laws in place that says we do not follow the potus, we don't follow US Congress or Senate, we only agree to abide by the Constitution of the U.S. - In the event the Constitution of the USA is not upheld then Texas can Texas 2 Step our way out the door. News flash, The Constitution of the USA is not being upheld and the Texas band is warming up.

JustinHall
JustinHall

As a Texan, i just don't really see why we are asking. As mentioned by someone else we could wait for America to collapse and then become sovern. I'm not particularly interested, in watching America strip down and rob Texas of its resources in an attempt to avert the inevitable. An unbelievably huge portion of the US military hails from Texas. Does anyone really want to question where their loyalty lies? I get it maybe people from elsewhere in the USA don't have as much state pride as Texans. I mean I don't see an American serviceman turning their back on America for lets just say New Hampshire or any other pardon the insult do-nothing state, but for Texas I'd wager they'd bail arms in hand to protect their beloved homeland from out of touch corrupt pluetocrats in DC. So i don't see why we're asking let's just bail, as soft as America's gotten good luck trying to take Texas back. You think there's an insurgency in iraq try imaging Texas.

JustinHall
JustinHall

It was supposed to say try invading Texas.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@JustinHall Texas already IS sovereign, ever since 1837. And like every other state in the USA, it never STOPPED being sovereign. Cretins tend to confuse sovereignty with exercise of authority, as if a business-owner can't hire a manager without losing his shop, and can't overrule the menager without a gunfight. It's amazing how these cretins who wouldn't dare try to wire their own stereo, consider themselves qualified experts  to spout off on political matters for which they  have no skills or knowledge beyond a knee-jerk opinion based on nothing, without a hint of objective, neutral research into the matter.


When the states ratified the Constitution, they simply joined a franchise;, they didn't sign themselves into the mafia. They entered freely, they can LEAVE freely-- of course the legal details are more complex, but that's the gist of it.

SamBaghaei
SamBaghaei

This shouldn't even be a debate and I can't believe people are buying it. The constitution clearly states that any power not given to the federal government to prohibit something is reserved for the States. There is no amendment the prohibits succession, therefore, it I'd left up to any individual state that chooses so. It is also the right if the people to abolish a government that is abusing it's powers and form a new one. It's also definitely not treason. Treason is the only law in our entire constitution that is clearly defined. Succession is definitely not in its definition. Succession is 100% legal and there's not a single document to prove otherwise.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@SamBaghaei Actually it doesn't MATTER what the Constitution states, as long as it didn't expressly surrender its sovereignty as a separate nation in order to join with the others to form a new nation-- like Engand and Scotand did in 1707 to form a new single kingdom called Great Britain. As the Declaration of Indpendence sais, each colony became free and independent states, equal and separate from the state of Great Britain; and this was accepted in the 1803 Treaty of Paris, and likewise preserved under the US Constitution-- which in fact each state SECEDED from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in order to RATIFY.


Lincoln suppressed this fact by censorship, and it's been kept that way for 150 years through a controlled state-lapdog media-- but the time as come to NO LONGER BE SILENT!  We have the internet to BYPASS the mainstream media,a dn it's time to start USING it!


Simply put, secession by a sovereign nation is always legal, and never FROM one. 

So simply say THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN NATIONS!

if you don't, you concede the federal government's claim that they're NOT-- and therefore the right to secede, along with it.

YtizakAki
YtizakAki

Could this be an issue for da Hague (The World Court)  for the sake of human life I mean.  Should Texas and say Oklahoma decide to take such a position could this be a matter for the world court (Texas v U.S.) and not a matter for the U.S. military?

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@YtizakAki YES.. The People of Texas must petition EVERY sovereign nation in the world, via the Hague, to demand a review of the facts concerning Texas's national soveregnty independent of its membership in the American Union-- i.e. that Texas's sovereign-nation status was NEVER surrendered, just as it wasn't with the other American states. And the other nations thus must recognize Texas's rightful sovereignty, or fofeit their own.

LanceNeedham
LanceNeedham

There does not have to be a singular secession today.  There are states whose number is probably 15 or 20 that, in theory, would secede to form a government such as the one that originally governed the United States.  Those states make up the meat of middle America from Texas to Montana, from Idaho to South Carolina.  Moreover, the Texas that is referred to in this article no longer exists. The Texas of today is far more capable of individually surviving and growing than the one of 2012.  Texas, today, has more oil and natural gas than Saudi Arabia.  We have refineries and shipping ports, underground gas pipelines, and rich farm and ranch land.  If we started a New United States, we would be an excellent trade partner for our allies, and most of them would be excellent trade partners for us.  Scoff if you will, anti-secessionists; but our day is coming.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@LanceNeedham I disagree, but it's a moot point; since the states MUST assert their sovereignty not only as nations, but as POPULARLY sovereign nations-- i.e. owned and supremely ruled by the actual living People, not abstract institutions like "republics" or other paganisms-- but on the contrary that these political structures and associated agents are mere DELEGATES of the People, elected by them at will as sovereign national rulers of their respective state; and that therefore all government entities serve entire at the discretion and will of the People of the state-- dy eriving their just powers by the consent of such, and who may thus elect to overruled, altered or abolished as a matter of sovereign right. 


As for secession, I believe that the US government, in tyrannically usurping national authority over all of the states and Peoples in betrayal of this trust, has become despotically corrupt, and secession must precede any resolution or remedy thereof. However that's up to the People of each respective state; but what is NOT in question, is the choice to RECLAIM said sovereignty, for if the People do not own their state, then by definition it owns them.

Indeed, this has been the source of every act by the US government, in that it acts as the master, and the People its servant.


In any event, there is one phrase, five words which every person in every state MUST say: THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN NATIONS. 

If you don't, then you forfeit the fact to the federal government's claim to that  status as sovereign national ruler.

EthnicTexian
EthnicTexian

Texas secession is now a cultural phenomenon, and it is not going away, only growing. Military, political financial and psychological threats no longer have meaningful effect on a movement at this stage, but rather accelerate it. The breakup of the Roman, British and Soviet systems all took place at the cultural level and none of these three empires, despite their military and financial might or sense of political or even religious entitlement could prevent the emergence of their successor states, such as the United States of America. The Republic of Texas is therefore in excellent company. This is what historians and the Federal founders, before the death of their arts, once called Destiny. Texas is leaving, and no force or guile can deter her resumption of her rightful and happy place in the family of Nations.

bobintexas2
bobintexas2

One thing I can tell you that negates ALL of those argumentative wordy words.  One the American Civil WAR of which MANY of my family members were PRESENT, one of my GT Gt Grandfathers was at BOTH battles of Gettysburg, wounded four times and lived to be 96.  All of his brother were killed in the Conflict.   Another one of my third Great Grandfathers lost three sons in it, this is just a partial list.  


But the Civil War and court actions after it have held up, NO STATE can secede.  NONE, not even Texas and I am a fifth generation Texan, 100% descendant of Texas pioneers.  Texas DOES have the right to break up in to as many as FIVE STATES, but it cannot leave the Union except by TWO obvious ways.  Any other state would have to do the same.  If TEXAS tried to secede, all that IDIOT PRESIDENT we have would have to do is call Fort Hood Texas (the largest Military Base in the WORLD, and just tell a General,  "Say, after lunch, would you run other there and kill that handful of CRAZY people that are committing TREASON by starting a Civil WAR, just bump them off today, I think you can be home by Dark in time to watch the Football Game."  And it would be OVER.  Oh, a REVOLUTION is a Great Dream, but it is not going to happen ANYTIME soon, Americans are too Fat, Lazy, and apathetic.  They are walking Around in a High Fructose induced Stupor, they ain't gonna do nothin'. 


But to "get out" there as of TODAY only two ways exist and BOTH SUCK. 


One, a State if it wanted to secede could start another Civil WAR and if it could whip the US Military then they could be OUT.  Of course the American Military cannot whip a bunch of Ragheads in the Piddle East, so that might just be POSSIBLE.  I don't know this may be easier than I think.  But that is the first way is, WHIP the US Military, and they have NUKES.  How many SOLDIERS do you have??  How many Tanks do you have?  How many F-111's do you have?  How many Heavy Bombers do you have?.  You think YOU can whip them??  A bunch of guys that THINK they are "Commandos" because they went to Wal-Mart and bought an imitation AR-15 .223 that only shoots semi-auto and they have some peanut butter and crackers to eat??  All of these out of shape, tough talking, Commandos in their HEADS ain't gonna do SQUAT.  As soon as it gets to 112 Degrees, they are going to seek out some Air Conditioning.  Sheesh.  


Two, the other way is when the USA Finishes Collapsing the way just like the Soviet Union Did and then these states can just "walk out" like the states in the USSR did.  There won't be anyone to stop them.  Those are the only two ways that exist of this DAY.  In the future, something else may come up, but I am not a Soothsayer.


But YOU folks should be CAREFUL what you wish for.  As Decadent as this country is, if the USA busts up, it would be like Europe, just a bunch of little bitty Counties that HATE each other and they would not amount to a Bottle of Spit.  But this is the MOST LIKELY WAY, just sit and WAIT. 


But Texas, OH GAWD we have the THIRD worst Constitution in the Country, we have the sorriest Politicians except for Louisiana.  I mean look at that dolt we have for Governor.  Oh crap is he a big pile of nothing, a D&F Student at Texas A&M who has a degree in Animal Science, and I do NOT know how he graduated his grades were so low.  They had to burn the place DOWN to get him OUT.  He couldn't hit a Bull in the Ass with a Bass Fiddle.


You guys need to Fantasize about something else.  BB      




<<>>                 

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@bobintexas2 Except it's reality.


"One thing I can tell you that negates ALL of those argumentative wordy words.  One the American Civil WAR "


Except for one tiny fact: it wasn't a civl war. Each state was a sovereign nation, by law, before they even ratified the Constitution; and that didn't change their sovereignty, just the details of their international arrangement.


So the only war, was an illegal invasion of one nation by another.. just like Hitler in Poland. The only difference is, the illegal invasion is still in effect.


"If TEXAS tried to secede, all that IDIOT PRESIDENT we have would have to do is ... And it would be OVER.  "


Not if every other sovereign nation in the world recognized Texas's national sovereignty, via the UN and the Hague-- which they would HAVE to,  on penalty of losing their own, since it's a fact of law and history. The only thing that would be "over" would be the illegal empire that's enslaved the American People for the past 150 years; and once again, the People of Texas would be their own rulers, with the power to alter or abolish their government at will.


"But YOU folks should be CAREFUL what you wish for.  As Decadent as this country is, if the USA busts up, it would be like Europe, just a bunch of little bitty Counties that HATE each other and they would not amount to a Bottle of Spit.  But this is the MOST LIKELY WAY, just sit and WAIT. "


No. It would break up into separate, popularly sovereign nations; and so each one would be a REAL democracy-- not the shadow-mockery of such, where the People are told  is "government by the People," but in which  a congressional majority is held to be "the only true sovereign"-- but which is their master, and they the servant.


As such, the People of the states could alter or abolish their government, and elect a new one-- as is their right, since government would once again derive its just powers by the People's CONSENT... unlike now.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

ALERT:

I guess I should have prefaced my arguments with a single fact: THE UNITED STATES IS AN INTERNATIONAL UNION OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS, not a sovereign nation unto itself.

On the contrary, each state is a sovereign nation, as intentionally declared in 1776, retained in 1781, achieved in 1783, and maintained in 1787.

So Texas does not have an unique or exclusive right to secede, but rather EVERY state has the right to secede. 

Of course this will never be admitted by the  American lapdog shill-media, which caters to the prejudices of the public while shilling for government,  rather than presenting valuable information to the individual citizen. They'd rather play God and dictate the truth, rather than FEAR God and simply PRESENT it. 


In the TIME article above, Adam Cohen's claims the following: 
"The Constitution, which provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away."


However neither does the UN Charter, the European Union, or any other international association of sovereignnations; and  the Constitution is an INTERNATIONAL Constitution, of sovereign nations. This is plain from the simple fact that each state ratified the Constitution AS a sovereign nation, but did not expressly SURRENDER and CONJOIN their sovereignty by doing so in order to form a NEW sovereign nation called "The United States of America." No, this is simply PRESUMED by those who want to believe so-- and likewise all "analysis" is simply a circular argument to support the foregone conclusion.

Since the Constitution nowhere manifests any intent to surrender the national sovereignty of each state, the shills simply INFER it from basically everywhere and nowhere-- and show their ignorance in doing so... particularly since A SOVEREIGN NATION CANNOT SURRENDER ITS SOVEREIGNTY BY INFERENCE! ONLY DELIBERATE AND EXPRESS STATEMENTS OF INTENT!

In fact, Madison was adamant that this would NOT be the case:


*Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.* -Federalist 39
Here the term "federal, not national" refers to the Law of Nations by Emerich Vatel, to which the Founders strove to adhere in crafting American law. There, Vatel defines a "federal republic" as follows: 
"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."--Law of Nations, Book I Chapter I, § 10. "Of states forming a federal republic."
Thus the Constitutional union was an INTERNATIONAL federal republic, not  national-- just like the Articles of Confederation before it; the Constitution simply made some changes which required the sovereign authority of each state's People. But they absolutely BLASTED THE THOUGHT of surrendering their national sovereignty; the Constitutional Union, again like the Confederation, was 100% INTERNATIONAL AND VOLUNTARY; and nothing in the Constitution is incompatible with that, contrary to the ignorance of agenda-driven shills. 

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

ALERT:

I guess I should have prefaced my arguments with a single fact: THE UNITED STATES IS AN INTERNATIONAL UNION OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS, not a sovereign nation unto itself.

On the contrary, each state is a sovereign nation, as intentionally declared in 1776, retained in 1781, achieved in 1783, and maintained in 1787.

So Texas does not have an unique or exclusive right to secede, but rather EVERY state has the right to secede. 

Of course this will never be admitted by the  American lapdog shill-media, which caters to the prejudices of the public while shilling for government,  rather than presenting valuable information to the individual citizen. They'd rather play God and dictate the truth, rather than FEAR God and simply PRESENT it. 

GaryParker
GaryParker

Actually, nothing in the constitution precludes secession. Lincoln overstepped his bounds of legal authority in attacking the Southern states and forcing them at gunpoint to remain part of the union. Not that I think secession would be a good thing (I do not), but if the likes of Obama continues his power-grabbing crap, it may become a needed course of action for the preservation of liberty.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@GaryParker It's not a question of  the Constitution expressly precluding secession, but INHERENTLY doing so-- which would require that the Constitution formed a NATIONAL union among the states, rather than international.  Because it is ALWAYS illegal to secede from a sovereign nation. 

However the Union was INTERNATIONAL, and each state was a sovereign nation; therefore secession was not only legal, but could not be IL-legal, since sovereign nations have the absolute RIGHT to secede from unions with other sovereign nations.


The USA was not a national union of states, like Brazil; on the contrary , it was an international union, or a "federal republic of sovereign nations" as defined by the Law of Nations: 


"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."

Law of Nations, Chapter I, Book I, § 10: "Of states forming a federal republic"


So the American states were only VOLUNTARILY bound by the Constitution-- i.e. the state remained a sovereign nation, and the PEOPLE of the state were the ruling SOVEREIGNS who could overrule government by popular vote in state convention. 


Now, cretins will deny this, claiming that the sovereign power in the USA is not any living person or persons, but some corporate abstract "republic" with a mind of its own, whose supreme authority is greater than any and all persons; and whose rule is final -- essentially a pagan idol.

Fortunately, this is as false as it is insane. A free state cannot be a corporate abstract, but simply individuals delegating their respective intentions in collective land-ownership, while the "republic" is simply a hired board of directors by the owners in question (i.e.. the People).

Ironically, cult-media pundits will chant the mantra of "government by consent of the People," but QUALIFY the term "consent" by putting strings on it-- in which case it is no longer consent, but ILLUSION.  So the "republic" has the final word, thus it's not the People who govern, but those in power who manipulate the People like lab-rats to push levers in the voting-booths... and likewise believe, like lab-rats, they are doing so of their own free will--- when everyone knows that a person subject to a hidden power is anything but free.


In short: by law,  each state is a sovereign nation, and its PEOPLE are the ruling sovereigns; and sovereign nations CAN secede.

So Texas-- like very other American state-- CAN secede by popular vote among its people in state convention. 

In other words, they can leave by the same door they came in.

RobertCerveny
RobertCerveny

Where does it say in the Constitution that a State can or cannot secede?? It doesn't, so it is neither illegal or legal.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@RobertCerveny This is incorrect. The Constitution could have formed an international union among sovereign nations, or a national union over subordinate states. 

If it were a national union, then unilateral secession would be an illegal breach of national sovereignty.

However since it formed an INTERNATIONAL union among sovereign nations, then secession by a state is be the absolute right of a nation under national sovereignty .


Simply put, each state ratified the Constitution AS a sovereign nation; therefore to form a national union, the Constitution would need to expressly declare that it formed a NEW sovereign nation called "The United States of America," and that  each ratifying state RELINQUISHED its national sovereignty to the new nation in doing so.

Clearly, that DID NOT HAPPEN. On the contrary, James Madison expressly DENIED this in Federalist 39:

*Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.* 


Clearly, every ratifying state FULLY INTENDED to remain a sovereign nation, while adhering to the Constitution on a strictly VOLUNTARY basis-- just like with the nations of the UN..

In short, each state is a sovereign nation belonging entirely and exclusively to its respective PEOPLE, and they can do what EVER sovereign nation can do-- INCLUDING SECEDE.


MikeArienti
MikeArienti

The South DID have a right to secede. Lincoln didn't want them to.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@MikeArienti It's not a question of what, but WHY and HOW.

Lincoln wasn't the first to deny the right to secede; that went back to as early as 1799 if not earlier, with the Kentucky resolutions and Virginia Report; there, Founders Jefferson and Madison stated the facts that the USA was not a single sovereign nation, but that each STATE was a sovereign nation unto ITSELF, and therefore could overrule federal law at will --by act of the state's People in convention through popular vote. 

However charlatans soon began propagating the myth that the USA was not an international union, but a NATIONAL one-- i.e. ONE NATION rather than many; and this festered for many years under the chicanery of such cretins as Daniel Webster, Joseph Story and Andrew Jackson-- and finally Lincoln, who drew exclusively from the work of all three of these morons when trumping up his legal arguments to claim that "no state can lawfully get out of the union," and that therefore he would use "force, invasion and bloodshed" as necessary to prevent it.

Imagine if the president of the UN said the same thing? 

Obviously that wouldn't be "rebellion" for a nation to leave the UN; but that didn't bother Lincoln from making Total War and mass-murder on sovereign nations, and calling it a "civil war" while jailing anyone who corrected him. 

Lincoln's philosophy: "I don't play God-- I AM God."


Americans need a better favorite president. 

karenskandy
karenskandy

It seems to me that most of the comments that I have read have forgotten the most important issue is that when the South Secede from the Union, it cut all ties with the Union it elected it's own form of government.printed it's own, money president and everything had no ties to the Union whatsoever. Now say that these States do claim themselves as sovereign how are they going to support themselves? All of the monies that they get from this federal government that they seem to hate so much, the hate would grow to be greater because all of those people who get any monies from the Union i.e.  this federal government would be no more no pensions, no SS not one red dime, no water most important no government services, What do you people do then? who do  you turn to ? No FEMA, etc. There is a lot that people should think about before they talk about breaking ties with this Union and I really was under the impression that is why we fought a Civil War. 

Maybe Texas should have let Spain still have control and they would not have to worry about Seceding from the Union they would not be apart of it and they would need a passport to go to any other state in the Union and all of the things that they get from the federal government would not be. 

quadelirus
quadelirus

@karenskandy Texas contributes more to the federal government than it receives from the federal government (this is mathematically necessary, of course, some states have to do this, otherwise the federal government would magically have more money than it takes in), so a succession by Texas would actually mean more money in Texas not less. And furthermore, if Texas did become its own country it would have the 13th largest economy in the world (something similar is true of California). The economic argument you make just doesn't apply to Texas. It would apply to, say, Alabama, if Alabama decided to succeed, but not to Texas. 

quadelirus
quadelirus

@karenskandy I should point out that I'm not for Texas succeeding (I'm not even Texan nor am I near Texas), but the economic argument you make simply isn't applicable.

GaryParker
GaryParker

Compare Texas to the rest of the US to answer your own silly narrative.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@karenskandy " Now say that these States do claim themselves as sovereign how are they going to support themselves? All of the monies that they get from this federal government that they seem to hate so much, the hate would grow to be greater because all of those people who get any monies from the Union i.e."


Likewise, i.e. Texas would pay no more federal taxes; that's generally understood that when you quit a club you lose benefits, but you also stop paying member-dues. 



"this federal government would be no more no pensions, no SS not one red dime,"


Incorrect, debts would remain valid, so moneys paid into SSI and pension-funds etc. would be unchanged in disbursements.  A country can't dishonor debts at whim, it would simply result in the creditors selling the debts globally at a discount, and USA's credit going down the crapper..


"no water most important no government services, What do you people do then? who do  you turn to ? No FEMA, etc."


The government of Texas would take over these functions, naturally, funded by the same money which Texans currently pay to the federal government.


" I really was under the impression that is why we fought a Civil War."


You're under a LOT of false impressions-- beginning with the impression that it was a CIVIL war, when in reality each state was (and REMAINS) a sovereign nation unto itself-- just like the states of the UN; so Lincoln's actions would be equivalent to the UN president declaring himself chief executive of a one-world nation, and threatening "force, invasion and bloodshed" as necessary to enforce his dictates. 

Ya see, sovereign nations can't be conquered by force-- only invaded and occupied, but they REMAIN sovereign nations by law. When dictators marched into various countries like Kuwait, Poland China etc, they were STILL Kuwait, Poland and China-- not new territories of Iraq, Germany and Japan.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

    After reading the November 19, 2012 article “Can Texas Really Secede from the Union? Not Legally”, I must ask for a retraction and correction.  If one  researches this question objectively, you will learn that each state was always a sovereign nation, unto itself-- just like those of the UN;  the two unions simply delegated powers differently regarding their state and federal governments, but the states of each remained equally sovereign in the national sense of the word; i.e. neither intended to form a single sovereign state or nation; and accordingly, the U.S. Constitution contains no language indicative of such intent, just as with the UN Charter.

Nor does any such evidence exist elsewhere; on the contrary, all contextual evidence—most notably in the Federalist papers, as well as the Kentucky Resolutions and Virginia Report-- expresses vehement protest and assurances by the Founders and Framers against such a construction, steadfastly and unambiguously proclaiming that each state would ratify the Constitution solely by a voluntary act of its respective People, in whom the state’s sovereignty indeed vested; and thus each state’s People remained the ruling sovereigns of their respective state.

         Nor could any war, “civil” or other, alter this sovereign status; for indeed, civil war cannot even exist among sovereign nations, by the very definition of the term.  On the contrary, a sovereign nation can only lose its sovereignty as a consequence of invading another sovereign nation – not by being invaded; this was demonstrated when  Iraq invaded Kuwait, resulting in the loss of Iraq’s sovereignty in the Persian Gulf War.  Accordingly, we do not term that original invasion a “civil war between the states of Iraq and Kuwait;” neither do we claim that this invasion “ended Kuwait’s sovereignty.”  And thus the argument is equally erroneous when applied to the seceding American states, which were under similar false claim of national authority.

   In conclusion: any American state can lawfully secede, by act of its People in state convention; for that is how each state ratified the Constitution, and likewise each retained the sovereign power to secede from it in the same manner. This was always the understanding among the states; and therefore it is the sole binding intent by which it must be upheld,  all intervening events, claims, and misunderstandings to the contrary notwithstanding.

MichaelRoss
MichaelRoss

We always view history from our moment in history and we never think about what leads up to events like the Revolution or the Civil War. Truth be told, America was founded through a great Secessionist Document called the Declaration of Independence. We fought Britain to get Independence. If Texas wants Independence, they may have to fight for it. I say if they want it, let them have it. Besides, if it doesn't work out, we would probably admit them back into the Union anyway.

bobintexas2
bobintexas2

@SarahGoodwich   Texas is not going to "secede" as long as the USA government is still standing, not in any PEACEABLE WAY.  Only two ways they are going to get out.  Fight their way out, or if the USA collapses to a point they can walk out.  It will not be any other way remember I told you.  

I am a fifth Generation Texan, one of my kinsmen was with the "Old Three Hundred".  That is the first 300 Families, the mostly Scots and Scots-Irish families that were just about the very first European permanent settlers that came to the Mexican area that later became Texas.  I was taught in College in numerous Government and Texas history courses and at least one of them the Prof was an attorney, that Texas STILL retains the right to split in to as many as five states, but it CANNOT SECEDE, not by voting its way out, the Civil War stopped that.  That is what they teach you in school here in Texas.  Whether it is correct or not, it really makes no DIFFERENCE.  As long as things are the way they ARE the US Government and other forces will apply Violence to STOP secession of Texas.  All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call Fort Hood, which is the biggest Us Military base in the world, and then just tell the boys down there to "Put it down".  Game over.  However, at some time in the not too distant future, I do not know when, the USA is going to collapse somewhat like the USSR did.  It will probably descend in to TOTAL instability when the US Dollar IMPLODES.  Until then, Texas is not going ANYWHERE.  And even if it DID it would be horrible, it is horrible here already.  It would become a Jack booted BANANA REPUBLIC so fast you can't believe it.  BB 





SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@bobintexas2 @SarahGoodwich  The federal government can't fight the truth forever--, let alone the world. But this requires people to be informed OF the truth regarding individual state sovereignty-- i.e. that it is INTERNATIONAL, like the states of the UN-- not simply domestic, like the states of Brazil or some other "federated state."


To begin with, even unionists now admit that the states were individually sovereign nations prior to the Constitution; and thus the  Unionists admit that the states formed the USA, not the other way around.
Rather, they claim that the states GAVE UP their international sovereignty by signing the Constitution-- which is just plain nonsense. 


Texas's best bet, therefore, would be to apply to the UN World Court, to demand retroactive recognition as a sovereign nation, dating back to 1837; then, the US federal government had no supreme power over the People of Texas.


Also note that sovereignty does NOT require secession; rather, it simply provides state's People with the power to nullify federal laws.


After all, a government cannot represent a People, if they cannot choose to overrule it and represent themselves. Rather, the term "represent" has been hijacked to mean "dictate," with the narrow option of choosing one's dictator.

StephenEdwardSeale
StephenEdwardSeale

@bobintexas2 @SarahGoodwich Bob, if such a thing did happen, and the President ordered the troops to "put it down" how many would obey? Soldiers are sworn to follow the Constitution, not the President. Also, most of the troops at Fort Hood are Texans and would see their loyalty as being to Texas. Another interesting note is that between 20 to 25 percent of the U.S. Army is made up of Texans, and most Marines are either from Texas or have plans of moving to Texas at the earliest opportunity.


Additionally, the argument about Texas not being able to vote it's way out is invalid. If you believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence then you must accept the idea of popular sovereignty that comes with those principles. Of course, there is also the caveat that such separation should never be for "light or transient causes." I personally am not in favor of secession at this time, and believe it is still possible to use the legislative process to curtail rogue behavior by some of our politicians, but to argue that there is no legal basis for separation is a demonstrably false argument. Now you are likely right about the Feds not wanting to let anyone go without a fight, but the point Sarah was making was about the legality, and if the Feds go against what is legal they will prove themselves to be a rogue state.

bobintexas2
bobintexas2

@StephenEdwardSeale @bobintexas2 @SarahGoodwich  The TROOPS WILL OBEY, those that don't will be Jailed maybe even SHOT.  Many of them from the "inner city " will CHEERFULLY OBEY.  The Constitution is what shapes our legal system not the "Declaration of Independence".  That document (the D of I) is an act of rebellion.  If Texas was to sign off on such a document the US Military would turn on the place in a millisecond.  Fort Hood is the Largest Military Base in the World, all this lousy President or any future Puppet we have will have to do is simply call up Fort Hood and tell them to Quash it and it is OVER.


But you know, it really does NOT matter.  The American people are too apathetic, and too ignorant of how the system really works, they most especially do not understand Economics.  They really do not CARE.  All they care about is Football and getting FAT.  I am a Fifth generation Texan, this place SUCKS, the most backward state in the Union.  Highest Real Estate Taxes in the country, highest FEES in the country, and running a DEFICIT EVERY YEAR.  Three Fourths of the state is NOT habitable and the place is running out of water.


Any rebellion HERE will be put down QUICKLY.  And would you REALLY want a Dolt like Rick Perry, a guy with a D and F average in "Animal Science" from Texas A&M running ANYTHING??  Texas has the WEAKEST Governor's Office in the NATION, only in Texas could a dullard like that be Governor.  The Lt. Governor's Office in Texas is a more powerful office.  It's true, ask any Texas Government Professor in any Texas College they will tell you that.  The Governor in Texas is just a Buffoon that struts around like he is some Lord of Texas, when in reality he has little TRUE Power.  Now the State of Texas CAN split in to as many as FIVE separate states, (which will never happen) but it cannot "Secede".  Call up the University of Texas and ask them.  That is all I care to contribute to this ridiculous "argument".  BB


I do not like to waste a lot of time on HYPOTHETICAL what if's.  Without a Crystal Ball it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the Future.  If you want to cling to the "Dream" of Texas independence go ahead.  It is OK with ME.  Just remember *I* told you it ain't going to happen UNLESS the whole shebang collapses, which it COULD and WILL one of these days.  All empires die sooner or later.  

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@MichaelRoss  No. Texas already won its independence once, and they didn't give it up; so the only "fighting" they have to do is in terms of asserting the law PROVING it. Once they do this, the federal government will have to stand down, or face every nation of the world declaring it a rogue-state.

And of COURSE the Union would admit them back in; the purpose of union was always for mutual benefit, not for some states to be a BURDEN to others! 
In fact that's what CAUSED the secession, when the northern states began passing punitive and restrictive tariffs against the rest; and slavery was just a LEVER in this regard, while anyone who can't see it is BLIND.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@bobintexas2 @StephenEdwardSeale @SarahGoodwich @bobintexas2 @StephenEdwardSeale @SarahGoodwich  The Constitution forms an INTERNATIONAL union among sovereign nations, not a national union over subordinate states. 

Try reading it WITHOUT inferring prejudice. 

Does it expressly say that it forms a NEW nation or state? NO!

Does it expressly say that ANY state relinquishes its sovereignty TO a nation or state? NO!

No, you INFER these things-- and THESE THINGS CANNOT BE INFERRED!

On the contrary: 

*Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.* -Federalist 39

Pundits like Akhil Reed Amar will claim precedent of "merging nations" in the 1707 Treaty of Union between England and Scotland to form a new kingdom of Great Britain-- but that treat EXPRESSLY does this, and that was their INTENT!
Likewise, Amar applies intent this to the Constitution, by saying each state agreed to be "bound" by Amendments even if it voted AGAINST the amendment, and this "precludes" any state's retaining national sovereignty-- which is insane, since it can be bound on a strictly VOLUNTARY basis!  Only Amar's PREJUDICE presumed them to be bound by FORCE!
So Americans have got to wake up and start thinking for THEMSELVES instead of simply parroting dogma like some crazy cult. 

"The American people are too apathetic, and too ignorant of how the system really works,"
No, they are RATIONALLY apathetic, because they have been made PURPOSEFULLY ignorant of the TRUTH:i.e. that each state is a sovereign nation-- a nation fully owned and ruled by its respective PEOPLE, and that AS the states People they are its SOVEREIGN RULERS< and can do WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT-- the sovereign creates the law, the law does not create the sovereign!  So the People of a state can OVERRULE state and federal government, by popular vote in state convention. WE, not the government, are the FINAL RULERS.The TRUTH shall set us free! 
Spread the truth. 

HarleyManwarren
HarleyManwarren

who you  gone to call when mexico trys take texas   for there own!

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@HarleyManwarren They took Texas FROM Mexico, you oaf. Taking it back would be against both international law, and the laws of physics.

True, Texans did have help from the US, the US also had help from France in taking their own country from the British-- who stand no more chance against the US, than Mexico does against armed Texans.

And then there's the whole UN, which Texas could join as a separate nation.

Memsinfl
Memsinfl

@HarleyManwarren I am not sure you are aware of this or not but Texas does have its own military meaning Texas their  own army navy and state law enforcement so Texas does not need to call anyone to defend it Texas can defend itself and before you say oh you must mean the national guard no that is not what i mean look it up Texas has a state guard = army and navy owned by Texas not the Us government so there you have it 


SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

Texas can legally secede, ignorance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Of  course a shill-media outlet like Time will never cop to it,  and Adam Cohen is a dunce for citing Scalia as some sort of expert, when it's like asking Hitler whether Poland has the right to be separate from Germany.

Ya see, Adam, each state is SOVEREIGN, and that means they have the right to secede, and help people leave their soil who refuse to do so when asked. If you care to look at a map, Ft. Sumter is INSIDE South Carolina.

But Adam Cohen is a dimestore hack for a lapdog publication, so it's clear who's pulling HIS strings; he has no mind of his own, or incentive to bite the hand that feeds him.

His argument is simply "The Constitution, which provides processes  for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force."

(FACEPALM)

Thisbrain-trust is typical of Yale trash--much like his colleague Akhil Reed Amar, his litter-mate in the whelping-box of lapdogs.

No, Adam, wrong again: and it's such a nonsense-argument is proof of your vapidity. The Constitution doesn't HAVE a provision for states to secede, because they don't NEED one, you IDIOT!

They ARE SOVEREIGN STATES!

I suppose a functioning brain is not allowed to teach at Yale.

MichaelRoss
MichaelRoss

@SarahGoodwich  Absolutely right! There is no provision for succession because the federal government doesn't grant power to the states, it receives power from the states. But unfortunately for those of us who read the constitution today we see that our current system of government is no where near where our founding fathers placed it. American People have been reciting the Nationalist Pledge of Allegiance so long they think we are one FEDERAL country and states are just a nice way of drawing lines on a map. Woe is me I tell you, I support my STATE first! Hang the Federal Government, its way to big and out of control.


By the way, most dont realize that the treaty signed with Great Britain after the Revolutionary war made by the crown with EACH INDEPENDENT STATE. Not the US as a whole!

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@MichaelRoss @SarahGoodwich  Be careful what you mean by "states."

In the Constitution, the term "states" refers to "state GOVERNMENTS;" but the phrase "The People of the United States" refers to the PEOPLES of the INDIVIDUAL states respecitvely, who were the sovereign power that AUTHORIZED the Constitution, delegating powers here and there; but as you see in the Constitution, it nowhere GIVES UP that sovereignty! 
In fact, every piece of evidence (other than one letter by Madison when he was a senile old fart) PROVES that the Founders, Framers, and People of each state all intended that each state would remain a sovereign nation under it's respective PEOPLE.

And so state GOVERNMENTS can't secede their state by their own authority; but the PEOPLE of the state, CAN. That's how they ratified the Constitution, and that's how they can SECEDE from it the same way.

And that's the way it happened. 

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@JamesBass  It's all here in one quick video:https://www.yhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0iVGQ2kc8outube.com/watch?v=QQ0iVGQ2kc8

All the documents are cited quoted directly therein.

Dead-Eye
Dead-Eye

Let Texas go,  If I was President I would cut Texas off at the knees, I would Block all sea ports, all Interstate highways, all US highways, and all State Routs and all county routes in to Texas, then I would set up long range long johne missals to guard all routes in to and out of texas.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@Dead-Eye So you get internet there in the asylum. Good, gives you loons something to do.

SarahGoodwich
SarahGoodwich

@Uba @Dead-Eye  Spelling is the least of anti-secessionist's problems; they have to learn to READ first, particularly the Founding documents. They're even actually admitting that secession was legal before the Constitution, but not after; that's when you know they've are few fries short of a Happy-Meal, since secession was the only sure way that a state could ENFORCE the Constitution, which would mean nothing otherwse. That's why Big Government has exploded since Lincoln murdered anyone who opposed his ruthless reign of terror   It wasn't a civil war, that's only when states CAN'T legally secede.

Uba
Uba

@Dead-Eye You have to be able to spell missile first

Josh-1
Josh-1

@Dead-Eye HAHA, Texas won't leave alone my friend, and you forget how many wealthy and influential individuals live in Texas.