People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
Like even if this thing with states acting up doesn’t work out the people they are speaking too are definitely gonna still be riled up.
It seems obvious to me that they are probably planning something for the upcoming election since they would try and make sure that another “election steal” wouldn’t happen again.
The only way that I see this not turning into a civil war is for government to somehow change the conversation drastically so that people aren’t asking these questions.
Because if people begin asking these questions then people planning to do stuff are gonna be even more anxious and try and do the thing earlier.
I’m not sure how they would change the conversation though because all the republican population is going to just ignore them and still think we are heading towards a civil war making it just more likely to happen.
“take over texas” as if the federal govt wasn’t already in control of the states. the states pay federal taxes, and they receive various federal benefits. texas isn’t some separate nation. it’s just one of the regular 50 states.
They will refuse to hear this, Texans do believe they are unique little butterflies. They don’t understand that after the Civil War the Federal Government solidified its hold on the states. Probably for the better.
Apparently our generals take those very seriously. I had fantasies Mattis was going to stab Trump with a steak knife to stop him from pulling a Stillson. IRL, Mattis said I’ll get on that right away, sir …and then just didn’t.
I’m pretty sure Mattis was the top ranking agent of the Deep State and that figured into why he got replaced with Esper. In the meantime, there’s a long chain of officers who are eager to interrupt an unnecessary nuclear exchange.
Oh that’s cute, the state I live in is supporting treason. Well we all know what the punishment for treason is. Hope they’re just posturing because if these morons actually try this shit they’re going to get rolled over.
Wait, dead Republicans might actually make the country better. This might be okay.
As far as I can tell, it’s a purple state. The right republican would have to come along to pull moderates/libertarians in the state and Trump will only lose the state again - he talked a lot of shit about John McCain; that’s not going to go well. Don’t get me wrong, every state has it’s Trump cultists, but there’s just not enough.
Abraham Lincoln thought they could not. In his inaugural address, he opined that the union was formed for perpetuity and that if the accession of a state to the union required the consent of all other states, so would its secession. He was, among other things, a lawyer so he usually knew what he was talking about.
Legal Eagle just released a video on exactly this topic. Spoiler: the whole Texas being allowed to secede is basically a myth and pretty much all scholars agree that Texas nor any other state has the ability to leave except by a mutually agreed dissolution or via revolution.
The thing about law though, is that it’s just a framework of written social contracts between rational parties agreeing to abide by the terms and consequences.
Reality is a bit different.
Texas could halt physical transport of goods/services. Refuse to buy US imports. Stop collecting tax revenue. Gun down federal employees that don’t swear Texan allegiance.
It doesn’t really matter what legal papers say, when it comes to actions.
Sure - there may be consequences for such “illegal” state actions, and the documented illegality would be articulated as official justification after administering such consequences.
But that also only matters if Texas is defeated … in the unlikely event they “win,” - they’d write their own narrative with legal justification.
I’m not saying they have any chance - just making the point that “legal” and “illegal” are arbitrary and determined by whoever is the dominant power. Texas seceding is “illegal” only so long as the US remains powerful. If by some unholy miracle, Texas were to win independence from the US, they would probably write their own laws to say rejoining the US is illegal.
Another pair of cases to make my point - the Holocaust was “legal” to the Nazis. After they were defeated, the UN made genocide “illegal.” But how many genocides have occurred around the world since 1949?
Laws are only as good as they are enforceable, which is exactly what you underscore by citing the strength of the US military. Is it “legal” to make drone strikes or drop a nuke on Texas? 🤷
So far as I understand, there is a common idea that Texas has the legal ability to leave it it wants, but it’s just a popular myth as far as I’m aware. Whatever their state constitution says doesn’t matter anyway, because federal law trumps state laws and as far as I’m know there’s not a legal mechanism for states to leave again, it’d have to either get the government as a whole to make legal or possibly even constitutional changes to allow it, or leave illegally, either by force or by having a sympathetic government just not press the matter and just ignore the laws in question. I can’t really see them getting enough support for the former two, they’re too weak compared to the federal government for an actual war, and the current administration is not likely to just let them go, so I don’t expect them to go anywhere unless one of those things drastically changes.
Even if they voted for it and ratified it they couldn’t over turn it or legally secede from the USA.
In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”
When Texas entered the Union, “she entered into an indissoluble relation,” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court. “All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.”
Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”
Another source of confusion and misinformation over the years has been language in the 1845 annexation resolution that Texas could, in the future, choose to divide itself into “New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas.” But the language of the resolution says merely Texas could be split into five new states. It says nothing of splitting apart from the United States. Only Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union, which last occurred in 1959 with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii.
Now that’s not to say if it was challenged again in today’s Supreme Court that they wouldn’t overturn that like they did with Roe v Wade. But as far as I can tell they legally can’t right now.
I got downvoted elsewhere for saying this, but let me ask - if they just …went rogue and reeeeeeally started stirring shit up - like setting blockades on highways, rail stations, and ports, stopped exports - like really tried to cause the US economic trouble - attacking federal buildings etc.
What’s any legal precedent matter? Aside from justification for getting totally railed by the US military.
The disunited states has gone post-truth. When two sides vying for power don’t agree on the nature of reality, ie immigration vs invasion, I don’t see how there can be any agreement or good faith negotiation. So how can the result be anything but war? Whoever invented the notion of alternative facts has a lot to answer for.
Living in Georgia rn, I’m pretty confident the state won’t be seriously attempting succession in the near future. The political will simply isn’t there.
It’s interesting that the fairly small group who want (or think they want) succession are forced to share a political party with the country’s most nationalist. I suspect any serious attempt at it now would further divide the Republican party.
Add comment