I was just reading how Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is calling on Obama and the Republican Party to get moving to the right, and to stop bowing to pressure from the Left.
Start moving to the right? We’re already so far to the right that I imagine that President Eisenhower’s whirling corpse could supply ample power to light the Eastern Seaboard.
Bowing to pressure from the Left? I think that my imaginary Skittles-pooping unicorn has had more affect on Obama and Congress than has “the Left”.
Perhaps it’s time to frankly acknowledge that we have a perfect disconnect, the the Union is irretrievably broken.
As I see it, a fundamental problem in this country is that states like Texas, who elect crazy people to national office, have a great say in our country’s policies. If I recall correctly, in the past Perry has threatened to lead his state to secede from the US. Frankly, that might be best for all parties – Texas can become what it wants to be (presumably Somalia), while the rest of us would be more free to pursue policies that have been demonstrated to result in good outcomes.
Alternatively, the sane states might cleave off and form our own country. Mass is larger than Norway, and New England in total is larger than Sweden or Denmark, about the same size as the Netherlands. We could have a very nice progressive state here and enjoy the economic advantages of NAFTA without being chronically derailed by people who hate science, facts, and other consequences of The Enlightenment.
Sorry for the long-winded set up. So here’s my question for the out-of-the-box-thinking legal minds at BMG: How can a state secede? I realize that things did not go well the last time this was attempted, but likewise some divorces are amicable and some are not. Is there any mechanism for amicable divorce between the two Americas?
dont-get-cute says
try and try again?
tedf says
I assume you’re kidding, but just in case, here’s some vintage Lincoln to restore you to clear thinking:
mannygoldstein says
because nobody takes it seriously, but it seems reasonable to me. How can we deal with people who remove Thomas Jefferson from their state school curriculum because he coined the phrase “separation between church and state.”?
I think that we’d be better off separated, but I welcome any arguments to the contrary. I do suspect that I’m missing something basic here, but I don’t know what it is.
Thanks for Lincoln’s arguments, very good find – seems to indicate that a state can’t secede “upon its own mere motion”, but should be able to arrive at a bilateral agreement (or possibly get kicked out?)
dont-get-cute says
Certainly the US could do whatever it wants with Texas. It could sell it to Mexico, or kick it out. I have argued that the US could divide California into two states, and merge New England into one state, without needing any permission from the state governments in question, which it could reconstitute at will like it did after the Civil War. Granted, those states had seceded, but not seceding doesn’t change anything about a state’s existence as a state, indeed not seceding means acknowledging the country’s sovereignty over you and your utter dependence on the sovereign supreme government. Disagreeing with that is seceding, which means losing the protections of the US, so it’s like a catch 22. A state is free to govern itself as long as it accepts that it isn’t free to govern itself.
As to the citizens residing in the states, we all are American citizens, so I think we have a right to remain so and not find ourselves stripped of US citizenship just because we live in a jurisdiction that our country sells or loses to another country, or that claims independence. But that sort of thing has happened many times before in wars when territory is taken, and may have happened after the Civil War too – did anyone lose their US citizenship as a result of the Civil War? I guess it depends on if you take up arms or act in sedition.
David says
That’s not correct. See daves’s quote below from the Constitution, which specifically protects states from what you describe happening against their will.
dont-get-cute says
OK, that was new to me, or forgotten. But how hard is it to reconstruct a state’s legislature like was done during Reconstruction? Or short of that, how hard is it to make a legislature consent, like by saying “consent, or else!”
howlandlewnatick says
I believe that worked for Saipan to become a US territory. Why not for a state to exit the Union?
A plebiscite would provide some protection from politicians going on a lark to the exit door to feather their own nests. Give the population a say. A voting populace would bring in more self-interest.
In the case of Texas, I doubt it would secede. Too much federal dollars in the military/industrial complex going there. The State of Texas would have to sever the federal bucks, close bases, do nation stuff like diplomacy and its own military, which costs money. For what? The civil rights problems in Texas rival those of the federal administration as does state and local corruption.
Sometimes fixing a problem is better than starting over. That requires leadership.
“A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under. “ —Sam Houston
Christopher says
…at least according to international law. I believe that there is an implied constitutional opposition to secession based on the fact that the Constitution addresses the adding of states, and the division of states, but not secession.
dont-get-cute says
leaving a gaping hole in our penile system
sabutai says
It’s easy to secede…just declare secession from the national government. The hard part is having anyone, particularly the powerful countries and your “mother” country recognize it.
daves says
The Constitution says:
Nothing is stated about states seceding. I don’t think its allowed. Ironically, Rick Perry of Texas is the governor most likely to talk about seceding. He’s not any happier than you are.
Peter Porcupine says
IIRC, if the state of Oklahoma impeaches one more Governor, it reverts to being a territory and must apply for readmission – they’ve impeached five and removed two by convicting them. Some say the arrest of former Gov. Hall three days after his term ended was because they didn’t want to proceed and invalidate statehood while he was in office.
Are there other later-admitted states that might revert to territory status as well?
Christopher says
It seems rather odd that a state’s continued status as a state is contingent on any political circumstances that may arise during statehood.
dont-get-cute says
it might be different from state to state. Were they admitted under different laws and conditions? I’ve heard Utah was admitted under the condition they outlaw polygamy, so would they secede by legalizing polygamy? Were they even “Utah” before they were a state? Is it true that if you don’t look at a state weird, they won’t recognize you as a threat and you can just walk around them?
Christopher says
It was originally called Deseret and the Mormons drew it to comprise a chunk of the southwest larger than the state of Texas. You’re correct about the polygamy condition, but I don’t think they could be kicked out for legalizing it now. Probably a moot point now as mainstream LDS no longer supports it.
David says
Happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think there’s any anti-statehood mechanism like the one you describe.
shillelaghlaw says
I suppose there could be a Constitutional amendment that would set up a process for secession.
From a practical standpoint, one would hope that any such process would make a state’s secession contigent upon that state assuming a proportional share of the national debt. Then again it would be kind of funny if the other 49 states seceded and left Texas as the sole remaining United State and on the hook for $14 trillion….
mollypat says
As someone who seriously researched Canadian citizenship after the 2004 election, I am actually intrigued by this idea. It’s funny to me that folks are responding in terms of what a state “can” or “cannot” do. As stated above by sabutai, an individual or group acting in concert can do anything, it’s living with the consequences of your actions that’s the kicker.
That being said, I am weary of the national dialogue being dragged to the right and would really love to watch those dragging it there having to live out the consequences of their rhetoric. I would also love to live out the consequences of my own rhetoric. Operating outside of the rule book is looking more and more like the best option.
mannygoldstein says
I’m not seeing why this would be a bad thing. Seems like we’d end up with something like Canada, which would be great.