So nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the supposed "Texas right to secede" is actually bullshit, and a complete misunderstanding of the actual right that they have, which is to be broken up into five separate states.
Except even that is bullshit, because it was talking about the Texas Territory, which was larger than modern day Texas.
The constitution clearly says that;
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
So yes, Texas could request to be broken up, but congress still needs to okay it.
Now, as to the "right to secede", that bullshit was settled with the Civil War, States do not have the right to secede, not even Texas.
Republicans like to pretend the Civil War never happened, and want a repeat, I guess.
That's true, though to be fair most secessions are illegal and are settled by violence.
My thoughts exactly
Counterpoint: The UK isn't allowed to leave the EU. There's no mechanism.
That's not a counterpoint. The EU is not a country. The EU is an economic and financial understanding between many different countries in order to collaborate on things like currency, trade, tariffs etc. Even if the EU was a country which, I can't stress this enough, it isn't, the EU agreement has clear rules for leaving it. Unlike the US Constitution, which isn't like the EU agreement in very many ways at all.
Having no mechanism and being specifically legislated against are two different things. Brexit is the former, this sounds like the latter.
There's a difference between having no official mechanism, and having the largest military in the world knock on your door to tell you that you can't do something.
If Texas really truly tried to leave the United States, it would be war, and they would not win.
To clarify:
Even if an unambiguous majority of Texas would say "we'd like to turn Texas into an independent country", you'd rather force them to stay by force of arms?
You don't get to steal hundreds of thousands of miles of land from a country and wander off. War would happen. Would I like it? No, war is terrible.
Plus, they wouldn't survive. Let's say we didn't retake our land. The inevitable embargo would destroy them. War is war. Financial war is also kinda war.
A 5-year war wasn't fought in Europe over whether or not the UK was allowed to leave the EU.
And you can smoke pot and get abortions in texas because they’re legal in Illinois. No the US actually has been tested on whether or not states have the right to secede and the answer is no, we had a civil war over it
So nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the supposed "Texas right to secede" is actually bullshit, and a complete misunderstanding of the actual right that they have, which is to be broken up into five separate states.
Except even that is bullshit, because it was talking about the Texas Territory, which was larger than modern day Texas.
The constitution clearly says that;
So yes, Texas could request to be broken up, but congress still needs to okay it.
Now, as to the "right to secede", that bullshit was settled with the Civil War, States do not have the right to secede, not even Texas.
Republicans like to pretend the Civil War never happened, and want a repeat, I guess.
That's true, though to be fair most secessions are illegal and are settled by violence.
My thoughts exactly
Counterpoint: The UK isn't allowed to leave the EU. There's no mechanism.
That's not a counterpoint. The EU is not a country. The EU is an economic and financial understanding between many different countries in order to collaborate on things like currency, trade, tariffs etc. Even if the EU was a country which, I can't stress this enough, it isn't, the EU agreement has clear rules for leaving it. Unlike the US Constitution, which isn't like the EU agreement in very many ways at all.
Having no mechanism and being specifically legislated against are two different things. Brexit is the former, this sounds like the latter.
There's a difference between having no official mechanism, and having the largest military in the world knock on your door to tell you that you can't do something.
If Texas really truly tried to leave the United States, it would be war, and they would not win.
To clarify:
Even if an unambiguous majority of Texas would say "we'd like to turn Texas into an independent country", you'd rather force them to stay by force of arms?
You don't get to steal hundreds of thousands of miles of land from a country and wander off. War would happen. Would I like it? No, war is terrible.
Plus, they wouldn't survive. Let's say we didn't retake our land. The inevitable embargo would destroy them. War is war. Financial war is also kinda war.
Yes absolutely. Just like in the Civil War, which I am also glad we won.
A 5-year war wasn't fought in Europe over whether or not the UK was allowed to leave the EU.
And you can smoke pot and get abortions in texas because they’re legal in Illinois. No the US actually has been tested on whether or not states have the right to secede and the answer is no, we had a civil war over it