Secession at pleasure is not constitutional. I would recommend against starting a war with a nuclear power. To get a constitutional secession you need 3/4s of the states for a constitutional amendment, or perhaps 2/3rds of the Senate and the President to sign via a treaty. If you can muster those kinds of electoral support why can’t you get the other legislation you want?
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.
Why does secession start a war? No one is going to nuke us.Texas would have control over the nukes that are here, anyway.
People are not slaves. They can enter and leave treaties whenever they want. The Preamble and the Introduction of the US Declaration of Independence explain all that. The US Constitition is not a suicide pact; if some participants of that compact are not fulfilling their obligations then other members have no duty to the compact either.
If you can muster those kinds of electoral support why can’t you get the other legislation you want?
If 100% of population of some state vote against a candidate he still can be elected to be their President. If 100% of Congressmen of some state vote against some legislation it still can be adopted and used against the state. If a President wants to punish the state for offenses real or imaginary (see Arizona) he can do it - and he did it.
The union exists only until its advantages exceed the disadvantages. USSR was stable for 80 years and fell apart overnight - when the federal binds became too thin. Republics detached themselves from the union because the union was not beneficial to them anymore. Rulers from the center were unable and unwilling to listen to the people. Laws were made that went against the grain of local people, against their interests. Finally, local rulers emerged who promised to be better rulers than the remote ones.
Texas may depend on other states' economy. However if that economy continues to deteriorate that benefit will be gone. Instead there will be shackles of supporting "useless eaters" - recipients of social benefits in other states. The contrast will be particularly great between oil-owning, agricultural states and formerly industrial states. The union can be replaced with specific treaties (mostly of mutual defense.) The current US Army is not defending the borders of the country anyway. Israel-like approach to forming an army, along with volunteers, will reduce the cross-border traffic down to zero within a week.
States of the USA are mostly larger than an average country in Europe. They are rich and they have people who are willing to work - as long as the government does not confiscate fruits of their labor. The population is armed better than Switzerland. I'm surprised that separatist movements haven't yet started. Elsewhere in the world they are a common occurrence - often because central rulers get too used to their seats of power and start ruling imperially, like kings.
This has been Michael Medved’s argument for the last few years. And, it makes sense.
But, sometimes, there’s just the appeal, of cold steel.
So what you are saying is the we as citizens of individual states have to stay in the USA under threat of nuclear decimation. Even the USSR was less bellicose. Thuggery. You are a punk statist tool.
I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.
I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.