Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.
Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group. Superior strength does not prove morality or legality as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White "proved" that secession is unconstitutional. Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to "re-admit" Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be "re-admitted" and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.
Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.
One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the 'readmission' of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. White...it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
Because of this, if state's rights proponents continue to argue that a state's right to secede is implied because they joined the union as 'independent states', a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution. Membership in a union does not dimish in importance or totality a state's sovereignity. That's the whole point of federalism. However, it does imply relinquishing some power to the national government. Indeed, federalism is 'shared' power, but it is not 'equal' power, at least in the example of the US. Clearly national dominance was designed into the structure of the Constitution.
That's incorrect. The act in question, shown here, is titled "An Act to Admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States". It says nothing about admitting Texas, indeed it refers to it as the State of Texas in the document. It is not an enabling act admitting an actual state. Such an act was not necessary because neither Texas nor any other rebellious state had never ceased to be a state. As Chief Justice Chase noted in the Texas v White decision.
Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.
So were California and Vermont. But their admission to the Union did not grant them privileges not allowed other states. All states have the same rights and the same restrictions as every other state. Even the original 13.
Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group.
It was not the outcome of the rebellion that decided the question of secession but the Supreme Court in the Texas v. White decision. And the court did not say secession was illegal, only secession without the consent of the other states.
Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.
No, it will depend on law. Specifically the Constitution.
One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the 'readmission' of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. White...it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
Can you please point me to the post-rebellion act of Congress that specifically states that it was admitting Texas, or any other Southern state, to the Union? In every case, it was returning their delegates to Congress. Again, no such readmission was necessary because none of the states were ever out of the Union.
Because of this, if state's rights proponents continue to argue that a state's right to secede is implied because they joined the union as 'independent states', a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution.
With the exception of the original 13, no state 'joined' the Union. They were admitted with the consent of the other states.