Show me in the Constitution where it states that a State cannot secede.
14th Amendment
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....
Any Texas claim of secession would terminate the privileges and immunities of all citizens of the United States resident in Texas.
Texas Constitution 1868
Article IBill of Rights
That the heresies of nullification and secession, which brought the country to grief, may be eliminated from future political discussion....
I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here.
“14th Amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....”
What law would a seceding state be making or enforcing WITHIN THE UNITED STATES — by secession? None. “Making” and “enforcing” are both active actions (i.e., they are acting UPON someone or something). Thus, the active qualifiers of MAKING a law or ENFORCING a law necessarily mean WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. The seceded state is not doing that, because the seceded state is no longer part of the U.S., and therefore is neither making nor enforcing a law within the U.S.
To paraphrase an old 1960s trope, the seceding state is saying to the U.S., “You go your way, and we’ll go ours.”
“Any Texas claim of secession would terminate the privileges and immunities of all citizens of the United States resident in Texas.”
No, it wouldn’t, as U.S. citizens would still have all the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens while they are within the United States, and would still retain those rights and immunities within the seceded state (which would be its own country or would have allowed itself to be annexed by another), but subject to the laws of the seceded state or the country to which it has become annexed, just as U.S. citizens on foreign soil have always been subject.
“Texas Constitution 1868: Article I, Bill of Rights:
That the heresies of nullification and secession, which brought the country to grief, may be eliminated from future political discussion....”
Don’t you think it would have been more appropriate if you had referenced the Texas Constitution that is in effect today, and has been since 1876 (NOT 1868)? Or, are you attempting to play fast and loose with the facts?
This is what the current Texas Constitution says:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Feb. 15, 1876.)
So, you see, the operative clause is “...subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”
That means if the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit secession, neither does the Texas Constitution.
These are interesting and entertaining debates, and I enjoy them, as they make us think (which is always desirable).
In the end, though, it would come down to what SCOTUS says; and even at that the decision of SCOTUS is only “right” until a later SCOTUS determines otherwise.
No one said a constitutional republic was pretty; but it’s the best governing system yet devised.