Good luck, Texas. You'll quickly find that regulations are in place for a reason.
The Confederacy claimed that the US Government had broken the 'compact' that the states had agreed to in order to join the union when they abolished slavery - so their justification for secession under these dubious legal theories was called the "compact theory" -- it's no accident that after that most recent SC ruling, Texas's governor was out there saying that the US Government had broken the compact between the Federal government and the states. He then issued a series of unconstitutional orders daring the Federal government to stop him;
https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1...
It wasn't an overt threat to secede (though many in his party do make that specific threat) but it was an obvious nod to where they think this will end up if they don't get their way.
That's how secessions/federal disintegrations generally work, just look at the USSR post-1991.
And I also see this move as a potential further step towards Texas's devolution from the government in DC, who's going to stop them once they'll decide to "pass the Rubicon" for good?
Yeah, it might be, but think of it this way - if Texas said "we're independent, and all the military installations and research facilities are now ours" I have a strong suspicion the US government might say "yeah, no, that's not happening". The likes of Lockheed Martin and other major AF/Army/Navy contractors have production and research facilities in the DFW area. Texas goes independent, that's a lot of stuff in those facilities that the USA wouldn't want an openly hostile neighbor to have.
The Smithsonian claims it might be legal if Texas hews to its original agreement to break into five states if they did secede. [2] Of course the trolls are ignoring that since it doesn't appeal to anyone's pride to break up into the state of Dallas, Houston, etc. It would also undermine the alleged conservative vision for a pure red state since Texas metro areas trend purple to blue.
Texas actually breaking into five states that remain would be bitterly fought against since it would dramatically raise the number of House and Senate seats and shift the balance of power.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-...
Legal implies some authority over both parties, that they have agreed to some common rules.
If you are succeeding, you are no longer bound by the laws of the original country, you are your own country with own laws. And then you can just make some new laws to make it 'legal'.
North Austin, East Austin, South Austin, West Austin, and Greater Texas.
Texas independence can't come soon enough!
I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, I'm just curious to how much that actually messes with the numbers, and moreover I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back.
Federal money doesn't grow on a tree in D.C.--it comes from taxpayers in the several states! So while it's true that the Federal government would stop paying for these things, it's also true that Texans would stop paying Federal taxes. With this in mind, it's clear that Texas could easily afford to assume any and all federal obligations by replacing federal taxes with their own equivalent taxes.
I've heard it said that Texas is a net recipient of Federal dollars, but only by 1-2%. Given that Texans will likely want a signaficantly smaller government, this can easily be covered via spending cuts.
> I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back.
Texans are subject to federal law, which is regularly dicated to us by people from thousands of miles away, with whom we have little in common. If that's not being 'held back', what is?
Sure, I'm not saying it's impossible, what I'm taking potential issue how accurate the numbers you provided are since it's possible that the reason that Texas has such a successful economy is because they're not directly paying for everything.
I could be wrong, I'm not asserting anything, I'm just pointing out a potential confounding variable.
> Texans are subject to federal law, which is regularly dicated to us by people from thousands of miles away, with whom we have little in common. If that's not being 'held back', what is?
That's true of literally every state, so it's really not a Texas-specific problem.
Which specific federal laws do you think are hindering Texas, outside of some vague notion that people in New York and DC "have little in common with you"? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm actually curious, but this always seems like a sticking point that would come up when I lived in Texas and people would talk about the virtues of secession.
I guess you could argue "gun laws", but even with that the US federal government offers considerable leeway to the states to handle that already.
It's not clear to me what you're saying here. What aren't we paying for?
> That's true of literally every state, so it's really not a Texas-specific problem.
It's not only true of every state, it's generally true of every breakaway region ever, in all of history! This commonality isn't an argument against Texas secession, it's an argument for local governance.
> Which specific federal laws do you think are hindering Texas, outside of some vague notion that people in New York and DC "have little in common with you"?
Things that are hindering Texas: > The sheer size of the federal union. It waters down our representation, reduces the feasibility of grassroots movements, and increases the power of mass media at the expense of the people. > All laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment. > All laws (or lack thereof) which permit government to infringe on the 1st amendment, or encourage private institutions to do the same. > All laws that empower the Feds to infringe on the 4th amendment (Patriot Act, etc), or to circumvent it (by buying data to spy on citizens without a warrant). > Federal control of our border, which they refuse to protect and which is irrevocably changing Texas demographics and politics, against the will of Texans. > The federal tax code, which is as much a progressive welfare program (see "refundable tax credits") as a revenue stream. > The federal bureaucracy in general, which is designed to provide jobs rather than serve the citizenry. > All laws which the Feds use to force state action, on threat of withholding state money (see Medicaid expansion, drinking age laws, etc). By withholding our own tax dollars as leverage, the Feds are, by definition, acting against state interests. > The high level of funding of the US military, which provides negligible benefit (beyond policing the seas), constantly gets us dragged into conflicts around the world and heightens the risk of WWIII. > The huge, ungainly, esoteric body of petty laws, which drive up the cost of business while adding negligible value, if any.
The biggest issue of of all is that Texans no longer have faith in the ability of the Constitution to constrain the power of the Federal government. We no longer see the federal government as the guarantor of our natural human rights. We see it as the single greatest threat to them.
> China and Russia dream of this happening.
Here I was thinking that Texans should strive for a government that best represents their values and protects the liberties they care about. Thank you for reminding me about what really matters--standing up to our common enemy--Eastsasia! Or was it Oceania?