It is a dilemma. Texas isn't allowed to secede on the Federal Government's orders, but on behalf of its own constitution, it is allowed to. The Constitution says nothing about secession. The Texas vs. White decision only proved that Texas could be re-admitted after seceding. I don't want to see the flag become 49, because there IS a process for defeating tyranny, and for some reason Texans don't want to go forth with it.
As Ron Paul said, "It is very American to discuss secession, whether you support it or not."
Dear Jason,
A few comments from a lawyer turned history teacher, some of which echo prior posters' comments.
1. First, as Luigi noted, it is always good to read the primary source documents yourself. As he also noted, the Texas Constitution does not mention or authorize secession, nor did the Texas Annexation Resolution (Texas's internal decision authorizing it to join the United States).
2. Even if a state constitution did say it allowed secession, Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution contains what is known as the "Supremacy Clause" -- it says that Federal law and the U.S. Constitution take precedence over any contrary state laws. In other words, if state law says something is okay and federal law says it is not okay, it's not okay because federal law wins out.
3. The current state of federal law, from the
Texas v. White case, is that no state may "unilaterally" secede -- that means secede without the consent of the United States (I'll talk about that below). The Court in the
White case said once Texas joined the U.S., its union to the U.S. was "complete" and "indissoluble" (unable to be dissolved) without the consent of the other states, and that therefore Texas's resolution seceding from the U.S. was "absolutely null" (meaningless) under the law.
4. Under our system, the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. So if the U.S. Supreme Court says the U.S. Constitution does not allow secession, that is the law that would control over any state law saying otherwise.
5. There are two ways in which Texas or any state could be allowed to secede. First, the U.S. Supreme Court could overrule
Texas v. White and rule that the U.S. Constitution allows states, on their own, to leave the U.S. even without consent. Let's just say the prospect of such a ruling is highly unlikely. Second, there could be a Constitutional amendment giving a specific state or states in general the right to secede. That would take a 2/3 vote in Congress, and then 3/4 of the States would have to "ratify" (or agree to) the amendment. Highly unlikely, because if one state left you might see other states wanting to leave and the policymakers in the states realize that the U.S.A. as one entity is far more powerful than a collection of individual states could be, but theoretically possible. So if you want to discuss secession, probably you should be thinking in terms of the chances for a Constitutional Amendment allowing Texas to leave or states in general to secede, or a Supreme Court opinion saying that
Texas v. White is erroneous and overruled.
6. Finally, on your original point that you think there is currently tyranny in America, and therefore there is a justification for dissolving the current government, for which you quote the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, were strongly influenced by the political philosophy of John Locke. Locke's "social compact" (or "social contract") said that man submits to a government in order to protect his natural rights of life, liberty, and property. If the government acts tyranically to threaten those natural rights, the people have a "right of rebellion." So far so good.
HOWEVER, for Locke, the touchstone of whether or not there is tyranny is whether laws are passed with or without the "consent of the governed" -- which he, as an Englishman, defined as laws passed by an elected legislature. (And of course, at the time of the American Revolution, the colonies were not represented in Parliament but were still subject to laws passed by Parliament -- thus, there was no "consent of the governed" to laws passed by Parliament).
"Consent of the governed" doesn't mean that you as a citizen have to personally agree with the wisdom of every law in order for you to have to obey it. Or, in other words, Lockean theory does not mean that the group that is on the losing side of an issue passed by Parliament (or here, the U.S. Congress), gets a right of rebellion. If they can participate by electing representatives, they are subject to laws even if those laws are ones they personally don't like. Now, it is true that even Congress could pass laws that threaten certain "inalienable" natural rights -- for example, Lockean theory would not say that a law passed by Congress saying all voters who vote for the losing Presidential candidate would pay a special tax would be okay just because of the "consent of the governed." BUT, our system gives us a remedy to Congressional laws that violate our inalienable rights. We have a Supreme Court with the power to guard against the "tyranny of the majority" -- they can strike down Congressional laws which unjustly interfere with life, liberty, or property. So long as that safety valve is there, Lockean theory would basically say the "right of rebellion" would not be triggered.
This is long and boring, but I hope you take the time to read it (if you're still reading this thread). You are making some pretty emphatic statements and it is good to try to understand the nuance behind what you say and consider if the evidence is different than you believed it to be.
