• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do States have the right to secede?

awaken

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
7,586
Reaction score
657
Location
Down Yonder
Given the anniversary today and talk around here of CA and TX independence on other threads, I ask The Pit to discuss.
 
Sure why not but I think back in the day maybe it seemed feasible when you walked everywhere and it took days to travel. The fluidity between states seems like a big problem, i think for the majority of people they think country first states second, when it wasn't like that 200 years ago. Federal funding cut, protection, etc... so many people would up and leave the state I just don't think its possible now, but I guess they could try.
 
they have the right to, but I see no conceivable way that they'd be able to have enough tax base and have the funds to be able to 1) import things from the US 2) provide basic services for their citizens.
 
I find it impractical (to say the least) that any of the states would have agreed to consent at the time if they thought they wouldn't have the right to back out at a later date.

I think Scalia's retort was not grounded in much thought, but was rather just a polite reply, and kind of a funny one to boot (the part about him not imagining how a state would sue to bring the issue to the SCOTUS in the first place seemed like classic Scalia to me).

Unlike the issue of slavery, which was most certainly resolved in the aftermath of the Civil War with a Constitutional amendment (and not by the Emancipation Proclamation, which carried little legal weight), the right to secede has never been addressed in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
they have the right to, but I see no conceivable way that they'd be able to have enough tax base and have the funds to be able to 1) import things from the US 2) provide basic services for their citizens.

In the case of Texas, who needs to import from the US when you can import from China, Mexico and South America? And Texas' economy is something like the 10th-15th largest in the world when compared to other countries over the last 5-6 years. From a size and population standpoint, it's as big or bigger than many other independent nations. You could drive through multiple countries in parts of Europe in the time it would take you just to drive across Texas.

I've also read that it exports more on a $$ basis than any other State in the Union, meaning that even if independent, the US would still probably need to import goods from Texas.

With Texas's economy is already as large as it is, imagine if what is now "federal" tax of Texas individuals and businesses never left Texas. They don't currently have a State income tax and their State gov't still manages to take care of it's people.
 
I'd say that they do, but I'd also say that the Union has the right to try to stop them.

Wait...what?
 
TX has about 55% of the GDP of CA

List of U.S. states by GDP in 2010[1] States GDP
($Millions) rank percentage of
national GDP
USA 14,657,800 100

California 1,936,400 1 13.34

Texas 1,153,100 2 7.95

New York 1,114,000 3 7.68
 
Texas should secede. Then they can pay to build their own damn wall and stop asking us to do it. I also propose that we build a wall around the eastern, northern, and western borders of Texas so they can't bother us anymore.
 
TX has about 55% of the GDP of CA

List of U.S. states by GDP in 2010[1] States GDP
($Millions) rank percentage of
national GDP
USA 14,657,800 100

California 1,936,400 1 13.34

Texas 1,153,100 2 7.95

New York 1,114,000 3 7.68

Which is pretty much in line with their positions as most populous US states...

Cali 11.91
Texas 8.04
NY 6.19

Texas is brought down somewhat by the long border with Mexico (reduced income areas) and the lack of overpriced cost of living in such places like NYC, LA, SF, etc... Dallas, Houston, and SA are not expensive places to live in at all. Austin is probably the worst, and it doesn't approach any of the expensive areas like NYC or LA.

But they also have the resources AND the lack of political restrictions and tax restrictions to be more self-sustaining in the long run than either of those two states.

Moot point, however, since it's not gonna happen.
 
Only if the other states agree to let them leave. Otherwise they are breaking a contract. Lincoln was right on this.

Sailor, Could you elaborate on this point? I have never heard this argument and find the principle fascinating. Thanks
 
Lincoln did it better than I could. In a nutshell, in a democracy everybody ends up in the minority on this or that issue from time to time. If everybody left when they ended up in the minority on some issue they thought important, then eventually there would be no one left and no democracy. Lincoln elaborated on this point in many speeches, and it's obviously more complicated than this. But during the Gettysburg Address he put it most eloquently in his explanation for why the United States was fighting the Civil War, "... and that government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth."
 
List of U.S. states by GDP in 2010[1] States GDP
($Millions) rank percentage of
national GDP
USA 14,657,800 100

California 1,936,400 1 13.34

Texas 1,153,100 2 7.95

New York 1,114,000 3 7.68

Which is pretty much in line with their positions as most populous US states...

Cali 11.91
Texas 8.04
NY 6.19


CA and NY outproduce their populations fairly dramatically. TX barely holds it own.
 
A few states would be able to make the transition quite well and may be better off for it.

While people have mentioned Texas, California, New York...all larger state economies... I actually think some of the smaller states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont) would be able to pull it off easier.

Any states that rely heavily on federal gov't funding (agriculture comes to mind) would be in trouble.
 
I'm not sure about RI. The others make sense.

CA would be the easiest because of the size of the economy and the windfall it would receive by not supporting other states.
 
Florida could pull it off as well, although it would fracture shortly after. Here, the North's the South, the South's the North and Miami-Dade's Latin America.
 
FL might have a chance as it is right at getting back only about $.97-1.02 for every dollar it sends to DC. however they are only 38th in per capita inclime.
 
Kind of interesting how a question about the right of states to secede has taken off in the direction of vague speculations about whether or not any state could economically afford to secede.
 
Kind of interesting how a question about the right of states to secede has taken off in the direction of vague speculations about whether or not any state could economically afford to secede.

True.

Yes, I do believe states have the right to secede. The constitution does not deny states the right to do so... Article 4 section 3 denies the right for several states to form a new state w/o congress consent if I am interpreting it correctly.

Is it practical? No, but it would be an interesting experiment and could point out the fallacies of a large federal gov't that does not work in the best interest of the states.
 
Back
Top