A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know, BUT could the Rest of the USA just kick another state (Not necessary Texas) out? Or is this also not possible?

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    The US Constitution currently has no mechanism to break any individual State out of the Union. Throughout our history, this has been interpreted as a sign that the Union is perpetual, and not able to be dissolved. This got put to the test in our Civil War, where a bunch of states up and said “We’re Leaving” and the Federal Government said “You can’t just do that”. They fought a war over it, and the Federal Government won, proving its position correct by force.

    With that said, the US was founded as a government of the People, and so if the people want to carve out a way for States to leave, they must first establish a mechanism via amending the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) coupled with 3/4 of State Legislatures ratifying it.

    There is a provision, though, to make States out of other States. Maine and West Virginia were both formed out of land that belonged to Massachusetts and Virginia.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s laid out very explicitly in the COTUS (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1):

        New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

        The funny thing is that during the civil war, West Virginia seceded from Virginia, and Congress voted to allow it and they were accepted into the union. There are a lot of people who argue that when that happened it was unconstitutional. However, it has never been tested, as far as I know.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s a new word. We have POTUS, FLOTUS, SCOTUS and now COTUS.

        • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          That would almost imply the Confederacy had legally left the USA, and Wrst Virginia legally left the Confederacy and joined the Union. Basically you could say none of this was un constitutional if the Confederacy was not a part of the USA at the time.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I would be doing it a disservice to try and explain it myself, but there were a lot of legal theories on how they could justify WV without justifying the Confederacy leaving the union. It’s an interesting topic.

            • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Seems like it’d be easier, more honest and less “Jump through hoopy” to just say they left and we reconquered them. Unless you really don’t want think states leaving is legal when it probably is.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You’re mistaking the fact that I recognize a limitation of myself with something else.

                • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  If what I said wasn’t fairly accurate, there’d be no need for legal arguments so arcane you don’t feel capable of describing them accurately.

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    One thing I am pretty good at is recognizing blatantly bad logically fallacious arguments on the internet, such as the classic “false dichotomy.”

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You could just pass an amendment…

      But specifically for kicking a state out I don’t think the bar is that high. If the legislature and executive agreed then it could be done very quickly.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Oh, but there are all sorts of details to work out…

        • are citizens of the state no longer US citizens?
        • if so, what happens to their Social Security? Medicare? I don’t want to keep paying for those freeloaders
        • if they treat it like renouncing citizenship, they make those people pay taxes on all their assets and 401(k) holdings before leaving
        • Do armed forces members from those states now get kicked out of the US armed forces and go to the new state’s armed forces?
        • Does the new state get to take over any military bases and Federal buildings?
        • Can the rest of us build a wall on the border and make them pay for it?

        There’s a lot to iron out. The Brits got screwed with Brexit, and they weren’t even leaving a country.

        • lordnikon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          it was worse than that and even dumber the UK was a founding member and had extra perks. That other EU members didn’t get and they threw all that away. Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.

            and yet it’s still the most logical thing for them to do, security, trade and otherwise. it’ll hurt a bit, that sting is pride lol… but it’d still be the best thing for both the UK and EU.

            otherwise eventually I see Ireland unifying and Scotland going to the EU lol.

      • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        No lol your second statement is literally just wrong. The only way to do anything like this would be through an Amendment, which equated to literally changing the rules bc the current rules do not allow for it.

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        “Just” passing an amendment requires more than 75% of states to ratify the amendment. So even if all of Congress decided nuts to Delaware, we’re moving them out, it would still go to the state of legislatures to be formalized

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Oh no the amendment is for if a state wants to leave. Since there’s no standard around kicking a state out at all, it defaults to 50+1 votes in Congress and a President willing to enforce it

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I expect at the very least you’d also need scotus to agree, though if legislative and executive are both willing to ignore them then …profit?

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yeah that’s the checks and balances. SCOTUS literally has no power without Congress or the President.

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yeah, but it wouldn’t be “legal” unless scotus agreed it was, even if it happened anyway.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No. SCOTUS does not have to agree to everything. In fact there’s no Constitutional power for them to take a law up for review without a case. They gave themselves that power.

                  • Jojo@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I find it implausible there would be no challenge, so scotus would have to agree either passively by refusing to take the case or actively by taking it in order for its legality to be settled.

    • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Eh. They just leave. Not being prohibited to do so isn’t the same as not being allowed to, that’s why they had a war last time. There is a very strong argument that Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal, he just wasn’t philosophically wrong and also won.