Ron Paul: Secession is American

[47of74]

Source: CNN

Kiran Chetry: How serious is this secession talk?

Ron Paul: I don’t think it’s very serious. I don’t think anybody called for secession, and I don’t think the governor called for it. But he brings up an important issue. The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous and this was un-American. But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore. I argue that if you had the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs and to me that would be very good.

We as a nation have endorsed secession all along. Think of all of the secession of the countries and the republics from the Soviet system. We were delighted. We love it. And yet we get hysterical over this just because people want to debate and defend the principle of secession, that doesn’t mean they’re calling for secession. I think it’s that restraining element of secession that would keep the federal government from doing so much. In our early history, they accepted the principles of secession all along.

Read more: http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/ron-paul-secession-is-american/

---

Another right winger throwing fuel on the fire. And what does he think will happen if Texas does break away? It would probably tumble to third world country overnight.

[Puzzler]

1. Can you imagine the media "outrage" if a Democrat had said the same thing?

.

[47of74]

6. Probably every empty headed right wing talker out there...

...would be calling it treason and un-American.

[Puzzler]

9. Absolutely they would... without a doubt.

.

[damntexdem]

74. Well, why shouldn't they? After all, it is.

Even when Wrong Paul says it.

[Deja Q]

49. "Love it or leave it!"; that's what they kept saying to everyone else.

Maybe they'll take *'s debt with them.

[ixion]

2. I think he makes a good point, to wit:

We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore. I argue that if you had the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs and to me that would be very good.

Like it or not, it's a valid argument. And I believe there is truth to the idea that if a state had the power to secede, the Fed would back off.

[No Elephants]

5. No, it is not a valid argument. The individual American colonies were not to England as

the individual States are to the United States. Any resemblance is purely superficial and misleading. He's pretending apples are just like oranges. They're not.

If the government of the United States agrees to the secession, no problem. Parties can agree to anything. However, if the secession is a rebellious one, it is an insurrection. If you read the Constitution, you will see that the Framers did not think insurrection was an All American activity.

Paul is full of it.

[ixion]

7. nope, not true... the 'united states' are just that: united

which means that there is a condition in which they are not united. United implies a group of individual segments acting in accord. It doesn't NOT imply this mutual cooperation is exclusive or immutable.

So yeah, it is.

[No Elephants]

14. Sorry, no. The Constitution re: insurrection proves Paul is full of it.

If secession without the consent of the central government is so "American," why does the Constitution of the United States treat it like a heinous crime?

BTW, "immutable is not an issue. I said in my prior post that they could secede with the consent of the United States. I never said it was not immutable. Consent vs. insurrection is the issue.

However, your claim that "united" as used in the United States implies some sort of temporary status is something that you seem to have made up.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Texas vs. White

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

If you read a little further on, there is some allusion to the possibility that the Congress could possibly dissolve the inclusion of a State in the Union, and that the other States would have to ratify it. Pretty much an insurmountable bar.

[No Elephants]

63. Thank you.

[Alexander]

16. Please tell me which US law allows for states to secede.

Hint: No such law exists, and our government has already taken the position that it will use force if necessary to prevent the secession of any state.

And, as we've seen, that's not a fight that secessionists will ever win.

[zipplewrath]

17. Founding documents don't support that conclusion

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for departure from the US without the cooperation of the other states. And subsequent amendments only harden this condition. States cannot act sovereignly except in areas in which they have such powers. They are otherwise subject to the decisions of the other states. A state could leave, but only with the agreement of the other states. The amendment process makes it clear that states are subject to the judgement of the other states. There is no "opt out" clause.

[No Elephants]

23. The insurrection clause of the COTUS clearly shows the Framers did not

think unilateral decisions by states about secession were "American." And the Framers wrote right after the Revolution. Paul is full of it on that issue.

[Baby Snooks]

Let's put it to a vote then...

How many vote for Texas to "take it elsewhere?"

[damntexdem]

76. Uh, some of us in Texas might possibly have a problem with that.

And we sure don't want to be marooned with the likes of Goodhair Perry and Wrong Paul.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. How about this then: It is ILLEGAL. Paul being from Texas, his state

has the right to divide itself up to 5 parts if they so chose, but they have NO right to secede from the United States. They even tried to war over it - and lost.

"But between the Texas Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the Joint Resolution Annexing Texas to the United States of 1845, there is no explicit right for the state to return to its days as a Republic, said Sanford Levinson, a professor at the School of Law at University of Texas-Austin.

“We actually fought a war over this issue, and there is no possibility whatsoever that the United States or any court would recognize a “right” to secede,” Levinson wrote in an e-mail.

The 1845 resolution does allow for the Texas to divide itself into five new states..."

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2009/04/16/could_texas_secede_scholar_say.html

That said, if Texas Rushpublicans believe they can gain three additional Senators in the U.S. Congress by this act, then how would they like California following their example and trumping them with twice as many Senators making that act irrelevant?

It's a lose-lose position to take.

Didn't know Texans were such huge cry babies and sore losers. Thought they were tougher than that.

[JayMusgrove]

90. This basically puts the final nails in the Ron Paul coffin, as

for as his national political career is concerned.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. The condition where they are not united is when they are in a condition of

insurrection.

We settled this crap in 1865.

[Alexander]

8. We settled this already. It's called the Civil War.

:eyes:

[ixion]

10. you think that's singular?

it's not.

[Alexander]

11. By all means, try to get your state to secede and see what happens.

You think that's possible?

It's not.

[No Elephants]

18. Civil War is not singular? United States means temporarily? LOL, what dictionary are you using?

[Alexander]

19. Apparently he thinks he's in the Confederacy or something.

Because he is definitely ignorant of the laws of the United States.

[No Elephants]

35. The full name of the Articles of Conferation included the words "perpetual union." Pretty much

blows the United States implies "temporary' union argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

[Alexander]

61. Notice how quickly ixion disappeared once we all shot down his "argument".

:rofl:

[dionysus]

75. ..

:rofl:

[crankmob]

31. ..that sweet spot where the government fears it's people

I think it's a valid argument as well.

[unpossibles]

39. Except it's not really

The sweet spot is not the government fearing the people any more than the people fearing the government. The sweet spot, as mentioned in our founding documents, is the government being the people and the people being the government.

Instead of blaming federalism, maybe we should all try to be more politically active, aware, and stop repeating falsehoods perpetuated by the likes of Ronald Reagan.

[crankmob]

44. What if the establishment no longer allows the "people" to be the government?

[unpossibles]

47. well, that is still the fault of the people, imo

the first response should always be to try to fix it using the rules we have set in place, right? Failing that, there is also the attempt to change the rules. Violence and/or secession is the last resort and should be, and that includes the need for "fear" which is just potential violence.

What we need is to step up and take responsibility for the government and BE the government. Not small or big government, but smart government by us, the way it was intended.

[crankmob]

58. Working within the system has failed for over 30 years..

step up and take responsibility for the government and BE the government?

Do you really think that the current ruling class is just going to hand over the power and control they've been acquiring for decades? Every taxpayer in this country was just robbed blind by parasites that contribute NOTHING to society. The constitution has been shredded, we're being spied on, conditioned, poisoned by pharmaceutical companies, etc.. this list could go on forever.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Einstein

[unpossibles]

59. "Every taxpayer in this country was just robbed blind by parasites that contribute NOTHING..."

teabagger fail?

Who are you referring to with your hyperbole?

[crankmob]

62. So everyone that's concerned about banks gambling away tax dollars w/o oversight is a teabagger?

sounds like you're more interested in assigning labels to people you know nothing about than actually addressing the issue.

boring..

[unpossibles]

65. no, I just was not sure to which group you were assigning your label

your rhetoric sounded a LOT like the people who complain about "welfare queens" - I just wanted you to clarify.

If it helps, I don't completely disagree with you, although I also don't totally agree.

[riverdeep]

87. I think the poster was talking about banks and CEO's and the like

when they referred to parasites. I'm pissed about that too, I'm no teabagger.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Then the people may rise up and change the government -

not secede from it.

[No Elephants]

64. IMO, that ship sailed and continues to sail, in all but a technical sense. We get to vote,

but the outcome of elections is decided by things like corporate campaign contributions, voter fraud, partisan judges, etc. The Democrats and the Republicans combined to make sure a third party candidate does not have a serious shot and that Presidential debates are more show business than anything else.

Yes, I still dress up and go to the polls every two years. I'm old fashioned. I even make contributions. However, I am thinking of dropping contributions to the Party and contributing only to things like the ACLU, the HRC and things like that. Maybe PBS, if it can stay clear of Republican/corporate bias. It has not been doing as good a job of that in the last four to six years as it once did, though.

Anyhoo, I think government of the people is dying.

[Telly Savalas]

85. Then it's dysfunctional.

And if "the establishment", whatever that is, holds that kind of power, then the government would have no reason to fear the people, which is also a dysfunctional situation.

[aquart]

37. Let me know when we were considered part of the United Kingdom.

[SOS]

91. And could Mr. Paul explain the "secession" of former Soviet Republics?

These fact-free right-wingers are quite amusing.

[baldguy]

3. He supports America so much, he wants to leave it!

No Ron, secession is un-American. It has never been acceptable. We fought a war over it & the secessionists lost.

[subsuelo]

4. Leaving America is American?

:crazy:

[Moonwalk]

24. Leaving British Rule was American. However, Abe Lincoln pointed out quite rightly that--

--The United States is the UNITED States. It's "unAmerican" to un-unite the states. And if one state is allowed to do it, all can do it, and suddenly you don't have the "United States." You don't have "America." Hence, it's un-American.

As for the comparison, I completely agree. Apples and Oranges. Unlike the situation between America and England, States *DO* have rights and a good deal of autonomy. Such rights were created so that they wouldn't have to leave the Union as America felt it had to leave England because Americans were unable to make their own laws and decisions about their colonies. Likewise, democratically electing the leader of the U.S. was created for that reason as well. You're not, as with America and England, forced to be under a ruler who no one elected and who doesn't have to listen to your grievances because he's on the throne till he dies whether the people like it or not.

So, sorry, no, saying that "leaving America is just like America leaving Britain and therefore American" argument fails to hold water.

[Oregone]

12. Secession is only acceptable if a nation doesn't believe it needs to control the state

For example, many people *here* think it would be positive if Oregon or Maine seceded. The result, in many people's view, would be socialist utopias free from the corrupt capitalistic chains of America. But in the case of Texas, who knows how they would handle civil rights and promote the development of their people.

But the strange thing to think of is, to the collective nation as a whole, whatever state that would try to secede would not be trusted to rule its own (its a fundamental component to perpetual unification). So one must ask, is it always important to stop and ask the nation what they think? Is their view irrelevant to the government and people of the state? For the most part, it really is.

So why people here trash and tarnish the reason behind the movement in Texas, well, your opinion is insanely irrelevant to them. After all, its you they want to leave.

I really have no qualms with secession at all. The only unfortunate aspect to it, is how do you prevent a former state being ruled by the Texas Taliban? It is a big problem.

[No Elephants]

21. The issue is not whether you have a problem with secession. Or whether Texans care

about our opinion. The issue framed by Paul is whether secession is "American." The Constitution says Paul is full of it on that issue.

[riverdeep]

88. You do understand the totality of effect of seccession, right?

It's no small thing. In effect, we'd have another nation to contend with in our immediate vicinity. Texas would no longer get the benefit of our national defense. If Al Qaeda wants to come into Texas and start blowing stuff up, they don't get to call up for the military, they'd have to use whatever they could muster with their own national budget. The Hurricane of Galveston would have bankrupted them. We'd have to rewrite our trade policies with them, international agreements, currency would have to be changed, etc. Not to mention that an immense amount of land would suddenly no longer be part of the United States. These kinds of decisions don't just get to be made by that particular state alone since it affects every other in some way.

There's a place in my heart where I would love to see Texas leave and take their Bible thumping nonsense with them, but it's highly unrealistic.

[boomerbust]

13. Silly Little Rebels

[The2ndWheel]

15. I don't see why it shouldn't be an option free from military involvement

It's just like a divorce. Why do we force 300,000,000 people to live together? What does it being American or un-American have to do with anything? I thought thought wasn't supposed to be based on where you happened to be born? Who gives a shit if it's American or un-American. America wouldn't exist without genocide and slavery. Does that make genocide and slavery American?

[zipplewrath]

20. Lovely notion

But extremely problematic from a practical/pragmatic point of view. Huge issues of ownership, citizenship, debt, and international commitments. A state wants to leave, they'll have to negotiate it with the other states. It's how they get in, it's how they get out.

[The2ndWheel]

36. Yeah, we live in the on-going culmination of thousands of years of history, complexity, and momentum

"Huge issues of ownership, citizenship, debt, and international commitments."

With less say in, and with fewer alternatives to, the dominant way of life.

[No Elephants]

25. The laws of your state provide for divorce. They did not always do so, but they do now. The laws

of your nation do not provide for secession without consent of the central government. They can, but it would take a Constitutional amendment. If you believe in the rule of law, you go for it that way, not via bs about unilateral secessions being quintessentially "American."

[razors edge]

42. "rule of law"

Now there is a quaint and nearly forgotten notion that was never followed by the snake oil salesmen who sold it in order to obtain their nefarious goals.

Best I can tell, Bush was right about one thing, the Constitution is nothing but a god damned piece of paper. Until our rights are more than mere privileges to be taken away at some politician's whim, the social contract has been abandoned.

The United States Constitution has no more legal standing than some Egyptian hieroglyph. Your mileage may vary.

[No Elephants]

66. Gawd! If you're going to be that cynical...come sit by me.

[razors edge]

82. I didn't start here,

but I can't find a comfortable seat any place else.

I got popcorn and beer, no need to loose our civility after all.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :toast:

[The2ndWheel]

43. "They did not always do so"

Exactly. All our laws are written by particular humans, in particular places, and in particular times, so they're fairly arbitrary, and it all comes down to your particular point of view, in your particular place, and in your particular time.

No wonder we're all a little crazy.

[No Elephants]

67. I resent your implying that I am a little crazy.

I have never been one to stint!

Go big or go home is my motto!

:rofl:

[Dappleganger]

22. Lincoln would tell Ron Paul and Gov. Perry to get bent. nt

[No Elephants]

27. Maybe Lincoln would have consented in Perry's case. No law says the

central government HAS to object to secession.

Some here think Lincoln should have consented the first time. I used to disagree, but I am becoming less certain of my ground.

[twitomy]

26. Someone show me in the Consitution where it says

a state CAN secede, or where it says a state CANT secede. It seems silent on the issue to me.

The Civil War did solve the issue if one believes might makes right.

Let Texas go and take all the wingnuts with 'em

[No Elephants]

30. No, it is not silent on the issue. Look at what it says about insurrection. Lincoln

fought the Civil War for a reason. See also, post # 35.

[Fearless]

28. HEAR THAT DU'ers??? He's a fucking nut job... just like I've been saying for FIVE YEARS.

...Just had to get that off my chest.

Peace,
Fearless

:kick:

[riverdeep]

89. Ron Paul was liked primarily because of his views on Iraq.

I think that's what attracted people to him from here. A little digging on him told me there was something seriously wrong with this guy. The big one was his take on abortion. He's against abortion and believes that's somehow Libertarian. That requires so much mental juggling that it looks pathetic.

[SkyDaddy7]

32. I wish Andrew Jackson was here!!

I stand with "OLD HICKORY" when it comes to cry baby states who threaten secession!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. Ron Paul is a wack-a-doodle.

That is all.

[pattmarty]

34. Did you ever drive thru Texas??? A good part of the state IS THIRD WORLD.

[boomerbust]

38. Secession becomes an issue

Only when we elect a Yankee President. Now we have an African American Yankee President. Delicious irony that just drives these silly little rebels batshit fucking crazy. ROFLMAOOOOO

[bowens43]

40. Once again Ron Paul shows the world that he's a class A nut job......nt

[goforit]

41. No kidding!!! I honestly believe he's ready for a nursing home.

Absolutely crazy..............and ofcourse he like Nadar gets total attention of MSM.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Rob Paul seceded from the world of sanity a long time ago.

[47of74]

53. As have most of the Republican party.

[zbdent]

46. as someone said on the radio this morning ...

Texas secedes ...

they lose the U.S. military bases, the border patrol protection, NASA jobs ... wonder if the rest of the world will recognize their "currency"? Will they go with the "Amero"? Or the Peso? Wonder how long the Texas "National" Guard will be able to hold off the Mexican military, reclaiming their land?

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Would they even have to contend with the Mexican military?

What is the Mexican-Mexican/American population in Texas? They just might vote to annex themselves to Mexico.

[Moonwalk]

77. I doubt they'd annex themselves to Mexico. But you make a good point....

There really is no reliable Mexican Military. Texas'll be taken over by the Mexican Drug Cartels! Yikes. :hide:

Hm. Can we bail out our Democratic friends from this crazy state? Our prediction for what will happen to it if it divorces from the U.S. are pretty dire and I don't want to see that happen to good DUers just because their state leaders have gone batshit crazy.

[aikanae]

48. It'd be a dream come true

Can you imagine all the rw nut jobs in control and on their own?

No more proving (over and over and over) that their economic theories don't work.
They can point their guns at each other.
They can become the victims of their own policies.
They can fund their own ideology.
They can fight between themselves about whose going to be "saved" after rapture.
We could finally have a place to tell them "where to go".
And last but not least, the world will realize what a pitiful small minority they really are.

It's one more of those conservative ideas that Democrats should just shut-up on.
They are the best possible advertising for Dems since they do a really good job of hanging themselves, all by themselves.

Yeah, I support secession.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. If you think Pakistan as a troubled government with nuclear weapons is worrisome

you REALLY don't want Texas to seceed. Between active duty weapons installed, the Pantex plant, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Texas would have thousands of workable nuclear weapons, and parts for many thousands more, plus full enrichment facilities. All that stuff we've taken out of service from the SALT 1 and 2 talks and START treaty, went straight to Texas for dissasembly, and Pantex does the refurbishment of active duty warheads. (The pits decay over time)

[struggle4progress]

78. Oak Ridge is in Texas? Since when?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Dang, I can't edit the correction into the post.

My mistake, ORNL is in Tennessee. So that's a significant amount of raw materials out of the picture, but Pantex and storage facilities are in Texas.

[struggle4progress]

83. I agree that sane people wouldl prefer Texas wingnuts not to have nuclear weapons

[Telly Savalas]

86. That already happened.

It's called 2001-2006.

[haele]

50. Big difference between an agreed to dissolution of a partnership

Which is what the United States is -
And just "picking up your toys and leaving because you don't like the way the others are playing..."

The only way successful way to secede from the US is to do it legally, in courts and with the agreement of all partners, which includes the federal government and all it's departments that operate in the state wishing to secede, the other states and protectorates of the United States that would now have to change their laws, cooperative efforts and recognitions, and processes to deal with the secession of the certain "state" and last but not least, provisions on dealing with the still citizens of the United States that want to retain US citizenship and rights rather than adopt the citizenship and rights of the now seceding state.
That process could take decades and cost lots of cash to all parties.
Better to suck up the "bad taste" of being a somewhat equal part of a group(Waaah, I'm not special!) like all the other states and work for a common goal towards the good things that a state/federal cooperative brings to the table.
Personally, this whole issue is an exercise in bloviation by people with too much money and not enough sense - the majority of people living and working in Texas would not vote to secede - after all, what working person really wants to live in the Randian fantasy land that Ron Paul inhabits?
Being totally "free" and on your own is not necessarily a good thing, especially in cases of natural disasters and periods of civil and economic troubles.

Haele

[bamacrat]

51. Crazy.

He also thinks our government needs no way to collect or print money. Hes for full privitization of government. One of my best friends is a Paul nut, he always says; "It says in the Constitution, 'Congress shall pass no law'" what they Paul people always leave out is the rest of the sentence where it says they will not pass a law respecting an establishment of religiion or that diminishes free speech.

[JVS]

60. What the fuck are these treasonous bastards doing to Lincoln's fucking party?!?!?!

[No Elephants]

68. Lincoln Republicans (no, not Log Cabin Republicans) began turning Democratic

from the time of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt through Truman, the Kennedy brothers, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a bit beyond.

During the same time, Dixiecrats and the Solid South began turning Republican.

No coincidence.

Obama's riding to Washington on a train as Lincoln did (well, kind of) and dining on Lincoln era food on Inauguration Day was no coincidence, either.

[jmowreader]

69. They're proving it's not Lincoln's party any more

If Abraham Lincoln would have been alive in 1989 he would have kicked Ronald Reagan squa in the nuts.

[onehandle]

70. So is leaving for "freedom."

Rep. Paul and other secessionists are welcome to leave and found a new world as our ancestors did.

[Lorien]

71. We'd just invade it. They've got oil, after all. nt

[UpInArms]

72. hey Ron! Send back that paycheck from the taxpayers of the USofA!

freak

[damntexdem]

73. Oh, yes it is: American history. And it was made firmly history by a little war, over 600K dead.

Perhaps we shouldn't endorse a replay.

[struggle4progress]

79. There's an even greater American tradition: being nutty as a fruitcake!

Anybody out there need an extra wacko? We've got plenty!

[Zorra]

80. See ya! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

:toast:
:bounce:

[razors edge]

84. Ron ain't so bad,

in comparison to the likes of Newt, or Cheney.

He is pretty clear on his positions and is a major thorn in the sides of both parties. I like a person like that, even if I don't agree with everything they say.

He is right about one thing, the right of secession does exist. I believe that joining the Union constituted a contract, and when one entity breaks the provisions of a contract, the other has the right to consider that contract null and void if the belligerence is not rectified.

If the central government were to violate the Constitution through legal gymnastics that are clearly a violation of the rights of the people with no redress allowed, lets say the Executive branch violates the 4th Amendment, (I know, that would never happen) then I believe it is incumbent upon the State legislators to determine if the rights of their people have been violated.

If they find that such an unlikely event took place, then that State must seek redress of grievance for the citizens they represent.

The power to violate the Bill of Rights is explicitly forbidden in the US Constitution and as such it is not a power given to the Federal Government.

That places the action taken by the Federal Executive in violation of the Tenth Amendment, at which point the State would have not only the right, but the duty to demand the Federal government cease and desist.

Now I know the example I gave here is pretty far fetched, it could never happen here, but if it did, and the Feds continued after being properly served notice of their violation of the Constitution, then the State has the right to seceded.

[SOS]

92. If Texas were to secede

We mustn't forget to hand them their share of the national debt on their way out the door.
Comes to $880 billion.