A legal question concerning Texas seceding from USA

[Bill219]

How would the Supreme Court case Texas vs White affect this situation?

It clearly held that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.

[SteppingRazor]

1. That decision basically makes it so that there is no way a state can unilaterally secede.

Of course, if the U.S. and the state both agree to it, then it's still theoretically possible. To quote Texas v. White "There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

[Bill219]

2. So if I understand this correctly...

The US government will never consent to this, so the only way for this to happen is by Texans rising up thru a revolution and starting a war with the USA.

Is this not treason?

[WeDidIt]

3. Yes, this is treason

This is why many of us who have been besieged by teh Southern cry of "The War of Northern Aggression" refer to it as "The War of Southern Treason".

[SteppingRazor]

4. When/if that were to happen, sure.

On the other hand, I don't consider rhetoric in and of itself to be treasonous, short of an instigation to armed revolution, which I don't think any of the nutcases are proposing -- at least not directly.

And even if Texas were to fall off the deep end and secede through an armed revolt, I doubt anyone would be treated as treasonous, given the precedent of the Civil War -- we didn't put CSA soldiers in front of a firing line after the war, after all.

Really, I worry over the easy use of the word "treason." I didn't like it when the right tried to use it on the left, especially in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and I'm not about to make a hypocrite of myself by doing the same thing to them now. They lost. They haven't lost in a while. It's agonizing and painful for a highly partisan individual, and there'll be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth for a while. But they'll come down from the ledge sooner or later.

[jberryhill]

5. You gotta admit, though....

That when "Secession is illegal" needs a refresher, things have gotten a wee bit weird.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Oh, yeah. Things have gotten nuttier and nuttier.

But, hey, no surprise, right? I mean, whenever the conservative blogosphere is insisting that the candidate that just won the presidency isn't a citizen, is a Muslim terrorist, or what have you, you just know that, sooner or later, more-mainstream conservative punditry is going to catch up. Indeed, I expect things to get crazier before they get normalized.

[WeDidIt]

6. Rhetoric is sedition, acts are treason.

And there is a line where rhetoric becomes sedition.

Perry walked up tot he line and spat on it, but he didn't quite cross it.

[SteppingRazor]

7. Agreed. There's been a lot of dancing around that fine line...

from Perry's "Texans are independent" bit to Glenn Beck's gas can to Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" comment. Still, I'm kinda nutty when it comes to free speech, and I think you've really gotta step over that line, clearly and deliberately, for anything to be considered seditious.

[WeDidIt]

9. I think the line can move on somebody who walks right up to it gleefully

but doesn't quite cross it.

When somebody acts upon the rhetoric, and cites the rhetoric as justification, the line just got moved on the person who tried to walk the fine line.

For example, William Luther Pierce's racist separatist rhetoric walked the fine line for years. That line got moved on him when Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols acted on that rhetoric.

[SoxFan]

10. The governing precedent

is found in Door v. Ass On The Way Out