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?

  • @WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    48
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As a Texan who is working to create change in this state, please don’t kick us out. We aren’t only the bad things you see on the news. We can offer you:

    Brisket
    Big Tex
    Cowboy Hats
    Willie Nelson
    Chuck Norris
    Fried (insert any food group)
    Everything cool about Austin
    Czech kolaches
    Boots galore
    And so much more.

    Help us. We are a lot more purple than the news makes it seem, and we have been gerrymandered to the point that we need more than a simple majority to create change. If you can find it in your hearts to assist us in becoming a swing state, the whole nation stands to inherit all the things that made Texas an iconic part of the country in the first place. We are worth the effort.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      Every Texan I’ve ever met has been a good person. The only time I ever see the Texas represented in the media is in the media.

      • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But you do realize, Ted Cruz is real? Abbot is real?

        Just because you haven’t met absolute scumfucks doesn’t mean they aren’t ruining our country.

        Goddamn I miss Ann Richards.

      • @Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        I’ve seen Texans in the wild go on tirades when the attendant at the store checkout says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”…

        The vast majority are definitely good people, but just want to point out that the people you see in the media are real. They are here, and they are loud.

        It’s also easy to forget that living in the cities doesn’t represent the people everywhere in the state either. As long as I’m in a city, anywhere in the US, I’ve never seen extremely blatant racism. But go to the wrong areas in small towns and you get jeered at for not being white.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          But go to the wrong areas in small towns and you get jeered at for not being white.

          I’ve seen this even in California. Oildale, CA is the most racist place I’ve ever been, including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas. But it goes the other way too. There are small areas that are predominantly black or Mexican that aren’t very safe to be in if you’re white. It’s a real shame, man, especially since it seems to be getting worse, not better.

          • @Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh yeah. I wasn’t sure how to get across that I wasn’t talking about that as a Texas exclusive thing. It’s everywhere in the US.

            Edit: Texas is the only place I’ve seen someone go on an angry christofascist tirade in my suburban grocery store though.

    • @dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Hey, if it all hits the fan I would be in favor of an airlift to keep sending soy milk and avocados to Austin, so they can send back some of its abundance of weird.

    • @SeabassDan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like a lot of people in Joe Rogan’s circle have been moving to Austin, and with his current influx of cash it seems centered around that, which means he’s most likely been looking for what benefits the ultra rich, and will vote and promote accordingly.

      Like when Chappelle jokingly said we should give Trump a chance because he was trying to get those tax cuts on the horizon. For the rich. Which didn’t really sound like a joke. Which was followed by bringing Musk onstage and laughing at the poor. Left and Right aside, it’s about the money for these guys, and I’m a little bit wary about a place so willing to accommodate.

      I could be wrong, but the wealthy tend to know exactly where to know and why, but it could also be envy on my part.

    • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Spent a lot of my formative years in Tx… dude…

      Texmex. If we lose texas, we lose the fusion of meat and cheese and guac and tortillas that is texmex. It’s worth saving all on it’s own.

      Otherwise to your list I’d add: Stevie Ray Vaughan, Austin City Limits, H-Town / dj screw pantera’s Pantego and so much more.

      and fuck chuck norris, he’s a fundie chode.

            • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              buddy if you’ve never detonated a toilet after taco bell, I dunno what to tell you. it’s why the phrase “FIRE IN THE HOLE” was invented.

              You do you man, but please, don’t limit the rest of us with your constrained experience and imagination.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I guess I still thought of that as number two. And no, Taco Bell has not done that to me, but I’ve had a colonoscopy. If you haven’t, trust me. What comes out of you in the prep is worse than any Taco Bell.

  • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Yeah. If Congress did it and the federal government just enforced it there’s not much anyone could do about it.

      • FenrirIII
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Except with red states. Most are running in the negatives.

          • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Texas benefits enormously on federal spending. The reason it’s not in the red: f35, helo, rocket and other mil/space production that wouldn’t occur in “The United Counties of Texas”. Also subtract some of the largest mil installations on the planet - fort cavazos and fort bliss - plus dozens of other sites like Lackland/JBSA and Carswell/NASJRB ft worth and more… shittons of federal dollars going to texas.

            Take it away - poof, texas is a lot of cattle and some windmills.

            • @homesnatch@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              Sorry for the confusion, but “in the red” in this regard is a measure of how much the Fed spends in Texas vs how much (the people of) Texas sends to the Fed. Texas is one of the few red states not in the negative.

              • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Texas is one of the few red states not in the negative.

                dude. that’s my premise:

                The reason it’s not - fed spending. take that away? texas becomes a cattleocracy.

                • @homesnatch@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think you are missing a ton of Fortune 500 companies Headquartered in Texas… Dell, Oracle, Tesla, Exxon, HPE, Charles Schwab, Texas Instruments… No state has more Fortune 500 HQ’s than Texas.

                  Texas is a bunch of big blue cities surrounded by cattleocracy.

  • @scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    181 year ago

    If it is by the consent of the rest of the states, then yes. I’m not aware of any existing legal process, but a constitutional amendment could fix that.

    Such a thing is unlikely to ever happen. Territory means people, infrastructure, and resources, so it’s almost always better to hold onto it, unless you can’t defend it.

  • @reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    331 year ago

    Honestly Texas just needs to split into five states. Not everyone in the state holds the same beliefs as the people who live in north and east Texas. The Houston and Austin areas are far more progressive and liberal.

        • Resol van Lemmy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          It would’ve made sense if Yorkshire was a city, which, it isn’t.

          No, what I was actually meaning was that Yorkshire was one of the historical counties of England. However, when you look at the administrative/postal counties, there’s actually 4 of them all called Yorkshire, one of them has an even longer name: “the East Riding of Yorkshire”.

          So basically, if Texas want to split itself up, it should, just for shits and giggles, adopt the Yorkshire strategy, hence, the new Yorkshire.

          Try counting the amount of times I’ve said “Yorkshire” in this reply.

    • @Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah and then those states can break into states and factions and — oh we got Mad Max, nice.

      Luckily I’m not Texan, or even American.

  • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    351 year ago

    If it gets to that point, I think its more likely to declare the state in insurrection or rebellion and send in the army to passify it, rather than trying to expunge it.

    • @Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      There’s some pretty valuable infrastructure in TX and many other states. They’d definitely take it back and give the idiots who are responsible for the trouble a token fine and gentle slap on the wrist. It’s an American tradition. They’ll probably execute the derps doing the actual funding though.

      • @Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pros:

        Lots of land

        Natural resources

        Coastal access

        Cons:

        Shitty power grid

        Rednecks

        Consensus:

        worth fighting to keep, but if we’re going to do that, take the opportunity to cleanup the more vocal of the rednecks.

    • Jojo
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      The US border has fluctuated through its short history, but only by growing (as long as you only count states and not other claimed territory)

  • Hildegarde
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    The district of columbia is not a state so it’s probably an easier place to start.

  • @Ilflish@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know

    I’m a history illiterate so maybe I’m wrong but I’m sure lots of countries thought that before an insurrection. Not that I think Texas would rebel but literally why couldn’t they?

  • @Desistance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    There is no provision that allows a state to vacate or get kicked out. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

  • ugh
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    No, they cannot. I hope someone gives you a more in depth answer because I’m very sleepy. Socially, just because a state votes red doesn’t mean that everyone there is awful. It would not be fair to those citizens.

    I do believe that texas has the right to secede. It won’t happen, but it was part of the bargin to rejoin after the Civil War.

    • @felbane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      281 year ago

      Belief has nothing to do with anything. The resolution that granted Texas membership into the Union allowed for Texas to divide itself into five separate States, but not to leave the Union.

    • @voracitude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Quote the exact text of law or Constitution that informs your belief a state can secede, bud, or you should change that belief. Not understanding that states can’t secede is dangerous. Being told to stop slavery was why all the southern states tried to secede before the Civil War, but the war actually happened because they tried to secede and they’re not allowed to.

      Don’t forget: united, we stand. It’s as true today as it ever was.

      • They didn’t secede because they were told to stop slavery. They seceded because it looked that the national consensus was moving against the expansion of slavery to new states and territories, which would have limited slave states overall power in the long run.

        They were very explicit that they were leaving to protect slavery as an institution, but to be fair nobody in power was threatening to abolish it when they did so.

        • @voracitude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll cede that, I was massively oversimplifying in the name of time. I did know that the federal government at the time was very willing to compromise to keep the southern states in the union, and that the whole reason the South went ahead with the Civil War was because they saw that their economic engine would be dismantled over time even if they agreed to the compromises.

          But it all just goes to show how it’s semantics to say it was state’s rights instead of slavery that caused the war, in the same way it’s semantics to say my mother died of liver failure instead of cancer, or that a person jumping off a cliff was killed by the massive internal trauma from the sudden stop, instead of the fall.

          • Yeah, I was trying to be careful with my comment not to imply the reason for secession was “states rights” since there are still plenty of idiots who are happy to bang that drum.

  • Optional
    link
    fedilink
    691 year ago

    CalExit was a russian disinfo plot to weaken the US, and Texit knows that, but they love russian disinfo.

    • @Bwaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Or if most of the population just decides to ignore the constitution. But how likely is that?

      • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        If you poll half the population, they don’t even know what the Constitution says. They could be ignoring it now.

      • @voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Any amendment to the Constitution to show secession or for a state to be removed would obviously change that, too.

        • @bitcrafter@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Sure, but obviously in that case it would no longer matter whether that state had Senators or not because it would no longer be subject to the laws of the U.S. government.

      • kirklennon
        link
        fedilink
        151 year ago

        And yet that provision is itself still part of the constitution so really an amendment just needs to have an initial sentence to override that limitation first. If there’s actually support for a change, anything can be changed.

            • @bitcrafter@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Sure, but once there is enough determination to deprive a state of equal representation in the Senate that there are sufficient votes to amend the Constitution once in order to do this–which, as you have pointed out, is a very high bar–then it is no harder to go through the amendment process twice in order to first drop that sentence.

              • kirklennon
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people. For what it’s worth, I advocate for the full abolition of the Senate. It’s an anti-democratic institution. There’s no way to fix it without making it a clone of the House so let’s just do away with it entirely.

                • @bitcrafter@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people.

                  It isn’t worded as a “rhetorical flourish”; it is worded incredibly clearly and explicitly as a prohibition:

                  Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

                  In fact, taking your reasoning a step further: are you likewise arguing that when the prohibition against banning the slave trade prior to 1808 was included here, that it was also understood to be a “rhetorical flourish” with no teeth behind it? If so, then why did they go to so much trouble to put it in? It seems like a lot of wasted effort in that case.

          • @dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because Congress has wide latitude to set its own membership by passing laws to that effect. The size of the House, for instance, used to increase on every Census, until Congress passed a law to fix it at 435. (A huge mistake, IMHO, and part of the reason why our politics are so wacky today.)

            This ensures that the Senate can never re-make itself to be anything other than the body with equal representation among states, unless the affected states also agree.

            • @bitcrafter@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              This ensures that the Senate can never re-make itself to be anything other than the body with equal representation among states, unless the affected states also agree.

              Yes, that is exactly my point: if this restriction could itself be eliminated through the amendment process, then it effectively does not exist.

              • @dhork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                No, you don’t get my point, if that specific clause weren’t in the Constitution then Congress could enact a law to change how the Senate is constructed. The clause serves a purpose, even if it can be itself changed via amendment.

                • @bitcrafter@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  If the purpose of that clause were to restrict the kinds of laws that Congress can pass instead of the kinds of amendments that are allowed, then why does it appear in Article V, which relates to amendments, rather than Article I, which relates to Congress?

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      351 year ago

      To further add, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows for having a state leave and the Constitution is where that process would be to be laid out. So, if a state wanted to leave and the rest of the country agreed, you would need a constitutional amendment to spell out that process.

      Given the high bar required to amend the Constitution, having a state leave would need to be very popular politically.

      • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago
        1. Dems suggest texas can texit if the GOP drafts it.

        2. GoP doesn’t want to blink, crafts it in a way that gives Texas power when it leaves, to please the howling magats

        3. Dems say "cool. These 31 states on both coasts are seceding. Using the process laid out, each coastal block will reorganize into its own group.

        Now the red states are booted. Miller time.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          There is no “gives Texas power” about that. If Texas were to leave, the big bargaining issues would be on water rights and what to do about social security.

          • VulKendov
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            There’s no legal way for Texas to leave the union. If Texas did, it’d be treason. No bargaining, only civil war.

            • HobbitFoot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              I was only speaking to if the method of leaving the union was to be approved.

            • @lordnikon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              It’s Insurrection not treason. Treason is very narrowly defined as giving Aid & Comfort to a foreign power. People misuse treason way too often.

  • @MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I suppose it’s possible but it would never happen unless that state basically committed an outright act of war against the rest of the US. At that point they probably would have left the US on their own though.

    And even in that scenario the US government would probably send in the military to forcibly take that state back before they just give up and force them to leave.

    • @voracitude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not possible legally or Constitutionally; it’s possible in that they can secede by amending the Constitution, or by winning a war of secession, but that’s it. They can’t leave and they can’t be kicked out.

      Though they could be divided into or amongst other, smaller States.

      • Jojo
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Technically winning a war of secession would have to end with an amendment to the constitution too, unless it ended with the eradication of “the USA”

  • @OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    With enough approval, the US could do anything. It’s either Constitutional or it would be Constitutional after an amendment is passed and approved.