Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
No, it does not, although there are many Texans who like to believe that myth and perpetuate it among themselves as a sort of wishful thinking 'common knowledge'...along with the myth that Texas is the 'only' state flag which can be flown at a height equal to the national colors (all state flags may fly equal to but not above) and that Texas may divide itself into as many as 4 other states (a proviso in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States by Congress allowing its admission as a slave state that was later settled by the Civil War and actually moot anyway IAW the provisions of Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution).
Texas tried that secession idea once and they, along with 12 other states, got their pee-pee's whacked for it, and the reality of such 'right of secession' forever squelched.
But the myths go on.
Richard
|
Any State has the right to secede. You mention Article 4, Section 3 but what about the 10th Amendment? Even if one doesn't interpret the 10th Amendment literally, it is obvious that we believe in consent of the governed. I will go so far as to say that even if a State government had ratified a Constitution that forbade secession, the People of that State would still have the right to secede and establish a new State government. If you disagree, then the premise of our original revolution was unjustified.
Three Amendments were ratified immediately after the Civil War but none of them forbade or had anything to do with secession, so it still remains unmentioned in US law. The original Preamble gives us insight to how the Founders felt about this. The only reason it said "united States" was because they were not sure if every State would ratify, therefore instead of the awkwardness of having, say, Rhode Island mentioned in a Constitution it didn't support, Governour Morris went with "united States" at the last minute.
The Federalists of the day shrugged it off while the Anti-Federalists threw a fit. As Patrick Henry said in Virginia shortly thereafter, "I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,--but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States."
You, like Richard Taylor believe that the "arbitrament of arms" settled this question. Most do not, especially where it matters in this discussion, Texas.