DID YOU KNOW? Texas has the power to put another 8 Republicans into the US Senate?

[MohRokTah]

There is a long standing myth that Texas was granted the right to secede in the legislation that granted Texas statehood.

Although this is false, that legislation did grant Texas the power to break up into five total states, one of which would remain "Texas".

By properly designing state borders, the Republican controlled Texas state legislature has the power to create a total of five primarily Republican states, adding another 8 Senators to the Senate, all of which would most likely be Republican.

Fortunately Texas Republicans appear to be too stupid to exercise this vast power they have to guarantee Republican control of the Senate.

[TwilightZone]

1. Well, it's not just that they're too stupid. There's no support for it.

There's even less support for splitting up into multiple states than there is in secession, which runs about 20%.

[truebluegreen]

2. Nope, they don't.

[underpants]

3. Will there be color coded gun racks?

[Cresent City Kid]

4. Unlikely but..

if Austin and San Antonio remain in the same state, it would be a little blue oasis in a sea of red.

[MohRokTah]

5. Like I said, the borders would have to be carefully drawn.

The US Congress was idiotic in 1845 when they granted pre-approval for any plan Texas legislators ever came up with in the future.

The only thing stopping this from happening is the pride Texans take in their "Big" state.

[MADem]

7. Also, the governor, the state 'board' members with their gubernatorial appointments, and the

individual legislators would lose their places--a governor can't be a governor of five states; he'd have to pick one.

All politics is local--they won't help the national party at the expense of their own local power.

[MohRokTah]

8. The existing government would go to the one of the five named "Texas"

The legislation is pretty clear, four states in addition to an existing "Texas".

I would assume "Texas" would have to include the existing capital of Austin, else they'd have to move the capital prior to the breakup.

[MADem]

15. But that governor would be one of five, not a big cheese with a big state!

And they'd have to re-tool the gubmint, too....what if the governor didn't live in the new "state?" The legislators from, say, Corpus Christi or Houston couldn't go to the legislature in Austin....they'd have to build four new legislatures, and four new state houses--and four new governor's mansions.

It would be a total cluster for a while--I think the only way they could do it in an orderly manner is One At A Time!

Some states would have to kiss the idea of having "seashore" as part of their state goodbye. No fun!

[MohRokTah]

17. Yup.

I only ever seeing this happening as a last ditch effort after the Democrats retake the Senate, and then it would take a lot of work to make happen.

It's a possibility, but politically it's not realistic at this point in time.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be at some point in the future, and it goes both ways, too.

[okasha]

56. Could we stop the damned Texas-bashing?

Texas is presently within 7% points of going back to its traditional Democratic roots with Hillary. All the metro areas are currently blue, as is South Texas from San Antonio to Brownsville.

We have 35 EC votes, the biggest haul of any presently "red" state. Without Texas , the Republicans have no path to victory.

The Party needs to campaign vigorously here. Ditch the stereotypes. You're not helping.

[Dustlawyer]

23. Yup!

I am in Southeast Texas, a/k/a "Bubbaville". We are by degree more liberal than North Texas, the most conservative place in the country. The panhandle is really, really bad as well. We would never go for it as we all love Texas, just not each other so much! If it were not for the screwed up roads and traffic I would live in Austin. Any place whose motto is "Help keep Austin weird" is my kind of place!

If the DNC would ever focus on Texas and register all of the people of the Valley and the minorities in East and West Texas we could overthrow their gerrymandering!

[MADem]

6. I say let them--there's nothing magic about a giant state.

I'll bet they wouldn't get exclusively Republican representation, no matter how hard they try--and smaller states? They're easier to co-opt.

I imagine the state of "Austin" might eventually be very blue, indeed!

For what might seem to be a short term gain, they could find themselves in the shits--it's so expensive to run a campaign in a large state, but that grassroots thing is easier when you don't have as much territory to deal with. We're good at that stuff--and with Clinton's New and Improved 50 State Strategy, we're getting better.

[LostOne4Ever]

9. They already broke up Texas like that

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]They incorporated those parts of Texas into the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming.



^ This is the original Republic of Texas before it entered the Union. They can't break us up any further.[/font]

[struggle4progress]

16. +

[okasha]

58. OMG! A fact!

[Ilsa]

10. I bet few pockets, like around Dallas, Southlake, McKinney, etc, would love to have their own state.

They'd elect W.governor of North Texas, probably build some walls. Might need to create a moat!

[struggle4progress]

11. That's what the 1 March 1845 annexation law said but not what the 30 March 1870 law says.

But at the time of the 1 March 1845 annexation, Texas claimed a considerably amount of territory to the north and east of the Rio Grande, including portions of today's Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. These claims were extinguished by Congress in the Compromise of 1850, which set the northern border of the Texas panhandle at the Missouri Compromise latitude (36°30') with a proposed $10 million federal payment to the state, which was accepted. As negotiations around the Compromise of 1850 had included Congressional proposals splitting Texas into two or three states, the natural interpretation is that the 1845 language applied to the "Texas" of that time, which does not coincide with Texas today -- and that the possible reorganization of the old "Texas" (as considered in the 1845 legislation) was superseded by the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent incorporation of the states Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, using some territory ceded by old "Texas"

[MohRokTah]

12. The area was ceded to territories, not formed into new states by the TX leg.

So the ceding of the territory does not fulfill the formation of up to five total states as designated by the US Congress in 1845.

Texas can still do this at any time it chooses.

[Major Nikon]

48. US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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 Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

[Scootaloo]

57. Seems to have been ignored for West Virginia

But I guess that could be read more as "this portion of the state decided not to secede" - in which case, shouldn't there be Virginia and South Virginia?

[Major Nikon]

61. Or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

[LiberalFighter]

13. It would also need approval of Congress.

[MohRokTah]

14. Congress granted its pre-approval in the language of the 1845 legislation...

which admitted Texas as a state.

It was a condition of Texas statehood.

[struggle4progress]

21. There's no real point in revisiting this: the issue has been moot for over 150 years

[MohRokTah]

22. It's a legitimate concern when talk of secession rears up in Texas.

They have no legal right to secede, but they do have a legal right to leverage more influence in the Senate and Electoral College than they currently have.

[The Second Stone]

54. If you say so, then in your mind they do

but no legal scholar in any country of the world shares your view. Perhaps Westeros could use your political acumen!

[Gman]

18. Actually, they are not stupid

There's a ton of issues that would in essence mean much less money for the chosen. Smaller treasuries, statewide influence in a state of many million vs several million not to mention interstate commerce laws that would apply all make it a stupid choice for the cost (they'd have to manage 8 Senators vs just 2.) Theres much more on the money making downside they are aware of. And money is what it's all about.

No, they are not stupid.

This excludes the garden variety right wing nuts that don't have a financial interest.

[beachbumbob]

19. The federal govt has last say on states....

[MohRokTah]

20. The Congress gave pre-approval to any plan devised by the TX legislature in the legislation...

which admitted Texas as a state in 1845, so long as no more than a total of five states are formed and one of those states is called "Texas".

[truebluegreen]

28. You do know other stuff happened after that, right?

[MohRokTah]

30. I know that, for instance, Texas had to cede territory.

I also know that this was not the Texas Legislature forming a total maximum of five states, one of which would retain the name "Texas" as provided for in the 1845 legislation admitting Texas as a state.

[truebluegreen]

24. Texass can't do it alone.

"Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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.
Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision. "

[MohRokTah]

25. Congress gave its consent with the legislation admitting TX as a state in 1845.

That is the only legislation admitting any state which specifically gave consent for the new state to break up into five separate states, one of which must remain Texas.

No other legislation admitting any other state gave such congressional consent for a future breakup.

So that part of the constitution has already been fulfilled. It is entirely up to Texas at any point to break up into as many as five separate states, one of which must remain as "Texas".

[truebluegreen]

27. No.

"The most likely possibility that Texas might be split into more than one state was headed off in 1850. California (recently acquired by the U.S in the war with Mexico) had approved a free-state constitution and petitioned Congress for statehood; meanwhile, Texans were engaged in a border dispute, claiming that their territory included half of present-day New Mexico and part of Colorado. Had the boundary issue been decided in favor of Texas, southerners might have pushed to create a second state out of the larger Texas territory in order to balance California's admission as a free state. The series of congressional bills collectively known as the Compromise of 1850 (temporarily) settled these troublesome issues by admitting California as a free state and giving Texas $10 million to relinquish its territorial claims, while the pro-slavery section supported these proposals in exchange for the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The issue of the 36°30'N slavery demarcation line soon became moot when the Missouri Compromise was effectively repealed by the 1854 passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision. Any real likelihood that Texas might be carved up into additional states was ended when Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, joined the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and was not formally re-admitted to the U.S. until after the 1865 ratification of the 13th amendment which abolished slavery throughout the jurisdiction of the United States. "

But hey, by all means, do get Texass to take this to the Supremes: it may keep them busy and out of our hair for awhile.

[MohRokTah]

29. That does not fulfill the 1845 legislation

Ceding territories is not the same as forming new states, so the clause for a future breakup in the 1845 legislation still stands.

[truebluegreen]

32. The game she be changed. Texass seceded.

Get over it, or as I said, lead the Texasses off the cliff. It will distract them for a while.

[MohRokTah]

34. Actually, the SCOTUS ruled that nobody seceded.

Texas v. White rules secession was illegal and the ruling came down as if Texas had never seceded in the first place. Thus, in order to block the 1845 law admitting Texas as a state, you must concede that Texas did legally secede and overrule Texas v. White.

One cannot stand while the other falls. The Texas v. White ruling is directly intertwined with the 1845 law admitting Texas as a state, so either Texas did legally secede in 1861 and no longer has a right to break up into five states while Texas v. White is overturned, or Texas v. White is correct, no state may legally secede, and thus the 1845 law which admitted Texas as a state still holds true and is the governing law.

[truebluegreen]

35. Whatever, dude. Go argue your case to Texass, they need you.

[jberryhill]

46. No, that's a tremendous oversimplification.

It is correct that Texas never ceased to be a state after admission to the Union.

It is incorrect that that the conditions for recognizing the 1870 Texas state constitution continued all of the conditions of the 1845 admission.

In other words, one does not have to deny that Texas discontinued to be a state at any time, in order to understand that the conditions of its admission changed by later operation of law.

Parties can mutually agree to change the conditions of contracts, treaties and all sorts of agreements.

Yes, it remained a state. No it did not remain the same state after it adopted a new constitution with federal approval under Article Four.

[HereSince1628]

52. It's an open question if that ended with secession. It wasn't included in any agreement

when Texas returned to the Union after the civil war, and there is belief that Texas must now approach subdivision like all other states. I think this would end up in the supreme court so the question could be closed.


At any rate the rules as they are for other states would make it hard, but they don't make it impossible. It also leaves it open to more additional senators than that.

[L. Coyote]

26. WRONG

[catnhatnh]

31. Yeah, well,except you are mistaken...

"Most constitutional scholars agree that any "right" of Texas to divide and reform itself into multiple states was ended by the secession of Texas in 1861 to join the Confederacy and its subsequent, formal, readmission to the United States of America in 1865. While Texas first joined the United States of America as a separate and sovereign nation (albeit one on the brink of being a bankrupt and failed nation state) and not as a U.S. territory, secession and subsequent readmission to the Union as one of the united states changed the special circumstances under which Texas first joined the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

[MohRokTah]

33. I don't buy that argument and can easily counter it.

Texas v. White declared secession to be illegal and ruled as if secession had never happened, thus there was no true re-admittance as Texas never legally left in the first place.

If you rule against Texas having this power then they must have legally seceded and thus you must overturn Texas v. White.

[truebluegreen]

36. "You" don't buy it? So what?

Is your name actually Alito or something?

[MohRokTah]

37. I have presented a perfectly legitimate constitutional argument.

Either Texas v. White holds and the 1845 law admitting Texas as a state is the governing law, or Texas v. White is overturned and Texas cannot break up into five states.

The 1845 admission law and the SCOTUS post-war decision are wholly intertwined. One cannot fall lest the other falls.

Since Texas v. White directly addressed the legitimacy and legality of SPECIFICALLY the State of Texas seceding from the Union, you cannot separate the two from a legal standpoint. Either it is illegal for Texas to have seceded and all acts of Texas after seceding are null and void with all governing law prior to that secession remaining status quo, or Texas had a legal right to secede.

I prefer a legal system where secession is completely illegal and illegitimate,

[truebluegreen]

43. None of which matters a plugged nickel until a case comes to the Court: the definition of "moot."

Are you a constitutional scholar? Have you studied Con Law? Are you an attorney? Do you think the relevant case law is totally covered by the cases you cite? Nothing else applies?

These are all rhetorical questions, I don't really care what you or Texasses believe on the issue but if it means so much I think you should start a movement, see where it goes and where it ends up. Buena suerte.

[jberryhill]

47. Have you ever amended a contract?

Texas did not cease to be a state. However, the terms of its statehood have indeed changed, and Texas adopted a new constitution in 1870.

Your argument is a false dichotomy. It is not "one or the other".

[catnhatnh]

45. Wrong again

"At any time between 23 June 1845 (when the Republic of Texas so formally accepted its so being appended to the United States) and 29 December 1845 (when, by specific Act of Congress, the State of Texas within the United States of America officially replaced the Republic of Texas [despite the aforementioned delay re: Texas itself hearing about it]), Texas could have- right then and there- availed itself of the provision allowing itself to subdivide into up to five States. While the Consent Resolution of the Texas Congress of 23 June of that year specifically referred to "a new State, to be called the State of Texas, and admitted as one of the States of the American Union", the duly delegated representatives of the People of that Republic meeting in Convention beginning 4 July 1845 might well have considered dividing their Republic into fifths (or fourths-- or thirds-- or in half) in the course of said Convention and, thereafter, presented the American Congress with a fait accompli which the American Congress could then either have approved of or rejected (per the American Constitution's own Article IV, Section 3, clause 1) as the members of both houses of Congress might have then seen fit...

this the Texas Constitutional Convention did not do, however: instead, that Convention reported out an instrument of Government contemplating a new State of Texas coterminous with the geographical limits of the Republic of Texas already appended to the United States-- and it was this instrument that the People of Texas (as a whole) themselves ratified and which the Congress of the United States accepted as just such an instrument when they officially welcomed Texas into the American Union via statute towards the end of that same year.

But, once Texas had been so welcomed, "she ceased to be an independent nation. She then became a sister State on an 'equal footing' with all the other States. That act concededly entailed a relinquishment of some of her sovereignty"-- including any and all sovereign power to divide herself up into up to five new States in a manner no other of her sister States were- or have ever been- entitled to avail themselves of: that is, a manner wholly inconsistent with the specific language of Article IV, Section 3, clause 1 of the Federal Constitution itself...

Long discussion here>>>
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/explanation-texas-statehood-issues.phtml

[hobbit709]

38. Crock of metabolic byproducts.

[MohRokTah]

39. Read the thread. eom

[hobbit709]

40. Read it, it's still a crock.

[MohRokTah]

41. You are entitled t hold whatever opinion you choose.

This is the United States of America and everybody has an absolute right to be wrong.

[hobbit709]

42. so are you.

[LongtimeAZDem]

44. That agreement was between the Repulic of of Texas and the United States; it became null and void

upon Texas' secession, and was not provided for under the conditions of readmission.

[CanonRay]

49. I like the secession idea lots better

We do not need four more Texas's

[roamer65]

50. This means if TX tries to secede, we can instigate a breakup of it.

Can you say "see aye eh".

[Thinkingabout]

51. Yes the right to secede was in their statehood but they did secede at the Civil War

And the return to the Union removed that right, in fact all states sign not to ever secede again. I don't know why this continues to c me up over and over, need some Texas history lessons.

[MohRokTah]

53. No, the right to secede was never in the admission legislation, that's a myth.

The right to break up into as many as five total states, so long as one remains "Texas", was and still is.

[Thinkingabout]

59. When first admitted as a state Texas had the right to secede, they did and became a part

Of the Confederate States of America. A new agreement was signed when returning to the Union after the Civil War. Texas first became a Repiblic in 1836 and became a state in 1845.

[MohRokTah]

60. No, they did not. That is a myth.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

[rock]

55. That would be legal

They're only interested in subversive or seditious means.