DeLay's Version Of Texas Secession At Odds With History, The Constitution
Yesterday, in a truly bizarre appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, former Texas Rep. (and House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay said something which rang false.
Texas was a republic. It joined the Union by treaty. There's a process in the treaty by which Texas could divide into five states. If we invoke that, and the last time it was voted on was 1985, the United States Senate would kick us out and nullify the treaty because they're not going to allow 10 new Texas senators into the Senate. That's how you secede.
Much of this seemed, to us, to be incorrect. So we did some research, checked in with some experts, and concluded that, indeed, there are a number of basic errors here.
First, Texas did not join the Union by treaty. It joined by joint resolution of Congress. According to Dr. Felix D. Almaraz, a professor of Texas history at the University of Texas, San Antonio, DeLay is correct that Texas can, in theory, divide into as many as four additional states (five total) and has tried and failed to do so from time to time. But if it did, it would result in eight (not 10) senators, and they wouldn't be from Texas, except, perhaps, by birth. They'd be the two senators from each of the (up to) four new states.
But there's a problem with that. According to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, "[n]ew 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."
But even if Congress couldn't vote down the proposition, Steven Teles, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland who studies federalism, says that, to the best of his knowledge, "[t]here is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for ejecting a state from the Union, just as there is no provision for secession. Becoming a state, from the point of view of the Constitution, is a one-time-and-one-time-only affair."
That's not to say there's no other hypothetical version of Texas secession that isn't at odds with the law--Texas is a Very Mysterious Place. It's just that DeLay's idea is a bit fantastical. Perhaps the solution lies with this guy, whose wide-ranging powers are famous both in politics and the world beyond. If Chuck makes it happen, or even if Texas secedes in some other way, the young Republic will have a hard time finding somebody to run against him in its first presidential race.


















Hold on. My head's spinning. I'm away from the news for two days and Republicans are expressing sympathy for
1) assassination of elected officials who support increasing taxes (the representative from Illinois) and
2) dissolution of the United States (the governor of a state and the former Majority Leader of the House).
Huh? Are they TRYING to follow the Whigs? You can't make this sh!t up.
April 17, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Just because Obama is Lincoln-esque doesn't mean conservative states have to instigate Civil War 2.0. I'm pretty sure he will do just fine without a repeat of that particular aspect of history.
April 17, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But some of us WANT to rip a 60-mile wide swath of destruction straight through the heart of Georgia from Atlanta to Savannah, and then pillage and burn Columbia, SC, just like in 1864-65. Please?
April 18, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or we just let them go. Say Texas leaves. That would make the Senate 59-39, which would be just as good as 60-40 (actually a little bit better, but we're dealing in whole numbers here). GOPers would have to STFU and watch shit happen. It would be even worse if Georgia would leave as well. That would be 59-37, which would mean we could also ignore people like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman if we needed to.
I would suggest to the GOP leadership that unless they want to be completely neutered, they should take the governors of these states by the scruff of the neck and tell them to STFU about this secession nonsense if they know what's good for them.
April 19, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to excuse DeLay. He hasn't mastered "The Googles" yet.
April 17, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Texans have the sovereign right to be ignorant, lying fucks, right?
..Right?
Although, if they actually do split, I think we should all extend a welcoming hand to the newest states in the Union, New Texas, Old Texas, Still Texas, Alamo and Jim-Bob.
April 17, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to keep Austin intact, as it's apparently the only geopolitical area that understands the constitution and democracy.
Let's combine Jim-Bob with Present Texas in order to keep the total to five states, and let Austin live.
Molly, where are you when we need you?
April 18, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Undoubtedly, having a very lively discussion in the hereafter bar where all the writers turned up. Well, out on the patio... that cloud of whatever Hunter is burning in his back corner booth has to be huge by now.
April 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas Constitution says that the only way that Texas can be divided into 4 smaller states is by a karate chop from Chuck Norris. It would only take one from Chuck.
April 17, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's play with this for a minute. If Texas were divided into five states, what might they look like? I assume they'd want to make them about equal in population, so they'd each have about 6.5 Congressional districts. That would mean one state that's basically the Houston area (2d, 7th, 9th, 14th, 18th, 22d and 29th districts); another that's the Dallas metro area (3d, 12th, 24th, 26th, 30th and 32d); one that would be Hispanic south Texas (15th, 16th, 20th, 23d, 25th, 27th and 28th), one in non-metro East Texas (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th), and one in central and northwest Texas (11th, 13th, 17th, 19th, 21st and 31st).
If they did that, you'd have two states that are solidly Republican (the rural areas), one Hispanic state that as of now would be solidly Democratic, and swing states in Dallas and Houston. At the very least, it wouldn't give a net advantage of 34 electoral votes to the Republicans, and it might very well elect 5 or 6 Democratic senators, rather than the current two Republicans. With no state as populous as Arizona, it would cease to be a major player in national or Republican Party politics.
We could do worse.
April 17, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Texas was split into 5 states as you describe (1 liberal, 2 swing, and 2 insane), the two crazified states might merge (provided they were contiguous) into a single Republic of Texas. Whether that happened or not, the three NON-crazy states -- freed from the bulk of whackos -- could and probably would re-form back into the State of Texas and be welcomed back into the arms of the Union. Net result: we'd still have Texas and 50 states, but Texas would be a part of the permanent Democratic majority.
April 17, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please drop this "permanent Democratic majority" crap. No majority is permanent, and Republicans convincing themselves that they could form one is the biggest reason they're in the hole they are in: they thought they were unbeatable, and they behaved as if they were accountable to no one. And then the American people got tired of it and decided to hold them accountable.
April 19, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This assumes the secessionists would follow your logic, which of course, is impossible as they are intellectually incapable of recognizing logic, let alone following it if they did.
More likely, they would carve out sections in the shape of Chuck Norris (The State of "Norris"), a gun (the State of "Pistola"), a cowboy hat ("10 Gallon"), a longhorn cow ("Moo"), and then whatever is left which can't be made to look like something will be called the State of "Over Yonder", or simply " 'Nuther State".
April 17, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW - they might keep the name of Texas for the country...
...but dagnabbit, it shur'd be mighty fine if all ya'll be namin' it "Tar'Nation!". Boy-howdy that name there sounds right as rain - like all y'all fixin' for a fight or somthin'.
April 17, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you forgot the state shaped like an oil well derrick -- Milkshake?
April 18, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress approved by Joint Resolution a treaty it should have considered in the Senate only where it didn't have the votes
Abrogate the Treaty
Throw em out
April 17, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Junior Senator from Tejas is doing his damnedest to deny Minnesota a senator and their governor has set himself up as the leader of the Texas Secessionist movement
Google the images...Texas has had a secessionist constituency for as long as I can remember. Hell it only took em 15 years in the union to try it
Throw the bastards out
April 17, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, we get to keep Austin!!!
Second, they get to keep their racist assholes:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/brown-asian-names/
Third, in the event of a potential war with Texas, we should hunt down George W. Bush in his spider hole.
"We got him!"
April 17, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
April 18, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
April 18, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gracias
April 19, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming this is not total lunacy, wouldn't the terms of Texas's readmission to the Union after the Civil War supersede any original considerations?
April 17, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that assumption's gonna hold for longer than about one more news cycle...
April 18, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That same question has occurred to me.
April 19, 2009 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
People talk about "readmission", but all that really refers to is seating their senators and congressmen. Lincoln's and Johnson's position was that they didn't need to be re-admitted because they never left. There was never a Joint Act of Congress signed by the President "readmitting" a state to the Union.
But this idea that Texas retained the right to secede in 1845 is a strange one. That, certainly, was disproven by the Unpleasantness two decades later.
April 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think discussing opinions of criminals of their profession is down right asinine. But, it is fun. Being from Texas myself, the "ambient racism" Colin Powell refers to is derived from his many trips to Crawford. Parts of Texas is stuck is some alternate universe and the rest is on the edge ready to jump. I have always known "Texans" revel in being "unique" regards of aspect. Granted there is sometimes competitions for who can do the stupidest thing or just being proud to be considered stupid. With that being said, I do love the state because I do understand it. Many in Texas have been waiting to do and say much going on right now, but couldn't because they also know that most is racist and is not tolerated by society and employers. I live in Chicago now and really wish I was back there to "slap the taste out of the mouth" of any of the bravest to bring this crap to my face. This is the only reaction "Texans" recognize and it should be administered by a really Texans who is a citizen of this here United States of America.
April 18, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why people think the current US Congress would admit 4 new "Texas" substates. I'm missing where they are required to do so.
Maybe the Blue Dogs will join hands with the GOP on that one. Nah...
John
April 18, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
A short conversation I had today with a Republican friend.
ME: What the Hell is wrong with you guys?
HIM: What?
ME: Rick Perry trying to take his ball and go home...?
HIM: Well, Texas is different and--
ME: It's not that goddamn different.
HIM: Yeah, but Texas has these rules--
ME: No. It doesn't, actually. By the way, are you going to demand your son stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school?
HIM: What are you talking about?
ME: You clearly don't think the U.S. is "one nation under God, indivisible" now do you?
HIM: Well...
ME: Aren't you saying--explicitly--that the U.S. is, in fact, divisible?
HIM: Look, the Pledge has nothing to do with this.
ME: So, in other words, you're going to let your son keep saying something you think is actually wrong. Damn! Give me an honest atheist dad any day.
HIM: Goddamn it...
ME: Hey, don't get mad at me. Your folks are the ones who are protesting against tax increases, even though Obama is lowering those peoples' taxes. Your folks are the ones who are saying that you may, possibly, just might have to commit treason and divide our country. The least you could do is show the courage of your convictions and demand your son quit saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm sure he'd understand when you explained to him that daddy doesn't really think America's worthy since the majority voted against daddy's party.
HIM: Aw, fuck off.
ME: Roger. Fucking off...
April 18, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you really? Ah, to be a fly on the wall for that!
April 18, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! I never thought about that, but you're 100% on top of their dung heap! Who would have thought the repuglicans would give us the Pledge to use as a whipping tool against them. Sounds like repuglicans are really sadomasochist at heart.
April 18, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah. Right, the pledge... that was about God, not the US.
God changed its cosmic mind, and well, Texas is just too big to fail. [They] want concessions. As if... I say, sit back down Texas, you're drunk. I'm calling a cab.
April 18, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that Texas was actually admitted to the union in 1870 -- whatever was agreed to back in 1845 became just a bunch of nonsense after 1861. Four years of treason and five years of reconstruction should count for something ...
April 18, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point. It seems odd that we would even consider honoring a treaty with a state that begged for annexation when they needed Federal protection only to betray that union when they didn't like the results of an election.
It seems like secession, or attempted secession I should say, is abrogation of that treaty.
April 18, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking as well. Texas declared the 1845 deal null and void when it seceded. They can't now go back and say, "Haha. That whole secession thing? We were just joking, man! We really didn't mean it. You're not going to hold that against us, are you?"
April 19, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear Obama favors a Two State solution.
April 18, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
TEXAS SECEDES FROM UNION:
1- United States closes all military bases in Texas
2- All border operations turned over to Republic of Texas(RoT)
3- Fence built between RoT and US.
4- All Interstate's Operation and Maintenance turned over to RoT.
5- All Federal Funds for Schools and Social Programs going to RoT discontinued.
6- RoT required to create own currency.
7- Citizens of RoT required to present passport for travel into US.
8- RoT required to pay US for US owned infrastructure inside RoT.
9- RoT must apply for membership in NAFTA before trading with the US.
10- All offshore oil rigs in US territorial waters
owned by RoT based Companies shall be closed, moved, or nationalized by US.
April 18, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that sums it up nicely.
Maybe the President should call their (delusional) bluff...
First teabagging, and now this. It keeps getting better and better -- pass the popcorn!
Hmm, what's Mike Steele got to say about it all? Rush got him all locked down?
April 18, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rules were made to be broken. Supposedly states are not supposed to be carved out from existing states.
But they have been: Maine was carved out from Massachusetts and West Virginia was carved out of Virginia.
The constitution, on point, reads:
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, "[n]ew 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."
April 18, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tim:
There's a difference between the status of Texas and that of Maine (and West Virginia): the former was (before 1820) a noncontiguous territory of Massachusetts, and was separated peacefully and legally: and the latter (WV) separation was done pretty much by-the-book as well (if less peacefully) even if, IIRC, post-Civil-War Virginia wasn't too happy with the results. IOW, the "ratified by the Legislature and Congress" bit.
Texas, though, was pretty much a unique situation (typical!): it wasn't an "admission" by the usual (Territorial) route, but the "annexation" of what the US had previously recognized as an independent nation - hence the legislative contortions Tyler and Polk had to go through to sidestep the international-treaty process, and get Texas annexed as a [slave] State.
April 18, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Nevada was carved out of the western portion of Utah Territory in 1863, and made a state in order to give incumbent President Abraham Lincoln an extra three electoral votes in the 1864 election, while the far more populous eastern Utah Territory remained in territoril status for about another 30 years, all because Gov. Brigham Young defended the Latter Day Saints' practice of multiple nooki-- er, I mean, polygamy.
April 18, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the entire sentence: "...but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state...without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
That's not a ban on carving new states out of existing states, just a prohibition on doing it unless it is mutually agreed to by the legislatures of the states in question and by the Congress.
April 19, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, lets party like its 1861!
I'm just sitting back popping the corn. If anything, it marginalizes the GOP even more here in Tejas if they are split between the wackjobs and the slightly-less-wackjob.
Damn, where IS Molly when you need her? *sigh*
April 18, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Molly's laughing her ass off in heaven. Eating her popcorn with PLENTY of butter (no heart attacks in heaven, after all).
April 18, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see some facts here. The whole 'repub of TX' thing is such a joke, but of course it and the rest of the related hype fits well into this latest republican lie & scheme.
TX was not a real republic. It was hardly even anything organized, but maybe so in their eyes. It had no constitution, currency, or real government when it 'broke away' from Mexico - or tried to, it took the US/Mex war to seal that.
The 14th state of the US however was a real & I think the only other republic aside from the original 13 states. This state had a real goverment, constitution and currency for about 15 years until it was admitted as the 14th state of the US. It was also the first state to outlaw slavery & promote human rights as a primary right. The state has also recently had another significant landmark in human rights.
April 18, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look guys I am a Texan, born and raised. I have had the priveledge to go to many of our other 49 states and also trips to mexico as well as Europe. I have also lived in three major cities in Texas and all of them are quite differen cultures. All these experiences have rounded my impression of what a Texan really is and my conclusion I think would be no different then what someone from say New York (the northern part and its differences from the NYC parts in South). Texas is made up of many different people with lots of different cultural traditions. The comment on texas being divided up and having two wacko regions, one Dem region and two swing regions sounds about right to me. Look we Texans elected more Dems this last go around in tghe elections, so hold your horses on calling Texans anything other than Americans. Sure we have our wackos but many of those wacko's are entrenched in Texas politics much like GWB. They have the support of the energy industry in many regards and the building/real estate development which are quite powerful foes to un-trench. There share of the business market and there influence in the business market has been a sort of barometer for what GWB tried in office as I see it. They are pro-deregulation, they are pro-lowering taxes (of course they make up for this by raising taxes on property, which is supposed to aid our underfunded and underperforming education system), they are pro-gun, pro-life etc. In short they have had very little success in improving the lives of many texans, while those with influence and power have become more beholding to these ideas and more wealthy because of them. However, Texas still is one of the national leaders in uninsured children, one of the most underperforming in education, highest teen pregnancy rates, high poverty rates so I find it as I have for some time dubious to conclude that the GOP has done anything for most texans but doen a lot for some Texans.
With all that said, it does not help that when our state or federally elected officials decide to open up the pie-holes that reporter's do not ask them the tough questions or call them out on there BS. For example, this passed election was rather tough on me with some of my family members and friends. They have grown up identified themselves with being conservative (Reagan hooked line aand sunk them) but many I talked to agreed that GWB had done a rather poor job of being the POTUS. But instead of coming to the conclusion that his ideas were bankrupt they simply conclude that his failure was not in ideology but one in performance. Just this passed Thursday I was watching the news with my father on TV covering the comments that Rick Perry had made (in a fricking hunting jacket and a baseball hat, real professional like) and some of the Texas Dem's were followed up in the story condemning his comments. Then this Texas GOP'er gets interviewd about Perry's comments and his statement was "maybe if everybody else in the US was a little more like Texas, then everything would be just fine!" I looked over at my dad, and I commented "great, now where is the reporter who should be asking him what exactly he means by being more Texan? Is he talking about our high teen pregnancy rates? Is he talking about our underperforming schools? Is he talking about our high rates of uninsured adults and children?" I am almost sure he was really just commenting about the state of Texas's econmy compared to the US (Texas has not in my opinion had to suffer as much as many of the other states durng this downturn) My father got mad at me and told me my comments were partisan, we yelled, my sister and my mom tried to stay out of it, I then went upstairs to google some info which I provided for my dad from a Texas.gov website that backed up many of my comments, things settled down. My dad thinks Rick Perry is an idiot but he also thinks that my attacks against the GOP are partisan. Therefore like many Texans who disagree with our states embrace of many of its current policies we have a tough fight ahead of us because we love our fellow texans(family and friends) but think they need to open their eyes a little bit and step back from it all. Rick Perry in my opinion is toast in the next GOV election because I think Texas is in many ways dominated by the 4 big cities which tend to be more swing than solidly partisan. I believe Hutchinson will become the next Gov and we will fill her vacant seat with a Dem. Cornyn is an idiot and a neo-con but the press really does a poor job of labeling him as such. I think his time has come and his next election challenger will be in a better position because of the ground work that was done by the Obama volunteer workers in the state and the hard work of his last challenger Rick Noriega.
I will not give up on Texas but I am looking forward to living somewhere else to gain more perspective in the future.
April 18, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America."
Leave, apparently.
When the going gets rough, Texans split. That's his message.
Idiot.
April 18, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, California was a republic, too. The Bear Flag Republic lasted, I think, three weeks or so.
Still, if Texas has to stay, I guess we do, too.
shucks.
April 18, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hawaii was an independent nation until 1898.
As a matter of fact, the Kingdom of Hawaii was actually the very first nation whose duly constituted government, a constitutional monarchy, was unilaterally overthrown by the American military, setting a very dubious precedent in U.S. history.
April 18, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the idea of Texas splitting into five states. At the same time, Florida and California should split into four states each, and New York should split into three. Maybe some others should split, too.
This would help counteract the power Montana and other low-population states have in the Senate.
Also, I bet if Texas split up, the new states would spend most of their energy squabbling with each other.
Finally, if Texas DID secede, I betcha that within a decade, their NORTHERN border would be more fortified than their southern one.
April 18, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And perhaps the island of Kauai could separate from Hawaii and become an independent kingdom, as it existed before King Kamehameha I gained it by treaty in 1810.
April 18, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much creative power contained in Texas I fear splitting it would unleash an intellectual explosion so overwhelming the remaining Union would be at its mercy for generations to come.
April 19, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rick Perry: If at First You Don’t Secede ….
See
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/if-at-first-you-dont-secede/
April 18, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simmer down, now...Texas isn't going to secede.
On Friday, the Lege engaged in a little political gamesmanship...slashed Perry's office budget by 96% and put a six-shooter to the head of Perry's valuable graft account (the Texas Enterprise Fund).
Both resolutions passed on a voice vote, as no one was willing to go on the record supporting Perry.
The money will probably be restored by the Senate, but for now the message is clear: "Can it with the crazy talk Rick, or we're cutting off your allowance."
April 19, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
And a reply to JoshQuasi: I hear ya and I have no illusions about the tenor of the political debate in, say, San Augustine or Goldthwaite but, even the average Repug=blican can see the idiocy of Perry.
I just think the smack-in-the-face of the last election (remember the "death of the Democrats" talk of four years ago?), has made them a bit koo-koo en la cabeza, capiche? And I'm loving every koo-koo statement out of their mouths.
Maybe my sister, who worked in W's Administration, will follow thru with her idea of working on Kay Bailey's campaign and come back to Tejas.
At least I'll be able to see my nephews more often and be spared Perry's idiocy...
April 19, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a recovering Texan I would suggest that Gov. Rick and "Bug Man" Delay be allowed to exit immediately - if not sooner - but on the condition that they take Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama in a "to go" cup.
I'm also reminded that the blessed Molly once wrote that "Texas is just Mississippi with good roads."
April 20, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all Texans are ignorant. Take me, for example...
April 20, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Joke:
How do you know you're in Texas?
Go west until you smell bull sh*t;
then go south until you're standing in it.
April 20, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink