politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm not like a US civil war scholar or anything, but there's at least a glimmer of precedence to be found there with what happened to average folk living in the Confederate States when those states seceded. Babies born in the Confederacy were considered US citizens because the US (the Union) never recognized the Confederacy as independent and legally considered it US territory still. As for adults, it was similar... The US treated them as if they had never lost US citizenship and either punished or pardoned people for treason and war related crimes after the war. So I guess the answer would depend on whether Texas wins or loses the inevitable war that the US would fight to keep Texas from seceding/declaring independence in the first place.
To add to that- it’s nearly impossible to lose American citizenship against one’s will. If you were born a citizen or earned it later, you will likely remain a citizen until you die, unless you give it up.
Even Jefferson Davis died an American citizen.
It's even hard to willfully give up your citizenship.
About inevitable war - I heard some mentions of Texas' conditions of entering the union being different, since it, eh, became part of the US at a different point of history. And thus that in case of Texas specifically secession would still be their right.
Have you heard of such a thing?
Anyway would be awfully stupid to see a war over this.
It would make more sense for Texas to be like Christiania in Copenhagen for some time in case of such a weird event - no recognition, but also no war and no borders.
I mean, some Texans might think so. Maybe even Texan politicians. However, Texas tried it already. It was one of the slave states that seceded and got its ass kicked in the civil war. Generally, that's the legal precedent that people refer to when they argue whether or not a state has the right to secede. The answer is war/no. That doesn't mean it would have to result in that in the future, but I think the only way they could get it to work without violence would be by starting some devolution movement and getting the US constitution amended to allow Texas in particular to secede and that would require a constitutional convention and the consent of the majority of the other states. Otherwise, they'd have to win a war against the US.
I'm not that ignorant of history to need to be informed about this ...
I personally just don't like centralism and don't see secession as bad in theory. That, of course, means that not only a state should be able to secede from the union, but also any part of the state from it, etc.
Anyway, this is all not important. Healthy societies do well with any model (I'd say for a healthy society with any law there'd be no war in such an event). Unhealthy ones do bad with any model (even if there'd be laws designed to prevent war). Models affect their development and long-term "health", though.
Idiots in Texas believe this. The well informed in Texas know this to be false AF.
This is a common urban myth, but is untrue. There is no special part of the Texas state constitution that makes any mention of the ability to leave the USA. Nor is there anything in the USA constitution which would allow for this. It most likely comes from a clause in the document annexing Texas to the United States which allows for the state to break into multiple states. However this probably doesn't bypass the normal process of granting statehood. So if for all practical reasons not a thing.