Best Answer
The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States" ... not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.

Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.

Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group. Superior strength does not prove morality or legality as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest.

Some people are under the mistaken impression that the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White "proved" that secession is unconstitutional. Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to "re-admit" Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be "re-admitted" and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.

Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.

One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the 'readmission' of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. White...it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.

Because of this, if state's rights proponents continue to argue that a state's right to secede is implied because they joined the union as 'independent states', a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution. Membership in a union does not dimish in importance or totality a state's sovereignity. That's the whole point of federalism. However, it does imply relinquishing some power to the national government. Indeed, federalism is 'shared' power, but it is not 'equal' power, at least in the example of the US. Clearly national dominance was designed into the structure of the Constitution.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

Really the thing the Civil War proved was the Republic was not going to tolerate secession. If Texas dropped out it could lead to another Civil conflict.

Yes, that is why there are signs of a groups of people piling up a bunch of weapons, stocking piling food, etc.

There are some who believe a civil war is coming. I have met people who are moving out of Texas because they believe this is going to happen. I think they are wrong, it ain't gonna happen.

as far as I know, the Texas governor hasn't filed a petition to succeed. It is only some residents that filed a petition....along with residents of 29 other states. In fact, he has distanced himself from this.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/petition-to-secede-states_n_2120410.html

I wonder if these states (the state government) decided to succeed...could the country stop it? It's over half of the country.

I say let 'em go if they want.

The above-quoted statement contains a glaring error. The independent nation of Hawaii did not choose to give up its sovereignty and to become a possession of the USA. Instead, its government was overthrown by a military coup led by a corrupt U.S. government official who was a political appointee. Although the U.S. Congress officially condemned the action, the U.S. government failed to give Hawaii back its independence.

Can someone show me where the hell Afroamerica is on the map?

It is like Sandy Island. It may show on a map but when you get there there is only water!

Texas? Someone asked me who would give millions of dollars to an idiot like Rick Perry to run for president. I told them to guess who got clearance to put a toxic waste dump dangerously close to Texas' largest aquafir. Hope nothing happens and you guys still have water to drink

Why does that not surprise me.

Montana is the only state that could legally secede.

The escape clause is that if the 2nd amendment is repealed or the citizens of Montana are ever denied their rights to bear arms they can leave the union no questions asked.

The rest of the states are screwed.

Really?

Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.

why didn't you post the rest of it..

The entire post in in the O.P.

Q: Can Texas Secede from the Union?

A: Doubtful. It would be a total financial disaster for them.

http://mises.org/daily/6302

Is Secession a Right?