TED Conversations

Robert Winner

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

Should California and Texas be allowed to secede or split?

Both California and Texas are allowed by agreement when entering the union to secede or split.

Both have serious efforts to do just that.

Could either make it work? Why? Why not?

Share:
  • Feb 23 2014: No, they are not. Stop spreading stupid lies.
    • thumb
      Feb 24 2014: For Texas the answer Yes there is legal president, but claims to do so have been corrupted by those trying to do land grabs and with the democratic party and white house have been illegally using federal money to turn Texas blue. So at the current time it will not happen, so I’ll spend my time thinking about stuff with real possibilities.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Secession_Movement
      • Comment deleted

      • Feb 27 2014: Cite and quote the specific original documents that grant such alleged privileges. I'm calling you out. A wikipedia citation of an extremist group that has never cited such original documents doesn't cut it.
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2014: this is not an answer or opinion to this topic, but here is some food for thought,

    http://www.wimp.com/manycountries/
  • Mar 6 2014: Hey Rob,
    If California or Texas were to secede from the Union I think it would have a bigger impact on the U.S. This is because California is where the United States gets a "sizable majority" of its produce from California. Also if Texas were to secede the United States would have very limited, IF ANY, in country oil which would cause many problems. But they also rely on other states for different types of things such as cloths and a healthy economy. If California or Texas were to secede or split it would not benefit anyone and it would basically "Fuck over" the country.
  • Mar 5 2014: I believe every country have issues of this sort, cities or states that seem to wish to become independent countries.

    In the one hand there is the importance of freedom but in the other why would you add another frontier since clearly one of the major issues of our global society is patriotism?

    I like that you ask if they should be allowed. I think that we tend to find very attractive and interesting debates when we haven't first agreed on much more basic issues. Some of these issues would be what society allows the individual to do and what the individual allows society to do, who owns who, are we allowed to choose our careers and where we live?

    We accept that there is a voting system which is possibly democratic but I frankly doubt that it truly represents the current society. With this in mind I am not convinced that we would be able to find out from a referendum how the people of these states felt about this topic.

    So in conclusion I believe we would need to first agree if we are allowed to tell these people if they can leave or not and after this we would need to find a way to find out how everyone feel about it.

    Thank you for question, it is certainly a good debating topic.

    Regards,
    MD
  • thumb
    Mar 4 2014: As http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/March/The-New-USA-Secession-Movement-Gains-Steam/ reported, many rural areas want to split from their out-of-control state governments. They did not list Illinois, but I know for a fact people in rural areas would want to an amicable divorce.
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2014: Hi Bob,

    As a Texan, I am going to say, I don't believe there is a majority to vote to either divide or leave. I have family who live in California, and when asked recently about the 6 state story, they commented that it would not go as the majority populated LA/San Diego would get the short straw if the state divided.

    But, I have to say, your question is almost moot. With the federal power being wrapped into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the high court looking off into the sunset and the 535 legislators being converted into steers and capons, it is just a matter of time when states will just be lines on a map.
    Consider, just what do we need states for.... Think of the funds being sent to state capitals that could better be used by the Department of Health and Human Services. State Police? With all those Homeland Security Officers? Public Education? All run by Washington.
    If you were to poll the 300 odd million of us, about turning everything over to Washington just letting the constitution go away, it means those constant election cycles, with the commercials interrupting football games, the bickering going on in the capital... all that goes away. We don't even have to elect a President. He can just pick somebody when he wants to retire. And I'll bet that President won't let those 1%ers keep all that money they stole from us poor people.
    Just saying.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2014: Mike I am a really bad speller so there is white out all over my computer screen ... this is the first time that a reply has had so much funny sarcasm in it that it leaked through the white out.

      I doff my chapeau sir ....

      This talk occurs every one in a while. Its not going any where. However, it is doing some damage to the current office holders. The people of California are taking aim at the elections and all incumbants from the White House down have lousy ratings.

      The Democrats are pouring all their money into Senate races and have unleashed Bill Clinton to generate a come back. They have justified fears of losing the Senate and have conceded the House. That tells us how far the party is distancing themselves from Obama.

      Taxifornia is without water, money, and leadership .... they may not break up but the marriage is on the rocks.

      Texas did this when I lived there also. It is just their way of saying how sick they are of Washington.

      Because we are essentially a two party nation we register either democrate or republician .... however, surveys show that almost 50% are centralists in thought and action. Parties will have to win over the Independents to prevail.

      In my opinion ... you ain't seen nothing yet. Its gonna get crazy out there.

      Thanks for the reply. Bob.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2014: Hi Bob,
        What scares me is that I may be more insightful then sarcastic.

        Holding my nose and not because I live near a cattle ranch

        Mike
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2014: " Technology investor Tim Draper is trying to drum up support to split California into six states, one of them being Silicon Valley. His argument for redrawing the California map: The state is underrepresented in Washington. He's looking to get an initiative on the California ballot."

    These would create 10 more Senator in congress.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/21/business/la-fi-tn-silicon-valley-tim-draper-split-california-20131221

    I see major obstacles in the way of this happening, so the voters will probably vote for it.
  • Feb 25 2014: If we take the Constitution to be a revision of the Articles of Confederation (which was the explicit stated intent of the Convention), therefore, any portion of the Articles of Confederation not explicitly superceded by the Constitution remains in force (which would be very little). One of those tiny remnants would be "And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual." In other words, secession not permitted--not in a "perpetual" union.
  • Feb 25 2014: What did California and Texas say when you asked them?
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2014: "Both California and Texas are allowed by agreement when entering the union to secede or split."

    This is simply not true. There is no legal language in the Federal body of law, or within the bodies of law of either state, that legally allows secession. There is in fact legal decisions stating exactly the opposite.


    https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/20aug1866.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2014: It would be great if California would secede, I don’t see it happening with them and Illinois on the verge declaring bankruptcy.

    And speaking of Illinois the southern 80% of Illinois would love to secede from the state, or just made Chicago its own state. Please!
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2014: They may apply for it, that is their prerogative but I do not believe they will succeed. Many have tried, none have succeeded, however it does employee a few lawyers for awhile and as long as they are working on stupid crap like that at least they are not working on other stupid stuff that really effects people. The movie "Dumb and Dumber" comes to mind.
  • Feb 23 2014: Moving off topic. What would be the ruling if Texas were to annex LA. NM and OK? A super state would give the citizens in the affected states a boost in economic development to compete with east and west coast dominance. The super state fits culturally into Texas' matrix of cultures. The former states would be better off for it. CA is already culturally divided into three states, I would love to see a divided CA.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2014: I understand that Texas was permitted to divide into five states in the text of the Federal Proclamation that made Texas a State. So Texas has a legal right to divide into five states and has had that right since it became a state. Texas is the only state that entered the Union with that right guaranteed.

    The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would probably revoke that right if Texas tried to exercise it, though. SCOTUS wouldn't let Texas do it. Probably on the basis of past Texas secession to join the Confederate States of America in open rebellion against the United States of America. That is part of what led to the Civil War over Slavery etc. Once Texas seceded and then was permitted to rejoin, that earlier right was probably lost legally.

    It would probably take a U.S. Constitutional Amendment for California to subdivide into 3 or more states. And if that's just a 'debt dodge' then we are in trouble. Everybody will move to Idaho.

    No, California is definitely over taxed.

    But imagine what would happen w/the water emergency! The sub-divided California state w/the most water would tax and sell the water to the other 3 or 4 states. That's the same water that once belonged to all of California. Once that happened, at least one of the sub-divided California states would go bankrupt.

    Look at Detroit! That bankruptcy is messing up the entire state of Michigan! But then again, I know some OSU (Columbus, Ohio) grads at work who are willing to tell me that "Michigan" has always been a pretty messed up place. I did ask if they meant the University of Michigan or Michigan State University. They didn't have much to say about the Spartans, but the Wolverines were another matter entirely!
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2014: It is a constitutional right as you know. I heard Judge Napolitano say he would like to change it to "We the states".

    Keeping in mind that the Federal government was born of the states not the other way around. I would be in favor of it because at the very least it would be a wake up call.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2014: Pat, I do not disagree with you. However, would it stop the problem that led to the fall of Taxifornia. Not the least of which was the 2012 passage of Proposition 30, which raised state sales tax and state income tax to the highest levels which is offset by state and local government spending. California is the nation’s fourth-highest at 18.4 percent of its economic input. Further fueled by punitive and steeply progressive personal income tax code

      California is one of the highest-taxing states, especially personal and corporate income and sales taxes, and that suggests that they are inhibiting California’s economic progress.

      I would be remiss to not mention the role of city and government unions in the continuing spiral.

      In my opinion California is out of balance ... it is completely dominated by democratic leadership and they have adoped the Keynesian economics that prevail in Washington and the results are the same. With no oppopsition they lack the check and balances that are the bed rock of a successful Republic.

      The current water emergency would become impossible to resolve.

      I do not oppose the beak up .. I just do not see what it would resolve. It would make five states that would be MORE broken, indebit, and disfunctional that the one that exists.

      Thanks for the reply. Bob.
      • thumb
        Feb 22 2014: A better approach may be state nullification of FED laws or the idea that the states can vote for constitutional amendments under article 5.

        The solution to Calif is simple let them go broke and they will then have to give the unions a haircut.
        The legislators are so enamored with themselves that this is the only way I can see that they will wake up.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2014: Pat, I believe you and I have been through this before. You cannot justify calling secession a constitutional right, as the Constitution fails to address to issue at all. You are also aware that the US Supreme Court ruled in "Texas versus White" that a state does NOT have the unilateral right to secede.
      • thumb
        Feb 22 2014: I don't remember that, but clearly the intention of the Republic was the Federal government was created by the states not the other way around.

        Edit to add:

        Ok I see Scalia said it is not constitutional, that is good enough for me.