411
The Supreme Court Has Itself to Blame for Texas Defying Its Orders (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/politics@lemmy.world
135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

So when is some fine Texan going to step up and gather signatures for a secession referendum, and force that amoral shitstain of a governor to put his money where his all-hat-no-cattle mouth is?

Because I think if anyone anywhere started looking at this and making serious "this might be a good idea" noises, the instant and overwhelming backpedaling from pissbaby and all his shitstirring crew would create enough breeze to justify an offshore wind farm.

So do it. Make him eat it. What does it take to get a referendum going in Texas? Look like you're making a start at putting it to a vote and watch these assholes panic like you've never seen them panic before.

EDITED TO ADD: Holy shit, they've already tried and failed multiple times, lol. Also, this Texas Monthly article from late 2022 is an excellent read on the subject. It can never happen, because a post-Civil War law from 1869 makes a state's unilateral secession from the union illegal. There can be no secession, nor even a referendum. No wonder these drama kings are so confident.

SECOND EDIT: To be clear, I have no desire to see Texas secede. But neither do Greg Abbot and his merry team of American unionbusters: actual secession would destroy them and their whole political machine. So stop trying to frame this comment as me actually advocating for secession, when what I am actually advocating for is Pissbaby having to own the words coming out of his nasty little piehole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Can we PLEASE, in the Trump / Brexit era, recognize how baseless accelerationism is? Have we not learned the lesson of

    "Once these people do this terrible, stupid thing, they will realize how terrible & stupid it is"

    -is completely false? And in fact tons of people will double down on the stupid terrible thing? They'll double down so much that they'll gladly swallow horse dewormer & bleach, and not get vaccinated, and literally die drowning in their own fluids before admitting that maybe that wasn't such a good idea?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago*

    I live here, in the thick of it, and honestly you could probably just tell most of them succession happened and it worked and everything is fine now and they'd probably believe you, and the crazy part is, they'd never notice because they likely expect nothing to change in their completely unaffected by anything ever in their entitled as hell daily lives

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Also, this Texas Monthly article from late 2022 is an excellent read on the subject. It can never happen, because a post-Civil War law from 1869 makes a state's unilateral secession from the union illegal. There can be no secession, nor even a referendum. No wonder these drama kings are so confident.

    Which is pretty whack. I don't in any way endorse what the Texas government is doing with the border, just to get that out of the way. The idea that a state isn't free to seceed is completely ridiculous. One can not rightfully claim the U.S. is a free country if the states are not free to leave the union. This idea that once you're a part of the union, you're apart of the union forever is a gang mentality that has no place in a free society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A unilateral secession is illegal. If the others state agree to let you go, you can. Exactly the same as joining: the current states have to vote on whether to let you in. It makes a lot of sense. States joining or leaving on a whim creates major instability for the nation government. Having a fairly high bar for it is a good idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it's membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
    If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.

    At it's most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're applying personal freedom to a state of millions of people, which is nowhere near the same thing. People can do whatever the heck they want. States can't, because they're infrastructure for millions of people's lives. Infrastructure does not get stalk angrily out of the room in a huff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I would have to disagree. States are just groups of people. They can hold all the rights that people hold, but cannot hold any rights people don't hold (since those people cannot grant a right they themselves do not have).
    I struggle to see how it can be deemed acceptable to tell a state they can't leave because it may have a negative effect on the rest of the union. This is saying that once you join the union, you are a hostage of the union. Any negative effect this has on the rest of the union is not the responsibility of that state. If the union would benefit from continued use of infrastructure in the departing state, they can try to work out an agreement around that, or the union can figure out a way to fill the gaps left in infrastructure, but it makes no sense to hold the state hostage for the sake of saving the union from the hardship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent