It seems to me that, increasingly these days, truth is not so much relative as it is democratic. In other words, truth is exactly and only what the majority say it is. Even in matters where the scientific method should cool judgments, “9 out of 10 doctors” or “most scientists agree” conclusively trumps the minority’s truth.
This phenomenon goes double where right versus wrong, good versus bad is involved.
There are plenty of currently newsworthy examples, from “Climate Change” to the economy, in which wrong is somehow voted into truth, and people suffer as a result.
But let us consider the Republic of Texas. There is still a slim chance that, at least in a way, truth could prevail over majority madness.
Of course “everybody knows” that states have no right to secede. The majority has concluded that the matter was settled conclusively with the Civil War – and States’ Rights lost. Because the majority so strongly believes this, a sort of perverse “Tinker Bell Effect” makes it so.
Legally, as far as written law goes, states do have the unambiguous right to secede. Even after the Civil War, the federal constitution was never amended to prohibit it, and the Texas Constitution is both clear – and couldn’t be more up-front about it. Here are the very first words of that contract:
(Article I, Sec. I) Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Then consider Article I, Sec. 29:
To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
While it’s the longest of all state constitutions, the Texas Constitution has no “commerce clause” or other vague wording like “necessary and proper” that could be “interpreted” to authorize anything outside the black-and-white written words.
So, right off the bat, we see that Texas’ subservience to the Constitution for the United States of America depends upon the federal government’s obedience to that contract. If the federal government breaks its side of the contract, we technically no longer even have a federal government, and even the contract, as written, is wholly void as far as Texas is concerned.
It’d be their duty as both Texans, and as citizens loyal to the US Constitution, to oppose such a rogue power.
Could there be any doubt that the federal leash has snapped? Do any states have anything like “self-government” anymore? What law, what action can’t be overturned by federal courts, federal legislation, or federal action?
The real argument is not whether Texas should secede, but whether the federal government has already seceded from the USA.
The words in the federal and state constitutions are in this case quite plain.
OK, so y’all could vote on whether any of this matters or not. Anything is equivocal if you really want it to be. But consider this:
If the words that guarantee states’ rights don’t mean what they say, then neither do the words that guarantee any of your rights.
If constitutions don’t mean what they say, then pick a favorite part of the Bill of Rights…and then consider it gone.
Without constitutions, you have no legal rights to property, pursuit of happiness, liberty …or life.
Are you ready to wave those legal words away?