Do libertarians support Texas secession?

I recently just heard about the possibility of Texes seceding, naturally I was quite surprised. But I then got to reading about the type of government that Texes would have. It would be a lot like a libertarian utopia. So I personally support Texas secession (although I don't live in Texas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Secession_Movement

So do libertarians support Texas secession?

 

Texas isn't going seceded. People in Texas are so retarded they fail to to even know their own entry into the union that said Texas could be split up into 4 different states, not leave the union, and if anything their involvement in the civil war made this null and void.(Though apparently in Texas people get taught Texas was neutral in the civil war)

And no, libertarians don't support their right to leave.

 

Ron Paul does.

 

Ron Paul is just trying to get attention, Ron Paul is a constitutionalist over being a Libertarian, and technically if the voters/state assembly of a state agreed, and the federal government and congress agreed, constitutionally a state could leave the union in theory.

 

'Libertarians' don't support anything. Anyone was half a brain will make those kinds of decisions for themselves, not wait to find out what their political designation's stance on it is. That said, Texas will never secede.

 

Pretty sure Libertarians would say "Laissez-faire" and wouldn't care about any type of social, political, cultural, etc. implications because the entire philosophy is based on liberating economies as the best possible goal

So, if Texas was going to secede would it maximize freedom in the market?

If it does, Libertarians support it.

 

Exactly.


I urge you guys to look into the subject of Texas secession. It is very interesting.

 

I'm sure some do and some don't.

But seeing as most of them like to adhere to the Constitution..and it's already been decided in White vs Texas that it was and would be unconstitutional.

The Texas Constitution even states that, "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..."

It would really just be a dumb move advocated by a group of people that aren't quite sure what they're doing. Rick Perry states that the US has abandoned our founding principles and that's why they should secede...people like that need a strong lesson in United States history. Heard of Federalists? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

So we let them cry it out.

 

they can if they want to, i dont think it will though. there is no law saying they cant.

 

Actually yes there is, what is it about people ignoring the constitution these days, the civil war proved states don't have a right to leave the union, this is not a voluntary confederation, this is a permanent union when you enter it. For a state to leave the union they must exit the same way they entered it, their state assembly or popular vote in agreement with the federal congress and president of the United States.

 

it is voluntary to become a state, there for it is voluntary to leave as well. The president under the constitution has no authority over states and state laws.

And the civil war was an immoral war for the reason they left by a vote of the people. President Lincoln's actions were not lawful under the constitution.

 

The president has the power, his main power, of enforcing the laws of the United States, and states are subject to federal law, and as of yet the law requires federal consent for a state to enter the union, so going by how they entered, federal consent must be given to leave too.

 

well, i'm in tex-ass. i was raised the first ten years of my life in minnesota.
tex-ass is the asshole of america!
i know several members of libertarian party here in san antonio.
most of them belive they can bring about a new 'republic of texas' by secession or, in the worst case due to the feds... civil war.
the poor libertarians have the same problem as the communists... their ecomomic philosophy, just does not work too well in the real world.
it never ceases to amaze me, how hard people will live in denial, just like the fantical belivers of one religion or another!

 

maybe you should read the constitution and the bill of rights. the presidents job is the commander and chief of the armed forces. the president has no authority over states and how they choose to operate.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Aside from being commander and chief of the armed forces, article 2, clause 4 of the constitution grants executive power to faithfully enforce the laws of the federal government of the United States. The federal government has certain authority over states and the president of the United States is both head of government and head of the state in our system.

 

Actually found it, the supreme court has the final say in what is and what is not constiutional, and I thought it involved Texas to begin with, and sure enough, my memory held true:

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[31][32]




In another words minus mass revolution the only way a state can leave is in how it joined.

 

Quite the memory, MadCap.

All sorts of wrong. You can't tell someone else to read something you haven't gotten around to yet. And Congress only has the power to congregate, right?

 

Nah this exact same argument came up years ago and I thought the original case had to do with Texas, and sure enough, it was in fact Texas.

 

texas joined the union under the joint resolution in congress and texas has a right to divide itself into 5 states. The way the law is written it is unclear if those 5 states would be required to join the union. This law only applies to texas.

And you are correct with the Texas vs White case. but there are still 2 ways for a state to leave.
1 mass revolution (as you said before)
2 congress grants a state permission to leave

 

Well the wording is:

Which pretty much states new states would be that of new states admitted to the federal union, not as independent states, especially when you take into context the fact the treaty of annexation for Texas applied immediate statehood to Texas.