People keep talking about "Federalizing the National Guard" and now you've got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I'm a Brit
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Legal Eagle just released a video on exactly this topic. Spoiler: the whole Texas being allowed to secede is basically a myth and pretty much all scholars agree that Texas nor any other state has the ability to leave except by a mutually agreed dissolution or via revolution.
I adore Legal Eagle.
Love his videos! I'll be sure to check it out.
The thing about law though, is that it's just a framework of written social contracts between rational parties agreeing to abide by the terms and consequences.
Reality is a bit different.
Texas could halt physical transport of goods/services. Refuse to buy US imports. Stop collecting tax revenue. Gun down federal employees that don't swear Texan allegiance.
It doesn't really matter what legal papers say, when it comes to actions.
Sure - there may be consequences for such "illegal" state actions, and the documented illegality would be articulated as official justification after administering such consequences.
But that also only matters if Texas is defeated ... in the unlikely event they "win," - they'd write their own narrative with legal justification.
how would texas win against the full federal military that has nukes and drones?
I'm not saying they have any chance - just making the point that "legal" and "illegal" are arbitrary and determined by whoever is the dominant power. Texas seceding is "illegal" only so long as the US remains powerful. If by some unholy miracle, Texas were to win independence from the US, they would probably write their own laws to say rejoining the US is illegal.
Another pair of cases to make my point - the Holocaust was "legal" to the Nazis. After they were defeated, the UN made genocide "illegal." But how many genocides have occurred around the world since 1949?
Laws are only as good as they are enforceable, which is exactly what you underscore by citing the strength of the US military. Is it "legal" to make drone strikes or drop a nuke on Texas? 🤷