It seems likely that the Federal government will be used to bail out the blue states at the expense of the red states. That got me thinking about how states like Texas might legally succeed.

AI drafted legal arguments:

1. Ninth and Tenth Amendments: The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or to the people powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. From this, advocates might argue that the right of secession is one of those unenumerated rights retained by the people or the states. The states freely entered and there was no agreement at the time that they could not freely leave.

2. Principle of Popular Sovereignty: Advocates for secession could argue from the principle of popular sovereignty—that the authority of a state or its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people. Given the Ninth Amendment’s assertion of unenumerated rights retained by the people, it could be argued that if the people of Texas choose to withdraw that consent, they should have the right to secede.

3. Right of Revolution: The argument could be made using the “Right of Revolution” as suggested by philosophers like John Locke, and hinted at in the Declaration of Independence. This principle argues that the people have a right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of their inalienable rights. The Ninth Amendment could be invoked to suggest that this right, while unenumerated, is retained by the people.

What prevents a Texit?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White, stated that unilateral secession is not legal. When I looked at the case, it seems the court did not even consider the 9th and 10th amendments. 🤔