The US should sponsor a referendum in Texas (and make a secret pact with Mexico at the same time).

Both the original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper." Argument A Technically, one could argue the United State's constitution permits state succession. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration of Independence However, the context was relating to our separation from England. And a common occurrence in history, the 'victors' tend to write it. Meaning, in 'Americans' eyes, our separation from England was a revolution. But if you ask England, they'd call it a cilvil war and an act of treason. The Fact of the matter is, we have no legal precedent of a state attempting to succeed the Union. It would fundamentally come down to a court ruling and it would be a highly impacting decision. (For both the present and future) Argument B The above example would be a case of 'non-violent' succession. However, we have had scenarios in American history of violent successions. The Civil War being the most prevalent example. Technically at that time, several states were no longer part of the 'United States of America' and were in fact a 'sovereign' nation. But as history showed, it did not remain that way and many scholars feel that the civil war in essence proved that militaristic forms of succeeding are highly unlikely as a lasting effect. That is even more true today with the advancements of the military. I'm not saying Texas isn't tough, but when you you're fighting a war machine the odds are slim. Argument C See Family Guy Season 2 Episode 18 Peter creates his own country 'Petoria' after realizing his house did not fall in the U.S. jurisdiction during a zoning dispute. And while it's comical and not 'factual' the acts in which they turn off his lights, water, etc is a realistic concept. If were Texas were to succeed (through arms or legality) major issues would be raised because the U.S. invested in this state. We built roads, communication, fire stations, army bases, and I doubt the keys would just be handed over. Conclusion If the task of succeeding were so simple the very concept of the USA would be in jeopardy. Anytime a state felt it could do better on it's own, it would leave just like that and pretty soon we would have 50 sovereign nations in the once land space of 'America.' It is the federal government interests as a whole to prevent this from happening. From a violent standpoint, it would be downright near impossible. The Civil war as proven that. As far as referendums, we would have to see the most controversial, highly published, highly political, displays of 'paperwork' for a legal 'non-violent' succession. It would in no doubt be decided by the Supreme Court and even if we had 9 of the most conservative justices that could be picked, I could never see them making a decision that set a legal precedent for any state to leave at will. It would destroy the concept and bedrock of the USA and would ultimately threaten national and economic security. So in short, you're stuck with us. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://wiki.answers.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...