Texas Leaving to Become Independent: All About The Money

Dollars and cents.

Comments (3)|2 Liked It


     After weeks of flirting with the idea of joining either the SEC or the Pac 12, The university of Texas has now made it’s decision, according to information leaked on Wednesday afternoon.

     And apparently Texas has gone the one direction no one expected but that we all probably should have…. It appears they will be joining the ranks of the BCS independent schools.  Like BYU before them, the Longhorns will be joining Notre Dame, Army, and Navy as the only BCS schools without a conference affiliation.

     This shouldn’t come as quite the surprise it seems to have.  There was little doubt that Texas would leave the sinking ship the Big 12 has become following the departures of Colorado, Nebraska, and now Texas A & M.  And with the launching of the Longhorn television network, the pieces are all in place. 

     The decision makes perfect sense for Texas; as an independent, it will enable the Longhorns to maintain some of their traditional rivalries, and will make the road to the giant BCS payday each year that much easier without a regular season and conference championship game to worry about. 

     In the end, it has come down to the very backbone of what college football is about today…. money,  And with the near certain spawning of Super conferences in the coming years, it puts the Longhorns in a far better negotiating position.

     While no formal announcement has been made, a press conference is expected early next week, with a press release possible as soon as Friday.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  1. Posted September 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Lol…after reading the title, I though it was about maybe Texas becoming it’s own country. You do know that we are the only state that can do that don’t you? See, now you have something else about Texas to write about..lol

  2. Posted September 7, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    I have to admit, I too thought the state of Texas was trying to become its own country. Then again, I’m from Canada, and Quebec has been trying to become an independent nation for over two decades now. Nevertheless, it is a shame that money motivates even the most traditional sports these days.

  3. TexasLaw
    Posted September 7, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Can Texas Secede From the Union?

    The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States” … not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.

    Both 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.”

    Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.

    Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually “proved” is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group. Superior strength does not prove morality or legality as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest.

    Some people are under the mistaken impression that the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White “proved” that secession is unconstitutional. Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to “re-admit” Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be “re-admitted” and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.

    Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.

    One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the ‘readmission’ of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas vs. White…it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
    Because of this, if state’s rights proponents continue to argue that a state’s right to secede is implied because they joined the union as ‘independent states’, a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution. Membership in a union does not dimish in importance or totality a state’s sovereignity. That’s the whole point of federalism. However, it does imply relinquishing some power to the national government. Indeed, federalism is ’shared’ power, but it is not ‘equal’ power, at least in the example of the US. Clearly national dominance was designed into the structure of the Constitution.

Post Comment
comments powered by Disqus