I thought I read somewhere that Texas gave up that right after the Civil War, but I could be wrong. It doesn’t matter anyway if they have the right or not, the Feds would still consider it an act of sedition as they would with any state. Texas is a “payer state”, not a “taker state”. The Feds could not afford to lose her. Texas could easily function completely on her own borders with no outside assistance from anyone. However, IF the big oil & gas states such as Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma etc. banded together on something like this....well, pop the popcorn because it would sure get interesting quick.
It would be a lot bigger than that. Just ask some of our other neighbors. I want no part of talk of secession. I want it all back and the Commie Bastards who are ruining the nation in Jail.
According to the data from the source below, TX gets .94 back for every dollar it sends to the feds.
That does indeed put her on the payer side, but just barely. #1 on the payer side, oddly, is NJ at .61. CA is at .78 and NY at .79.
If you look at the data there is a very obvious pattern. Red states tend to be takers, and blue states tend to be payers.
Data is from 2005. I couldn't find anything more recent, but I doubt the numbers have changed greatly. http://tax.d7.qorvisdev.com/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005
Just fyi, Oklahoma and Louisiana are taker states to use your lingo. There are only 11 payer states (states that bleed more money to the fed than they receive) and 39 taker states. I’ve made jaws drop when I’ve pointed out that Wyoming, percentage wise, is the biggest taker state in the union, receiving far more in federal money than is taken from the state. California might be nearly bankrupt internally, but it’s the biggest payer state, giving far more to the fed than it ever sees back.