Scientists are experts in specific areas of science.  We've learned so much since the Enlightenment that it is impossible for someone to be an expert in everything, like Robert Hooke.  Gaining that expertise takes a lot of time and energy leaving little time and energy for other things, which means we know a lot about a little and a little about a lot. 

El Supremo de Pharyngula, PZ Myers, noted for his expertise in developmental biology and the promotion of atheism, but not constitutional law or history, suggested that the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has committed treason for mentioning secession (Say. . .isn't this called treason).  The PZealots¹ have obligingly and predictably² followed his lead to the general tune of "Good riddance to bad rubbish."  Texas does try hard to make itself an easy target.

Certainly, PZ was not seriously accusing Perry of a capital crime.  So, why should we care?  In order to have meaningful discourse, words must have precise and agreed upon meanings.  Scientific understanding and public debate is plagued by the sloppy use of precise terminology in the hands of non-experts.  Political/legal discourse has similar problems.  PZ inadvertently points an excellent example of abuse of legal terminology: the use of treason by Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg² to label Democrats.  Treason has a precise definition in the American legal system:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
    -The United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

What happened?  On Wednesday, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, spoke to a tea party rally protesting the financial burden the government is taking on in its response to the current economic conditions.  In his speech, he barely tangentially mentioned secession. 

Does talking about secession constitute treason?  No, based on the fact that talking is neither levying War, nor providing Aid and Comfort³ to Enemies.  Considering that the US Constitution is essentially a contract between the sovereign states, is the act of secession treasonous?  Or, can you break the contract.  The Supreme Court actually ruled on this question in Texas v White in 1868. 

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
    -Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Majority Opinion in Texas v White 1868

To sum up, there are only two ways to secede from the United States: revolution (levying War and treason) and mutual agreement.  I've not seen word from Governor Perry on which option he prefers, but I suspect he (assuming he is not a suicidal maniac) would lean toward the second.
 

From a economic/military/political perspective, I can't see how seceding from the United States would be a positive move for Texas.  But, otherwise, Governor Perry, go ahead an secede, just ask the rest of us first.  Based on the response of the PZealots you shouldn't have any problem.

1: The consensus opinion is that the "P" is silent, like the "T" in "often", you Phillistines.
2: Who are partisan idiots, which unfortunately does not stop PZ from using their idiocy as an excuse to throw around the word treason (the tu quoque logical fallacy).
3: My understanding of Coulter's anti-Democrat argument hinges on the Aid and Comfort part.  This ignores the next bit of Section 3 that requires the levying, aiding, or comforting to be an overt Act.