Seceding from the Union?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Considering that States had to apply for Statehood, yes they should be allowed to secede from the Union.

 

[Navy1960]

Sorry about the double post there folks, I like to blame it on good people of Microsoft. lol You know those evil corporate types there's a mouse conspiracy out there is my reason.

 

[Gunny]

With the state of our federal government pretty much sticking it to the US citizens would seceding from the union be a bad thing?

Any ideas?

Yeah. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1868 states did not have the right to secede from the union to cover it's crimes from the Civil War, so it is infact now unlawful to do so.

 

[Gunny]

It worked so well the first time, right?

Might turn out a little different this time. Might want to look at what states the majority of our military assets are in.

 

[glockmail]

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?

Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.

So there you have it folks, No state can just up and leave the Union we had a little war over this one remember? However, if a constitutional amendment is passed that allowed them to leave is passed then, there is no provision in the constitution that opposes it.

If the Feds break their contractual obligations to the States, then that contract becomes null and void. The Feds broke their end of the deal by usurping State's Rights; going well past their Constitutional mandate.

 

[Abelian Sea]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Stirring, isn't it?

But,

The question you have to ask is "will McCain or Obama send troops to shoot Americans to preserve the union?"

Yes, definitely. Any president would. Not happily, but inevitably.

No modern American Revolution will have any chance of long-term success unless significant portions of the military joins it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh my gosh..I've been reading shogun and bass' posts for too long...I read "A long train of anuses...."

 

[Navy1960]

If the Feds break their contractual obligations to the States, then that contract becomes null and void. The Feds broke their end of the deal by usurping State's Rights; going well past their Constitutional mandate.

If the Feds. break an obligation with a State though glock there are remedies in the legal system where a state can seek redress. However, if a single state gets to the point where it no longer wants to be part of the Union, the only way I see that as a viable option, is one where a state or states submits a request for an amendment to the constitution to leave the Union.

 

[glockmail]

If the Feds. break an obligation with a State though glock there are remedies in the legal system where a state can seek redress. However, if a single state gets to the point where it no longer wants to be part of the Union, the only way I see that as a viable option, is one where a state or states submits a request for an amendment to the constitution to leave the Union.

You obviously have a very good point but I still think it could be open to interpretation. My simple argument would be that the Feds so royally broke their contractual obligations as to make the entire contract null and void. The only redress would be for the Feds to eliminate every mandate and budget item that is not enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Gunny]

Stirring, isn't it?

But,



Yes, definitely. Any president would. Not happily, but inevitably.

No modern American Revolution will have any chance of long-term success unless significant portions of the military joins it.

Factor this in to your last ... military personnel take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They do NOT take an oath to uphold and defend the US Government.

IF the US government is itself in violation of the US Constitution by its actions, which side ideally and idealistically should the US armed forces fall on?

 

[Gunny]

If the Feds. break an obligation with a State though glock there are remedies in the legal system where a state can seek redress. However, if a single state gets to the point where it no longer wants to be part of the Union, the only way I see that as a viable option, is one where a state or states submits a request for an amendment to the constitution to leave the Union.

An amendment to the Constitution is not required. NOTHING in the Constitution precludes states from leaving if they want to.

In Texas v White, 1868, the US Supreme Court ruled states did not have a right to secede and if you want to see some legal BS doubletalk that amounts to them basing the ruling on absolutely nothing, look it up and read the decision.

It would require only to overturn Texas v White. Then we would be back where we were in 1860. No language in the Constitution precludes states from seceding.

Good luck. I'm sure another ruling based on "it is assumed ...." would be forthcoming.

 

[glockmail]

Factor this in to your last ... military personnel take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They do NOT take an oath to uphold and defend the US Government.

IF the US government is itself in violation of the US Constitution by its actions, which side ideally and idealistically should the US armed forces fall on?

They will fall on the side that their Constitutionally mandated CIC tells them to.

 

[Navy1960]

An amendment to the Constitution is not required. NOTHING in the Constitution precludes states from leaving if they want to.

In Texas v White, 1868, the US Supreme Court ruled states did not have a right to secede and if you want to see some legal BS doubletalk that amounts to them basing the ruling on absolutely nothing, look it up and read the decision.

It would require only to overturn Texas v White. Then we would be back where we were in 1860. No language in the Constitution precludes states from seceding.

Good luck. I'm sure another ruling based on "it is assumed ...." would be forthcoming.

Article. V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Gunny thats the language of the text, in which was referenced in the Texas v. White decision. It seems at least to me pretty clear that in order nullify this in some manner, you can do one or two things. Overturn Texas v. White , but you still have the section in Article V to deal with, so your left with and amendment to the constitution that allows the state to leave the Union so the people of that state are not deprived of that suffrage. It's one reason I suggested it in the first place.

 

[Navy1960]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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. Texas v White


I'm NOT in disagreement with you Gunny on the fact that the constitution has no language that specifically addresses this issue. The only thing we have is this decision.


But the power to carry into effect the clause of guaranty is primarily a legislative power, and resides in Congress.

Under the fourth article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.

You no doubt have read the whole decision, so thats just one take on it. So it seems to me that with this standing on pretty firm legal ground other than Articles of Confederation, am not so sure on that one. That a constitutional amendment needs to address Article V and Article IV before a state can leave the Union. However, you may think differently. Thats my take on it.
Texas v. White

 

[Ultra]

With the state of our federal government pretty much sticking it to the US citizens would seceding from the union be a bad thing?

Any ideas?

​

 

[Gunny]

They will fall on the side that their Constitutionally mandated CIC tells them to.

Not if the Consitutionally mandated CinC is issuing unconstitutional orders. Not if the military, as an entity decides to act on its own and do the right thing.

It is unlawful to carry out an unlawful order and leaders issuing such orders and refusing to back down CAN BE relieved of command for cause. Even the CinC. He is not above the law.

 

[Gunny]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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. Texas v White


I'm NOT in disagreement with you Gunny on the fact that the constitution has no language that specifically addresses this issue. The only thing we have is this decision.


But the power to carry into effect the clause of guaranty is primarily a legislative power, and resides in Congress.

Under the fourth article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.

You no doubt have read the whole decision, so thats just one take on it. So it seems to me that with this standing on pretty firm legal ground other than Articles of Confederation, am not so sure on that one. That a constitutional amendment needs to address Article V and Article IV before a state can leave the Union. However, you may think differently. Thats my take on it.
Texas v. White

The Articles of Confederation, IIRC, were nullified by the Constitution.

My "thinking differently" on the matter is that the issue was settled with the US Civil War. The US refused to allow states to leave the Union and invaded and subjugated all states deemed in rebellion. Texas v White merely legalized that action.

That is the reality in which we live.

Idealistically, my argument remains the same. If you enter into an agreement voluntarily, and that agreement is called an experiment, if that "experiment" fails to live up to expectation or does not work in your favor, do you not believe with every expecation you have a right to terminate that agreement and leave as freely as you entered?

How would you feel if you joined a gym and decided it wasn't the gym for you and you wanted to quit but the gym owners said you couldn't leave and used the threat of force or actual force to make you show up when they said. Sounds a bit like the Mafia, doesn't it?

 

[editec]

The DISTICT OF COLUMBIA.

 

[Navy1960]

The Articles of Confederation, IIRC, were nullified by the Constitution.

My "thinking differently" on the matter is that the issue was settled with the US Civil War. The US refused to allow states to leave the Union and invaded and subjugated all states deemed in rebellion. Texas v White merely legalized that action.

That is the reality in which we live.

Idealistically, my argument remains the same. If you enter into an agreement voluntarily, and that agreement is called an experiment, if that "experiment" fails to live up to expectation or does not work in your favor, do you not believe with every expecation you have a right to terminate that agreement and leave as freely as you entered?

How would you feel if you joined a gym and decided it wasn't the gym for you and you wanted to quit but the gym owners said you couldn't leave and used the threat of force or actual force to make you show up when they said. Sounds a bit like the Mafia, doesn't it?

My contention is this Gunny , that a state that requests to leave the Union, the challenge will be presented with Texas v. White in mind. While The Articles of Confederation arguement is a weak one in my mind. It seems to me that if a state is bent on leaving the Union and addresses the issues I stated in Article IV and Article V then they take away whatever defense there is to this issue. I completely agree that anyone entering into a contract in good faith should be allowed out of that contract the same way they came into the contract. It also in my opinion needs to be a matter of the individual state and the people that reside in that state to decide. When someone wishes to join the Union does it not take a majority vote by the population of that state to enter into statehood? It would seem to me a matter of reversing the process. My original contention though is based on the fact you have that decision staring you in the face and an Article under the constitution it was based on. So to overturn Texas v. White would be a lot easier with an amendment to the constitution addressing those issues. It would depend I suppose on the feelings of the Court you are in front of though.

 

[UN=con]

It would show the government we wont put up with its relentless sheninagans any longer. We shouldve suceded in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created or after 911. What about the patriot act? Did you people know the federal reserve is a private bank?