Do the States have a right to leave The Union?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do the States have a right to leave The Union?

Posted: 1/1/2007 6:56:50 AM EDT

The "fight for the North or South" thread got me thinking - is the Union a contractually-bound thing; i.e., can States secede when their inclusion becomes too onerous to them?

I don't mean to imply that Michigan can send troops to take over D.C. or anything silly like that, I am wondering what in the Constitution prevents a State from breaking off and becoming a country on its own - kind of like Kalifornia already has.

Posted: 1/1/2007 6:59:42 AM EDT

[#1]

Tried once in the 1860's. Didn't turn out so good.

I think many of the states had provisions in the agreement that they could leave, however the feds didn't honor that portion of the agreement.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:00:11 AM EDT

[#2]

Apparently not or else there wouldn't have been a civil war.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:03:19 AM EDT

[#3]

I believe both Vermont and New Hampshire have a law where they periodically have to vote to decide whether or not they want to stay a part of the United States, and New Hampshire has a law about not being prosecuted for rebelling against the United States, though I'm sure neither law would be recognized by the Federal Govt.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:08:06 AM EDT

[#4]

It’s one of those things that is never actually mentioned in the Constitution either way. The Constitution wasn’t even been amended after the Civil War to deal with the subject. Of course the Federal Government isn’t granted the power to stop a state from seceding so I suppose an argument could be made that the Constitution does allow it.

As with everything it’s not so much a matter of “right” as it is “power.” What matters is how hard the individual state is willing to fight to get independence and how hard the rest of the country is willing to fight to keep them. And that’s going to depend on the issues and the leaders that trigger the whole thing more than anything else.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:14:09 AM EDT

[#5]

Not any more.

Lincoln's (eta: may he burn in HELL!!!

) successful use of Union troops settled this question.

The right, however, did exist right up until the surrender at Appomatox.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:15:50 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Apparently not or else there wouldn't have been a civil war.

Right... a bunch of Heads of State just pulled it out of their ass...

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:26:46 AM EDT

[#7]

Um, no...

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:27:18 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Apparently not or else there wouldn't have been a civil war.

Go read some REAL history.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:32:08 AM EDT

[#9]

Nope, it's like the Hotel California:

"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave"

(cue guitar solo)

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:39:22 AM EDT

[#10]

interesting info

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:43:44 AM EDT

[#11]

Depends on what you mean - it has been debated within sovereign nations from time to time.

In the US Supreme Court case Texas v White (1869) it was ruled that secession was unconstitutional.

On the flip side, while the Canadian Supreme Court was ruling on the subject of secession during the 1990s, they reviewed Texas v White and declared that the US Supreme Courts findings in that case were unfounded. While that may seem inconsequential, it is interesting that a foreign power, in a sense, recognized the right of US states to secede and found no prohibitions of secession in our Constitution (which is how it ended up being a debate in our nation in the first place).

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:44:15 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Um, no...
www.brotherswar.com/03-05-05-Rothermel-Battle_Of_Gettysburg-Panorama-1.jpg

Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:58:07 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

OK I did. No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution adopted in 1876. Neither the Texas Constitution nor the Constitution of the United States explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas or any other free and independent state from doing so. There is no verbiage in either document about forming four states from Texas.

Got another source?

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:59:05 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Um, no...
www.brotherswar.com/03-05-05-Rothermel-Battle_Of_Gettysburg-Panorama-1.jpg

Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

Wrong.

In Texas vs. United States (IIRC) the court ruled that the "Question of the right of secession was settled by War"

Posted: 1/1/2007 7:59:22 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Um, no...
www.brotherswar.com/03-05-05-Rothermel-Battle_Of_Gettysburg-Panorama-1.jpg

Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

We do not, nor have we ever had the explicit written right to secede from the Union since our 1845 annexation.

The documents outlining our annexation do allow for Texas to be split up into as many as five states.

Posted: 1/1/2007 8:04:16 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

According to the link I posted you are incorrect.

Posted: 1/1/2007 8:04:23 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Wrong answer. Texas retains the right to succeed at any time and can splint into as many as 4 States. Look it up.

OK I did. No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution adopted in 1876. Neither the Texas Constitution nor the Constitution of the United States explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas or any other free and independent state from doing so. There is no verbiage in either document about forming four states from Texas.

Got another source?

Regarding the creation of five states (ie Texas + four new ones) it's outlined in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas, 1 March 1845 (US Congress):

New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

Posted: 1/1/2007 9:38:12 AM EDT

[#18]

Regardless of whether the law allows it or not, it boils down to who has more guns/tanks/planes. IF the Feds don't want your state to leave the Union, they'll invade your ass...

Now maybe if a state could get the UN involved, hee hee. But the UN has no military power to make the US Gov obey it's mandates, so it's a moot point.

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:26:23 AM EDT

[#19]

Technically yes, but Lincoln was a tyrannt and did what tyrannts typically do.

The states are recognized as being 'free & independent' and joining the union is a voluntary thing so they should be able to leave, but power hungry politicians will see it differently

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:32:22 AM EDT

[#20]

How about me and my property? Can I form my own country?

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:40:00 AM EDT

[#21]

Since the Constitution is completely silent on the issue, the 10th Amendment chimes in on the subject:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is the Constitutional answer.

The real answer is 'no,' we don't have the right to secede, even though the Constitution is fairly clear on the matter, as viewed through the 10th Amendment. Lincoln saw to that.

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:43:07 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Since the Constitution is completely silent on the issue, the 10th Amendment chimes in on the subject:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is the Constitutional answer.

The real answer is 'no,' we don't have the right to secede, even though the Constitution is fairly clear on the matter, as viewed through the 10th Amendment. Lincoln saw to that.

Bingo. Correct answer right there.

The doctrine of a perpetual union was INVENTED by Lincoln and not based on any legal document.

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:45:11 AM EDT

[#23]

Hell, I gotta dog in this fight and even I'm growing weary of these threads....

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:56:13 AM EDT

[#24]

States don't have any "rights" at all. Authority maybe.

Posted: 1/1/2007 10:57:52 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
States don't have any "rights" at all. Authority maybe.

"Powers."

Posted: 1/1/2007 11:08:20 AM EDT

[#26]

Didn't they try this once before?

Posted: 1/1/2007 11:09:11 AM EDT

[#27]

Technically they can, realistically they can't. Lincoln set a precedence for federal tyranny enforced by federal troops.

Kind of like you have the right to keep and bear military arms, but you really can't because they'll shoot your dog/family and burn your house down.

Posted: 1/1/2007 11:18:43 AM EDT

[#28]

Texas can.

Posted: 1/1/2007 12:39:17 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
States don't have any "rights" at all. Authority maybe.

"Powers."

"Powers" and "Authority" mean the same thing in this context as far as I'm concerned.

On the same note, no government entity has "rights."

Posted: 1/1/2007 12:47:46 PM EDT

[#30]

I think a lot of you who think States can still seceed are missing one major point.

South Carolina, Texas, and the other Confederate States are no longer "annexed to the Union". They are in fact, conquered territory that the United States won through war.

Posted: 1/1/2007 12:57:41 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Technically yes, but Lincoln was a tyrannt and did what tyrannts typically do.

The states are recognized as being 'free & independent' and joining the union is a voluntary thing so they should be able to leave, but power hungry politicians will see it differently

True.......but you forgot the bankers and industrialists.