We all know that states can’t secede from the US, although the CalExit movement might test that.
The state-federal conflict of the 19th and 20th centuries seems to be giving way to a city-state conflict. In 2017, most states are run by Republicans, but most cities are run by Democrats. In red states, legislatures are passing laws meant to keep the blue cities in line, like forbidding cities from charging a tax on plastic bags or raising the minimum wage. Those are fairly minor issues, but major ones could be on the way.
The Constitution does not mention the word “city.” Not once. It gives all powers to the national and state governments. Major cities with Democratic mayors – including New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix, Dallas, San Francisco, and Chicago – are almost like their own city-states, housing almost as many people as the rural parts of the state. When cities sue states, the states almost always win because of Constitutional precedent.
To resolve this, could a city declare itself either its own state or join another state? I’m thinking of Atlanta, Phoenix, and Houston/Dallas, which are blue cities in red states. Is there any legal precedent for this, either for or against?
Only with the approval of Congress and the legislature of the state it is leaving. If the city wants to join an existing state, it requires the approval of that state’s legislature as well.
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
I thought cities were granted their political existence by the state. Leave the state, lose the designation. Then what would they become, a state free territory directly under the feds like DC? Join another state?
Each state has its own unique law concerning municipalities within the state. All of them have a category called “city”, but the power and organization of a city is highly variable from state to state.
For example, in Virginia, a number of cities have separate status which places them outside the jurisdiction of the adjacent or surrounding county administration.
So the issues faced by a rogue city would vary, depending the the legal power afforded to a city by the respective state constitution concerning municipalities. The US Constitution would not likely come into play, except that it would prohibit a city acquiring statehood without Congressional approval. However, if all concerned states agreed, there would seem to be no compelling reason for Congress to refuse to honor it.
Maine broke off from Massachusetts in 1820. WV seceded from Virginia in 1863. So there is precedent for portions of state seceding and becoming new states.
Rick Kitchen’s response was simplified, but he’s somewhat closer to the facts here. Both of the instances you site had the complete support of the state legislatures. In the case of West Virginia, they constituted the only loyalist government, and legally speaking they booted the remainder of the state off. Perhaps more importantly, both regions were already distinct regions with territorial integrity, a functioning and distinct economy, and even a separate identity. Those conditions no longer exist, even in the big metroplexes.
Interestingly, Maine almost missed its chance at statehood. Mainers had been advocating for separating themselves politically from the rest of Massachusetts for a few decades but Boston had resisted. The state government finally provisonally approved Maine statehood in 1819. But there was a condition; Maine had to get approval for its statehood from Congress by March 4, 1820.
It should have been easy but Maine statehood got caught up in the issue of the number of free and slave states. It wasn’t until March 3 that Congress finally gave its approval.