# Could the U.S. eject a state from the Union? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118 "2012-10-18T12:40:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/21 "2012-10-18T16:43:05Z")
Ejecting states on the outer edge might be one thing. Think of, say, poor Kansas, finding itself suddenly surrounded by a hostile country. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/22 "2012-10-18T17:06:18Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > I’d love to know what sort of scenario might convince a state to give up its Senate seats. Look at the Minnesota debacle with Franken. By choosing to not send in the proper paperwork, in effect Minn. was consenting to do business with only one Senator until the issue was resolved. I think that from a pedantic viewpoint, no state can be expelled without its consent by applying the procedures outlined in _Texas v. White_. In effect, the procedure to leave the Union is the same as entering the Union i.e. 1. Petition by the territorial/republic/kingdom government 2. Acceptance by the US Congress The problem with the CSA was that they skipped step #2. I would presume that by that precedent that expelling a state could not skip step #1. In actuality, Congress would do what they did with West Virginia and choose to recognize the state government that they agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/23 "2012-10-18T17:36:06Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > If, say, Florida didn’t _want_ to be expelled, they would have to consent or would otherwise be unconstitutionally deprived of their senators. First of all, if a state is expelled then how could it claim it is entitled to Senators. Only a State (of which the expellee is not) can claim its rights are violated. A better claim that can be made (and was by Andrew Johnson leading to his impeachment) that since the Southern states were not represented in the Senate from 1866-1868 that the laws passed by the 40th Congress were invalid\*. However, _Texas v. White_\*\* was not ruled on until 1868 and if we assume that no representation from 1860-1866 was by the consent of the states in “rebellion” then why was it acceptable to deny those states Senatorial representation for two years after the war? - Including the 14th Amendment \*\* The states in rebellion were never not-a-state. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/24 "2012-10-18T17:41:19Z")
The seceding states were, Congress found, in an “impaired relationship” with the rest of the country. They had tried to break all legal bonds with the United States, and those could not be restored instantly upon the ending of armed hostilities. They were not able to go from breakaway polities to fully-privileged U.S. states overnight. Reconstruction, ratification of the post-Civil War amendments, adoption through state law of black suffrage, reappointment by the President of local Federal officials such as U.S. attorneys, postmasters, revenue and customs agents, etc., and the holding of new elections were all necessary, Congress said, before a state could resume its rightful place in the Union. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/25 "2012-10-18T17:48:44Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Wait until after the election. However it goes, there will be many states leaving voluntarily (the Civil War be damned). No there won’t. Don’t post bullshit. > [@Donnerwetter](#): > > While having a US state becoming completely dysfunctional seems an unlikely scenario, something like this happening on the local level doesn’t seem too far-fetched: One could perhaps imagine the political system of a town or a county disintegrating to the point where the state has to intervene? It does happen from time to time, often due to fiscal dysfunction. For example, New York seized control of [Nassau County’s budget](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/nyregion/27nassau.html?pagewanted=all) after a lengthy series of extreme screwups. At the more extreme ends, severely dysfunctional municipalities may find themselves abolished. States can’t be abolished, since they are sovereign. And the Constitution is silent on the issue of expulsion. But the Constitution does charge the federal government with guaranteeing every state a “republican form” of government, and there is ample precedent for enforcing it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/26 "2012-10-18T18:02:07Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The seceding states were, Congress found, in an “impaired relationship” with the rest of the country. They had tried to break all legal bonds with the United States, and those could not be restored instantly upon the ending of armed hostilities. They were not able to go from breakaway polities to fully-privileged U.S. states overnight. Reconstruction, ratification of the post-Civil War amendments, adoption through state law of black suffrage, reappointment by the President of local Federal officials such as U.S. attorneys, postmasters, revenue and customs agents, etc., and the holding of new elections were all necessary, Congress said, before a state could resume its rightful place in the Union. Complete and utter bullshit used to justify the Radical Republicans hold a 2/3 majority in each House of Congress. Notice “Congress found”? Foxes guarding the henhouse. [QUOTE=Article V] that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. [/QUOTE] There is nothing in that quote that talks about relationships impaired or otherwise. Bottom line, from 1866-1868 was Alabama or South Carolina or Florida et al. a state or not? The answer is yes. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/27 "2012-10-18T18:14:37Z")
The Radical Republicans had that large majority because almost all of the Southern legislators resigned and/or went home in 1860-61. The U.S. militarily then defeated the Confederacy. Afterwards, Congress followed President Lincoln’s lead on Reconstruction, and the Supreme Court never found that it had overstepped its bounds. You may not like it, but that’s the law. _Luther v. Borden_ says that these are political questions. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/28 "2012-10-18T20:59:25Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Really? You may want to read up on what happened to the city of [Rio Rico](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Rico,_Tamaulipas) after it was transferred to Mexico by the Border Treaty of 1970. But note that all citizens born between 1906 and the 1977 handover were allowed to retain their US citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/29 "2012-10-18T23:14:59Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The Radical Republicans had that large majority because almost all of the Southern legislators resigned and/or went home in 1860-61. The U.S. militarily then defeated the Confederacy. Afterwards, Congress followed President Lincoln’s lead on Reconstruction, and the Supreme Court never found that it had overstepped its bounds. You may not like it, but that’s the law. _Luther v. Borden_ says that these are political questions. Both post-war SCOTUS and Congress treated the South like non-states when it suited them and states when that suited them. Pardon me if I don’t accept them as the most unbiased group during that time. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/30 "2012-10-19T01:40:25Z")
A tiny area of NE Quebec suddenly found itself in Maine (and its inhabitants US citizens) as a result of a border resurvey. It still is not connect to any US road and gets all its services (electricity, telephone, etc., through Quebec). But to get back to the OP, there is simply no clause in the US constitution that could justify the expulsion of a state. Period. Under Huey Long, LA came pretty close to being a dictatorship, but it is hard to see what the federal government could do about it. Outlawing bigamy was a requirement for Utah statehood. Let’s imagine that Utah repeals its bigamy laws. Could it be expelled? I doubt it. Another thread that is veering into IMHO territory. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/31 "2012-10-19T03:05:31Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > But note that all citizens born between 1906 and the 1977 handover were allowed to retain their US citizenship. Why “But note” like I didn’t know that? Why would they have lost their citizenship if they were born in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/32 "2012-10-19T03:07:36Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Both post-war SCOTUS and Congress treated the South like non-states when it suited them and states when that suited them. Pardon me if I don’t accept them as the most unbiased group during that time. I never asked you to. But they acted within the scope of their lawful authority at the time, and what’s done is done. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/33 "2012-10-19T04:49:01Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Complete and utter bullshit used to justify the Radical Republicans hold a 2/3 majority in each House of Congress. Notice “Congress found”? Foxes guarding the henhouse. > There is nothing in that quote that talks about relationships impaired or otherwise. Bottom line, from 1866-1868 was Alabama or South Carolina or Florida et al. a state or not? The answer is yes. But Article I, Section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution says that “Each house [of Congress] shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members” so not seating the Southern representatives and Senators could have been legal under that clause. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/34 "2012-10-19T18:44:45Z")
They could expel a state the same way they started prohibition: with a constitutional amendment. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/35 "2012-10-19T18:51:17Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > They could expel a state the same way they started prohibition: with a constitutional amendment. Except for one teensy little problem: Article V of the Constitution, which spells out the process under which the Constitution can be Amended, contains this restriction against what kinds of Amendments are allowed: “… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” An Amendment that allows a state to be ejected from the Union would be an Amendment that allows a state to be be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/36 "2012-10-19T19:17:10Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > It does happen from time to time, often due to fiscal dysfunction. For example, New York seized control of [Nassau County’s budget](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/nyregion/27nassau.html?pagewanted=all) after a lengthy series of extreme screwups. This is happening in Michigan right now. Several cities with chronically-mismanaged finances (most notable Detroit and Pontiac) are almost completely broke, and the state has appointed “Emergency Financial Managers” to take over their finances. The city leaders don’t like [del]being exposed as the incompetant boobs they are[/del] watching as the democratic process is thwarted, and have managed to tie up the process in court and get a proposal on the November ballot to repeal the Emergency Manager law. Of course, the even if they’re successful, it only means the cities are going to end up being run by federal bankruptcy judges instead, a few months later. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/37 "2012-10-19T21:55:15Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Except for one teensy little problem: > > Article V of the Constitution, which spells out the process under which the Constitution can be Amended, contains this restriction against what kinds of Amendments are allowed: > > “… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” > > An Amendment that allows a state to be ejected from the Union would be an Amendment that allows a state to be be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So you just Amend the Constitution changing this provision at the same time to say it doesn’t apply when a state is ejected. ---
**Author:** ![sco3tt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@sco3tt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sco3tt)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/38 "2012-10-21T22:58:57Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > So you just Amend the Constitution changing this provision at the same time to say it doesn’t apply when a state is ejected. Good luck getting 75% of the states to ratify it when they’re all wondering if it will be used to kick them out someday. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/39 "2012-10-21T23:32:23Z")
> [@tracer](#): > > Except for one teensy little problem: > > Article V of the Constitution, which spells out the process under which the Constitution can be Amended, contains this restriction against what kinds of Amendments are allowed: > > “… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” > > An Amendment that allows a state to be ejected from the Union would be an Amendment that allows a state to be be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. By ‘consent’ I interpret that to mean \*universal \*consent. In other words even if a state governor called for and held a general referendum vote on seceding, it would have to literally be 100% in favor (which would be impossible). So if any of that state’s citizens vote against it, well they’re still Americans first and _whatever-state-ians_ second, and their state govt would be trying to deprive them of their rights as American citizens, ergo the Federal Govt can & would intervene on their behalf. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118/40 "2012-10-22T00:42:09Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > By ‘consent’ I interpret that to mean \*universal \*consent. In other words even if a state governor called for and held a general referendum vote on seceding, it would have to literally be 100% in favor (which would be impossible). So if any of that state’s citizens vote against it, well they’re still Americans first and _whatever-state-ians_ second, and their state govt would be trying to deprive them of their rights as American citizens, ergo the Federal Govt can & would intervene on their behalf. You can interpret it that way, but the Constitution clearly says “its consent” which is singular and certainly would seem to imply the consent of the state, not the consent of each and every one of its citizens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-u-s-eject-a-state-from-the-union/638118.md?page=3)