I don’t see anything in the Constitution prohibiting secession. And there is the 10th amendment which pretty much states—if it is not specifically prohibited, then any state can do anything it wants to.
So if a state today (say Florida or California) petitioned the Supreme Court to secede from the Union, could the SCOTUS refuse? And if so —on what constitutional basis?
(Leaving aside for the moment the Civil War deciding anything at all about the subject.---- “Might makes right” is not a good Consitutional argument)
Let’s talk about the civil war anyway, but not as a reason for outlawing it now. When the states decided to secede then, did Abe try to use the constitution as justification for the war? If so, what articles, and if not, has anything that’s been added to it since then be interpreted that way?
There’s a court case in which Texas state bonds were issued and repudiated in Civil War times that furnished Salmon Chase, as Chief Justice, with the podium to declare that joining the Union is an irreversible step and a declaration of secession is ipso facto illegal, because in taking it the government so doing makes itself a rebellious force. (That’s a very loose paraphrase.)
If a given state were to petition Congress (not the Court) for leave to withdraw from the Union, and got it, then that separation would be legalized. (Something very similar happened in 1946 when the Commonwealth of the Philippines declared independence, and Congress passed statutes authorizing it.) But there’s no unilateral right to secede.
That particular case and the Chase decision was an awful long time ago and his argument seems pretty circular to me–certainly not based on anything in the Constitution that I can tell. And in any event the Supremes from different eras have been known to reverse decisions.
What do you think a modern day Supreme Court would decide and what would they base the decision on?
The 10th amendment seems pretty cut and dried to me.
I’d say this is one of those areas where “legal” doesn’t hold much meaning. If a state decides it will not recognize the authority of the federal government, and is willing to put its money where its mouth is, the issue won’t be settled in court. Either the federal government will tell them bon voyage, or they will try to force unity on them by military means. In either case, its a pragmatic solution. The courts might piddle around with the issue after the fact, but they wouldn’t have any real impact on the fact of whether that state remained in the Union or not.
But there is a way to find out. I say we get the Deep South to secede again. Then when the rest of the country holds a big party and moves on with things, we’ll see what happens.
I think most states are so dependent on Federal funds that none could survive the transition period, to when their own revenues could support them. But this depends on how sudden the seccesion would be? Would the Federal government allow a period of several years after a state declares its intentions? Or would it have to be a sudden break, which would complicate matters for the state? And would it matter which state? Would there be more concern if California asked to leave than New Hampshire (chosen because I read some conservative columnist [Sowell?] about a plan for like minded individuals to move to NH and steer the state to a more conservative stature)?
But if we’re looking for volunteers, how about California?
Isn’t there language about congressional representation not being changeable(I know bad word) without the state and congress’s permision. This might imply that states cannot secede unilaterally, but that if they and Congress agree then perhaps they can withdraw. The key is the agreement.
No, sucession is not unconstitutional. The Constitution is a list of limitations on the Federal government, not a charter for the Federal Government’s existence. The right of the Federal Government to have authority over a particular state requires it abide by its limitations. When the States’ rights are infringed upon, the contract becomes null and void, and the Federal Government loses all of it’s authority.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and the SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the land. A State has no standing to declare the Federal Government acting outside the Constitution. Good luck to any state wishing to secede unilaterally and without the approval of the Congress. A few tried that and it didn’t quite work. The question was already answered and settled by the civil war.
Nonsense. Of course the Constitution is “a charter for the federal government’s existence”; if it isn’t, then what is the charter for the federal government’s existence? It’s certainly true that the Constitution includes limits on the powers of the federal government (and also limits on the powers of the state governments), but the Constitution also spells out what powers the federal government does have, and lays out the structure of the federal government. How is specifying that the Congress of the United States “shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” a “limitation on the federal government”, but not a “charter for its existence”? It sure sounds more like part of a charter of existence to me.