In reading Wikipedia’s summary of the Heller case, I was astonished to read the following, which I hadn’t heard of word of before:
I thought that legally, ever since the Civil War, the states were pretty much in the position of “drop your pants and bend over, you’re in the Union now!” Just what could Montana or any other state actually do beyond impotent declarations?
Nothing. It’s not up to them.
No. Montana state politician embarassment at being shown to have puppydog asses attached to their crocodile mouths averted.
This doesn’t even reach the level of a unified impotent declaration. It is an “extra-session [meaning, non-legislative] resolution of individual legislators” – a bunch of guys drawing up and signing a document in their personal capacities.
The Montana Legislature does pass and issue resolutions, which are expressions of legislative opinion not having the force of law. The Montana Senate independently can pass Senate resolutions; the Montana House of Representatives can pass House resolutions; or the entire Legislature can pass Joint Resolutions, which obviously are the most persuasive indicators of collective Legistlative opinion.
But there was no way that these guys could get this resolution passed by either house, much less by both houses. So they were left creating an “extra-session” declaration that means exactly diddly-squat.
Here’s the resolution, BTW.
I realize this doesn’t actually answer your question about whether states can declare or threaten to secede, but it seemed worth pointing out that what your talking about in this case is several steps below even that.
Noted. I was mainly wondering just what, if anything, a state that did feel that it’s “compact” with the United States had been violated could do, since secession isn’t a credible threat anymore. Just what would “all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law” amount to? Is there in fact any “compact” in the sense of something that the Federal government could forfeit by it’s actions?
Short of the Federal Government suspending the Constitution and ruling by permanent martial law (which of course wouldn’t give a fig what anyone thought), is there anything that would constitute such a violation?
Nope.
Perhaps their Senators and Representatives could introduce a bill in Congress to kick them out of the Union. (Congress let them in, after all.) If there was that much ill will between them and the rest of the states, it might pass.
Yes, but I’m not sure if it’s clear that even this would pass Constitutional muster. A lot of states and individuals own property in, or do business in other states. Someone could mount an argument that they are being deprived of their Constitutional rights by Congress in allowing a secession. Whether it would succeed is an interesting theoretical question.
Read Texas v White
I really don’t think the Montana State Militia is up to the job. Other than Congress saying “Ok, go! And good riddance!” the only way out is by force.
If Montana had enough allies among the other states’ legislatures, together they could force Congress to call a new constitutional convention.
Interestingly enough, had the Supreme Court found that no individual right to gun ownership existed as a result of the Second Amendment, one can surmise that a convention call would have gained some serious steam. People really do get passionate about guns, and politicians like to avoid challenging that passion.
This would seem to be a pretty straightforward application of the Commerce Clause; even under the current, limited interpretation of this clause (see US v. Lopez), Congress still has the ability to regulate “action that substantially affects interstate commerce”. Even if Montana legally seceded, and then turned into a socialist paradise and expropriated all the bourgeois landowners by fiat, the “foreign” landowners wouldn’t have standing to sue in U.S. courts — just like they don’t have standing to sue Castro. (Or do they? My armchair constitutional lawyer skills are getting overextended here.)
I’m not sure this is applicable here — Texas v. White specifically left open the possibility of secession “through consent of the States”, which is what the type of scenario I assume BrightNShiny was referring to.
IMO, the court would likely bounce the case as a political question to be resolved by Congress and the Executive. But if I was representing one of poor victims of Montana socialism, I’d at least try to mount an argument that my client’s rights under the US Constitution were deprived by allowing Montana to secede. Probably wouldn’t get anywhere, and I’m a bit over my armchair boundaries myself.
Thanks. That’s what I was getting at.
And given that Montana is literally a welfare state (in that more tax money goes into the state than is collected from the residents of Montana) being supported by the hard-working taxpayers of other states, the rest of us would be better off if Montana seceded.
We control the Missouri River, which is bigger (in every way) than the Mississippi at St. Louis. Do not screw with your food’s water supply.
Don’t they have stratic bombers and missle sites there too? Wasn’t one of the things the South did in the Civil War was seize the amories? Aren’t there a bunch loner crazies up there? I say don’t mess with them and letum go.