# Montana secession averted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 28, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534 "2008-06-28T02:22:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/1 "2008-06-28T02:22:04Z")
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: > [@](#): > > Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in June of 2008, several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, had signed a joint resolution [46] asserting that, if the Supreme Court ruled against an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state “reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law” should that occur. [47][48] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/2 "2008-06-28T02:41:56Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] Just what could Montana or any other state actually do beyond impotent declarations? [/QUOTE] Nothing. It’s not up to them. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/3 "2008-06-28T02:44:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Montana secession averted? No. Montana state politician embarassment at being shown to have puppydog asses attached to their crocodile mouths averted. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/4 "2008-06-28T03:35:48Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] 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? [/QUOTE] 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](http://progunleaders.org/resolution.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/5 "2008-06-28T03:47:43Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] 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. [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/6 "2008-06-28T03:53:40Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] is there anything that would constitute such a violation? [/QUOTE] Nope. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/7 "2008-06-28T03:54:47Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/8 "2008-06-28T04:00:26Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2008, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/9 "2008-06-28T06:41:19Z")
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny] 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. [/QUOTE] Read Texas v White ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/10 "2008-06-28T08:01:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/11 "2008-06-28T08:20:16Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] 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. [/QUOTE] If Montana had enough allies among the other states’ legislatures, [together they could force Congress to call a new constitutional convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal). ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/12 "2008-06-28T11:01:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/13 "2008-06-28T14:49:07Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > 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. 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_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.) [QUOTE=Saint Cad] Read Texas v White [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/14 "2008-06-29T01:16:45Z")
[QUOTE=MikeS] 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_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.) [/QUOTE] 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. > [@](#): > > 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. Thanks. That’s what I was getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/15 "2008-06-29T03:53:55Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Other than Congress saying “Ok, _go! And good riddance_!” [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2008, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/16 "2008-06-29T10:07:04Z")
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2008, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/montana-secession-averted/454534/17 "2008-06-29T10:48:32Z")
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.