The constitution or the Supreme Court will not prevent a state from seceding if that is their intent any more than the former Soviet Union could prevent it’s satellite states from becoming their own republics. To say or imply otherwise is probably a bit simplistic. Mind you, a state with such a desire would do so at it’s own peril. It would be interesting to see what would happen if California, Texas, South Carolina etc. decided to secede and petition the UN for recognition as an independent republic. Would the Federal Government send in tanks to bring an unruly rebellious people into submission? Can you imagine how that would look on the evening news around the world?
The US Constitution is the greatest document ever written by man but it cannot prevent secession. Neither can the Supreme Court. The law may give an administration the excuse or right to bring to bear enormous military and economic pressure on the rebellious child, but if the people refuse to bend…they can secede. Ugly…yes. Deadly…probably. Theoretically possible…yes. Realistic…becoming more so with each passing day.
Even if they secede peacefully I don’t think anyone but California, New York, and Texas could make a go at it successfully post-secession. The others are either too small, or too dependent on handouts from the federal government (CA and NY’s budget problems wouldn’t be as bad if they could keep all they give in taxes. TX is the rare red-state exception to the red-state-as-leech rule, plus has oil to boot.)
The people in that state are citizens of the United States. Kicking out the state would effectively make the people there not citizens of the United States.
I am pretty sure the US can not revoke citizenship from someone (except perhaps an immigrant who gained citizenship illegally).
EDIT: Doh! How did I resurrect a nine year old thread? I wasn’t even trying to start a thread on this or search for this topic.
Ultimately, for practical purposes, anybody can do anything so long as they’re willing to face the consequences or are strong enough so that people can’t stop them. But your question is a little like asking why I can’t rob a bank. I surely can, but that doesn’t mean I can legally do it.
If states wanted to secede now, I’d say let 'em go.
Numero uno, there’s no moral issue such as slavery to justify keeping them; a war to prevent secession would simply be a war to reaffirm the absence of a state’s right to leave the Union.
Numero two-o, we seem to be splitting up into two parts of the country that have fundamentally contradictory approaches to the challenges we face, and for that matter fundamentally divergent views of reality. To the extent that these differences of opinion are geographically concentrated, I really do think the best answer is to let those states go that want to go, let conservatives go whole-hog in trying it their way, and let the rest of us make some progress without being blocked at every turn by a radical minority. It would give us a real test of whose ideas were actually best.
If I were the guy who set the rules for secession, I’d require a seceding state to demonstrate a substantial and enduring majority in favor of secession, by holding referenda perhaps 2-3 years apart, and winning a 60% supermajority for secession both times. And they in turn would have to allow counties within that state secede in turn from the state and remain in the Union if majorities in those counties preferred remaining part of the U.S. over being a part of that state.
That’s pretty much what it would take to bring about secession of a state through legal means: an amendment to the constitution. In the 1868 case Texas v. White the Supreme Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional and that’s that. (FTR, I refer to this ruling personally as the ‘HOLY SHIT! Let’s not let THAT happen again’ ruling.)
Or, as Captain Amazing says up thread, the age old rule applies: “Call yourself an independent nation and make it stick against all comers”. If you can do that you’ve effectively seceded. Good luck getting some other major nation or the UN to recognize you at the risk of royally pissing of the major economic and military power in the world, however.
I agree with RTFirefly that peaceful secession should be possible. In addition to his requirements I would add a proviso that all citizens of the US could choose to continue as a citizen of the US or become a citizen of the State, and that all minor citizens of the State at the time of secession could become citizens of the US when they turn 21. Finally the State would have to accept a share of the US debt and some provision would have to be made for US Federal assets located in the State at the time of secession.
I don’t think it would take a Constitutional amendment, and I don’t think Texas v. White holds that it does; since a state can be admitted by an action of Congress it should be able to secede by an action of Congress. Texas v. White says it can only happen with the assent of the other States.
I also think the US would be a stronger nation in 2011 if Lincoln had said “So long!” in 1861.
Why do you think this is the case? Which states or parts of states? Do you really believe that there’s a state where the majority of residents want this to happen, and that the resulting country can be economically viable?
I realize this is a common fantasy in some quarters, but I don’t see it as realistic at all.
I’ve done a few mergers and divestitures …I think peaceful succession - or any succession would be REALLY HARD.
The U.S. government owns Hoover Dam. If Nevada succeeds, who gets it?
Do they take their share of the federal debt with them?
Are they entitled to any infrastructure at all. Lets say fixed infrastructure (Hoover Dam) goes to the state - how about any military infrastructure - or do they have to build that from scratch?
Which end keeps the name? Who is leaving?
Make every one of those decisions millions of times - some small, some large. While simultaneously trying to set up the rules which will govern the new country.
Those consider moving on should be prepared for the economic situation facing new countries. Former Soviet states haven’t had an easy time. Both economically and politically.
Politically, more and more states are purple. There isn’t a single clear issue that you could say “this is the bright line.”
To be pedantic, Texas v. White implies that a state could seceed with Congressional approval. Not that it is realistic but take Hawaii with an organized independence movement on the heels of Public Law 103-150 and a deal in place for the US to maintain the military bases (think Gitmo) and it is conceivable.
If yiy’re referring to the red vs. blue state divide, there’s all kinds of problems with this, namely
They aren’t “Regionally concentrated.” A red vs. blue state map, split up that way, would (even leaving aside what to do with swing states - is Virginia red or blue? It went for Obama in 2008) isolate zillions of heavily blue or red counties in the opposite region. Thinking of the divide along state borders is clumsy and short sighted. MAny red states are very blue in their big cities; conversely, many blue states go from purple to bright red as you move from exurbs to rural areas. Upstate New York is in many ways much more conservative than urban Dallas.
The divide between red and blue just isn’t necessarily all that permanent. The political map could look amazingly different in 20 years, and many states do switch back and forth (hell, NORTH CAROLINA went Obama) or make different decisions in different elections and offices. The issue of slavery, however, was a permanent one, and for most states was a matter set in stone that had to be changed by some radical action.
The idea comes from those Red State/Blue State maps, although even the most simplistic ones don’t show two distinct regions divided by one border. The reality is more complex. Here in Texas, most cities tend to vote Democratic; outer suburbs & rural areas tip the balance into Republican-ness. Our Idiot Governor’s recent flirtation with secession was just a way to rally his troops when a more moderate Republican, Kay Bailey Hutchison, wanted to run for Governor.
Hey, I found an actual source for Sam Houston’s famous description of a man he’d known for many years:
Never said they were. I said geographically concentrated, by which I simply meant that the distribution of people who are on one side or another of the partisan divide is hardly consistent across states. Alabama isn’t going to go blue anytime soon, nor is Rhode Island going to go red.
However, I’d expect that the states (if any!) that would meet my test for being allowed to secede would be largely geographically concentrated. The central tier of states from North Dakota down to Texas are all firmly red states, but you aren’t going to get 60% of Kansans voting to leave the Union even once; ditto Nebraskans and the residents of both Dakotas. There might be enough nuts in Alaska or Idaho to vote to secede, but otherwise this is going to be a Southern state phenomenon.
Think 60% of Virginians will vote for secession in two separate referenda a few years apart? Neither do I.
Red counties in blue states are just plain stuck, by my rules. I don’t think it would be a good idea to let anything smaller than a state secede. Blue counties in red states, OTOH, get to stay in the Union if they want.
No, I didn’t deal with all the logistics of that aspect in one post.
Well yeah, that’s what two 60% votes, 2-3 years apart was all about: to demonstrate “a substantial and enduring majority in favor of secession,” as I said. A state that’s going to vote that heavily in favor of secession twice a few years apart, is not going to be a blue state for a fair number of years. And even a just-barely-blue state this year isn’t going to suddenly be 60-40 in favor of secession next year.