Secession is not a legal option.
The only way to constitutionally get out of the Union is to have Congress pass a law excluding a state or states. And that may not even be constitutional.
Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.
Maybe a constitutional convention or amendment might make it possible. But possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve.
Besides Sheriff Joe is not too upset by the ruling.
“Secession is not a legal option”
BS. The way the Constitution works is unless a power was explicitly sacrificed by the states it is reserved for the states or the people. Cf. the tenth amendment. There need not be a secession process drawn out for it to be legal. Since the Constitution does not say that the union is perpetual, and does not say that the states cannot secede, they can secede.
This is elementary. If the states had known in 1789 that the union was perpetual they never would have ratified it. Everyone knows that.
By the way, if it’s not legal, so what? Then it’s a revolution. Declaring independce wasn’t legal, nor was replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
“Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.”
He should have declared it in the Constitution.
“possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve”
Maybe, maybe not. I’m thinking more and more things might’ve been better had we just let the South go.
Secession is not a legal option...
LOL - Of course it is not!
Rebellions, revolutions, and successions never are legal.
They are done in point of fact by locales, districts, areas or states, not by Federal law, and they are done because the controlling head of state has broken down into actions considered unlawful or repugnant to those so declaring - at gunpoint if needed.
So, you have a contract with someone, and they refuse to live up to that contract, but you are still obligated to remain in that contract and fulfill your part?
I realize “the other side” has a gun pointed at you, but that isn’t “legal”.
Well, that is an opinion based on the result of a war.
As Ben Franklin said "Force sh*tes upon Reason's back."
Whatever eloquent argument one might make for the legality, constitutionality, etc., of a particular act, it really boils down to who has the ability to use force to enforce their desire.
Heck of a way to run things, but there you go.
Oh, well that's it then! Whatever Madison said is law.
No, seriously I've read some books on this and secession was viewed as always on the table in America until the Civil War put an end to it. There were debates about secession in New England, as well as in the South, for generations. So, a lot of people got it wrong, I guess.
Doesn't the 10th Ammendment guarantee secession, as a right reserved because it is not mentioned in the Constitution itself?
I think Thomas Woods Jr. has written on this.
Madison said [my bold]:
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
Madison was one of the coauthors of Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which said:
... the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.
Virginia cited that in their secession document of 1861.
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, in his 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?" notes the following regarding the Virginia ratification:
In the first place, the Constitution was not to be established by the people of America as one nation, or by “the people of the United States as one great society;” and this fact was perfectly well known to the Virginia Convention of 1788. It has already been sufficiently demonstrated, that the Constitution was ordained, not by the people of America as one great society, but by each People acting for itself alone, and to be bound exclusively by its own voluntary act. It would be a great solicism in language, as well as logic, to say that the people of the United States as one great society, might resume powers which were not delegated by them. The sovereignty which delegates, is the sovereignty which resumes; and it is absurd to speak of a resumption of powers by any other authority, whether real or imaginary.
Then again, New York's ratification of the Constitution was voted for by the two other authors of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay [my bold again]:
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
The New York ratification was accepted by the other original states.
I believe that the constitution of Texas clearly states that it may remove itself from the Union if it desires to do so.
That was a carrot given to Texas to get it back into the union in the 1800’s.
My understanding is that for Texas it is - something about their status and inclusion into the Union.
Regardless, legal issues in this day and age under a tyrant are specious - only one side apparently is playing by the rules - Obama routinely ignores it.
Finally, the precendent for legality was set by the Union when they won the Civil War. IOW, winner sets the rules. My feeling is that ultimately, secession, or Civil War, or both or just complete breakdown and third world anarchy is the end of this.