Replies

Contrary to what some believe, seccession is not Constitutional, at least not without the permission of Congress. Not only did the Articles of Confederation, which created the United States, call it a “perpetual Union between the states but Article 1/Section 10, Article IV/Sections 3 & 4, and Article VI make it clear that states are not permitted run their own foreign policy or create their own confederation, that Congress has final jurisdiction over the territory of the United States, and that the states are bound by the Constitution and all state legislators, executive officers, and judicial officers are required to take an oath to support it. Further, the Habeas Corpus clause of Article 1/Section 9 makes it pretty clear that the Constitution intended the federal government to have the power to put down rebellions, which is what the Civil War was.

Contrary to what some believe, secession is not Constitutional, at least not without the permission of Congress.

And if the legislature of,say,Nebraska passes legislation seceding from the US and severing *all* ties with Washington.And the Nebraska National Guard refused to follow any orders issued in the name of anyone but the state's Governor? What then,invasion?

I don't think secession is very practical for most states, certainly not the land locked ones that would suffer from the restrictions placed on them by the surrounding, angry & slighted, USA.

Yes,that's a consideration.But look at the blue states.That would be more of a problem for them.The Northeast,Florida,several states of the Upper Midwest,the West Coast and Hawaii.About the only state in the newly formed nation that we'd have trouble reaching would be Alaska and we have trouble reaching that now.

Contrary to what some believe, seccession is not Constitutional, at least not without the permission of Congress. Not only did the Articles of Confederation, which created the United States, call it a “perpetual Union between the states but Article 1/Section 10, Article IV/Sections 3 & 4, and Article VI make it clear that states are not permitted run their own foreign policy or create their own confederation, that Congress has final jurisdiction over the territory of the United States, and that the states are bound by the Constitution and all state legislators, executive officers, and judicial officers are required to take an oath to support it. Further, the Habeas Corpus clause of Article 1/Section 9 makes it pretty clear that the Constitution intended the federal government to have the power to put down rebellions, which is what the Civil War was.

You would get an argument from authors of The Federalist Papers, which explained what the Constitution meant. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay voted in the New York ratification document for the following explanation of what the Constitution meant:

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, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: 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.

That was not a conditional ratification. It was a statement that explained what the Constitution meant. It is a statement of original intent. The part that had been conditional about the New York ratification (that New York could leave if amendments weren't passed within a certain number of years) had already been taken out of the New York ratification document.

Nowhere in the Constitution was secession prohibited. Nowhere are non-seceding states or the federal government given the power to stop a state from leaving. IMO, if there had been such statements in the Constitution, the Constitution would not have been ratified by all states.

The Constitution did not bind states that have seceded from the Union any more than the United States was bound by English law after the Revolutionary War.

Contrary to what some believe, seccession is not Constitutional, at least not without the permission of Congress.

Neither was Secession from England, without the permission of George III. BAD FOUNDERS! VERY VERY BAD FOUNDERS!

What gets me, is that in Lincoln's most Famous speech, ("four score and seven years ago"), if you do the math, he was talking about 1776, and the occasion when a bunch of Rebel States broke away from the English Union.

How is it okay for the States to break from England, but not okay to break from each other?

Further, the Habeas Corpus clause of Article 1/Section 9 makes it pretty clear that the Constitution intended the federal government to have the power to put down rebellions, which is what the Civil War was.

Didn't Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? Or does that just apply when it suits the Government?