I don't post to you. I post to the lurkers.
There is no reasonable interpretation that will say anything but that there is no legal right to unilateral state secession. The judicial power of the United States rests with the Supreme Court. --Every-- Justice agreed in 1863 that the Militia Act gave the power to the president to suprress rebellion. The majority opinion in that case referred to the rebels as traitors. These are the facts of the matter. If you -had- anything of note to say, which you apparently do not, it would be muted by your unsupportable position on this one issue.
This is from Dorr v. Rhode Island:
"[Art. IV, Sec. 4] of the Constitution of the United States provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on the application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
"Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. ..."
"So, too, as relaters to the clause in the above-mentioned article of the Constitution, providing for cases of domestic violence. It rested with Congress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfill this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most advisable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely, and, by the act of February 28, 1795, provided that,
[The amended Militia Act]
... in case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such State or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
The Court continued:
"By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive, and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."
Here, the Supreme Court was considering the case of an uprising against a State Gov't. and found the President to be the competent authority to determine if an alleged State Gov't was in fact legitimate. While the Court presumed a situation where there exists one legitimate and one illegitimate government, clearly the case could arise where a State has no legitimate government. Since the President has the power to determine which of two (or more) governments is legitimate he must have the power to determine that no legitimate government exists, when that is in fact the case.
I claim that this is exactly what Lincoln did. After each of the "seceding" States enacted an Ordinance of Secession, an interregnum ensued. The President exercised his power to determine that there was no government in that State, and used his existing powers to start the process of restoring legitimate (i.e., both Constitutional and Republican) governments to those (so-called) seceded States. In addition, the President called Congress into Special Session and together Congress and the Executive took those steps necessary and proper to restore Constitutional, Republican Governments to those (so- called) seceded States.
One may argue that the President cannot act unless the State Legislature or Executive request action. I respond that, during an interregnum, there is no State Legislature or Executive to make the request, yet the US is still obligated to provide for a Constitutional Government which has a Republican Form for that State, and thus the US must have all powers necessary and proper to create such a State government
Taney anticipated an objection that I suspect Myles will raise:
"It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused. All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. But it would be difficult, we think, to point out any other hands in which this power would be more safe, and at the same time equally effectual. When citizens of the same State are in arms against each other, and the constituted authorities unable to execute the laws, the interposition of the United States must be prompt or it is of little value. The ordinary course of proceedings in courts of justice would be utterly unfit for the crisis. And the elevated office of the President, chosen as he is by the people of the United States, and the high responsibility he could not fail to feel when acting in a case of so much moment, appear to furnish as strong safeguards against a wilful abuse of power as human prudence and foresight could well provide. At all events, it is conferred upon him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must therefore be respected and enforced in its judicial tribunals."
While Taney spoke of situations where "citizens of the same State are in arms against each other" (as happened during the Civil War in most if not all of the "seceded" states), his arguments apply equally well to the situation where people are in arms against the lawful and Constitutional Government of the United States."
-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.
Walt