“In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.[2]
I disagree with the Court. It was a Reconstruction SCOTUS and this is hardly surprising. That Texas REMAINED a state under military government after rebelling against the Federal Government, with a decision like this rendered, defies logic.
Their decision is not grounded in either fact or history. SCOTUS has issued an entire series of decisions, from School Prayer to Eminent Domain to Abortion, that many on this forum disagree with.
I refer you to the EXACT wording of the Tenth Amendment.
“Secession is possible, but not unilateral action by a state, rather only by federal action: perhaps by federal legislation, by federal treaty, and certainly by constitutional amendment.”
???????????????
According to the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit secession, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that right to the States.
I will agree that secession is not denied to the states. Accordingly, the right to secession is retained by “the states or to the people” per the 10th Amendment.
I hold that secession is a right of the people of the United States, not a right of any single state, or even several states combined.
Sumner explained the legal issues of that, how the state governments could not unilaterally secede, and further if they attempted insurrection, they could not take their people nor their territory outside of the US, rather they would end the legitimacy of their state government.
Yes, it is an interesting discussion. Glad we can have it without getting too too worked up.
So what do you think “to the people” means in the 10th Amendment?
Clearly it doesn’t mean nothing at all. What does it mean? I suggest it requires a very broad agreement, as one would find necessary to pass an amendment.
What do you think?