[henkster]

The original colonies, and Texas, could present a facially legitimate argument that they had a right to seceed. States admitted to the Union after the ratification of the Constitution were created by the Union. Having never been independent polities prior to statehood, I don’t believe there is any legitmate argument they could make that they had a right to seceed from the nation that created them.

[central_va]

I don't believe there is any legitmate[sic] argument they could make that they had a right to seceed[sic] from the nation that created them.

The people of the 19th century would never agree with you.

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."

-- Jefferson Davis

[PeterPrinciple]

The original colonies, and Texas, could present a facially legitimate argument that they had a right to seceed. States admitted to the Union after the ratification of the Constitution were created by the Union. Having never been independent polities prior to statehood, I don’t believe there is any legitmate argument they could make that they had a right to seceed from the nation that created them.

---

Now you made me think also. If I go to recent history it would be the USSR. Did Poland have a right to succeed from the USSR to become an independent nation? One of the factors that led to the demise of USSR was satellite countries asserting their power and beginning to ignore the central authority.

We have states now that are beginning to ignore federal rules and regulation with obamacare being an example. Personally, I applaud states taking back powers in principle but also know that there will be problems. Is this is a “revolution” or maybe a form of “secession”

Are rights and legitimacy really factors?