I think that’s a common point of view, but it’s actually more than a little difficult to defend, if you look at the details. You mention constitutional requirements for joining, and membership, and then suggest that such requirements imply authority over departure. Let’s look at the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Article I, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen… The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Article I, Section 5: Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. ..
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
So the Constitution clearly defines federal authority with regard to people becoming members of Congress (including age, citizenship, residency elections, returns, etc.); as well as aspects of membership (selection of officers, attendance, penalties, etc.). You would apparently suggest, then, that the federal government possesses an “implied” power to prevent Representatives and Senators from resigning? No Congress-person can leave, without prior federal approval? Or maybe they’re just stuck there, unable to leave at all, until they manage to get ‘unelected’ back home? Nobody can simply resign?
In somewhat similar fashion, my local sporting goods store has authority over anyone entering the store (via operating hours, locked doors, etc.), and some authority over behavior inside the store (don’t point a firearm at anyone), but obviously no authority whatsoever to prevent someone from leaving.
My personal view is that authority over entry, and behavior while a present, does NOT necessarily imply any authority to prevent departure. That is particularly true with regard to State secession, given that multiple States reserved the right to depart, in writing, when the they ratified the Constitution.
And I should point out that is not only my position but the belief of James Madison, Salmon Chase, Thomas Jefferson, and many others. Roger Taney didn't think states could leave at all.
I would disagree, regarding both Jefferson and Madison. Madison's opinions changed with time, but he very notably defended the right of each State ratifying the new Constitution, to withdraw (i.e., secede) from the supposedly “perpetual” union formed under the Articles of Confederation (see his writings in the relevant section of the Federalist Papers). (In essence, he helped 'sell' the Constitution to the States and their people, on terms that directly implied a right of State secession.) And it's also worth noting, that while certain language and provisions from the Articles were incorporated within the Constitution, any reference to a “perpetual” union was pointedly omitted.
Jefferson authored his little known “Declaration on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them” late in his life (1825), but therein explicitly recognized the right of secession, as did William Rawle in his “A view of the Constitution of the United States of America” (also 1825) and others. So, as one might expect, there were differing opinions on the matter.
WIJG? - If no such authority was clearly delegated to the federal government, would it not remain with each of the States - in other words, would not the people of each State retain authority over its own departure?
DD - Only if you discount entirely the existence of implied powers. As I said, Congressional approval is needed for a state to join or changes in status once allowed it so recognizing that the need for Congressional approval is implied is no great stretch.
“Implied powers” have been a troubling subject, since the early days of the republic. The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution, before some members of Congress found a nearly inexhaustible supply of “implied powers” in Article I, Section 8 (“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”). As Madison noted in 1799:
"...[W]hether the phrases in question be construed to authorize every measure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some; or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as suggested by the caution of others; the effect must substantially be the same, in destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers which follow these general phrases in the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, does not involve or admit an application of money."
Clearly, not all governmental powers that may be implied, actually exist, or the Constitution becomes a meaningless scrap of paper…
I submit there is quite a difference between a state and a senator, but let's follow your analogy in another direction. If the only powers are those that are specifically enumerated then by your definition the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force are illegal organizations because they are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Correct?
I would disagree, regarding both Jefferson and Madison. Madison's opinions changed with time, but he very notably defended the right of each State ratifying the new Constitution, to withdraw (i.e., secede) from the supposedly “perpetual” union formed under the Articles of Confederation (see his writings in the relevant section of the Federalist Papers).
LOL! So the states seceded from the United States in order to form the United States? The convening of the Constitutional Convention was approved by Congress and the sending of the Constitution to the states for ratification was also approved by Congress. Nobody seceded from anything.
Clearly, not all governmental powers that may be implied, actually exist, or the Constitution becomes a meaningless scrap of paper…
Probably. But as Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the McCulloch decision, "Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument." If Congressional approval is required to join and Congressional approval is required for every other alteration in a state's status then a fair construction of the whole instrument would support Congressional approval being needed to leave as well.