I never said it was a club. It is a partnership and agreement between the States to crate a Union of States.
The 10th Amendment was added by the Founding Fathers to protect the States from the Federal government.
Your analogy is wonderful. But if there are 50 partners and one or two leave ... the partnership still exists with the rest. There for the partnership and the individual partners are not harmed. They still survive.
As I said there is no law prohibiting secession. You have chosen the language basically of interstate commerce. It does not in any way, shape or form address secession.
What is one states’ interest in another state? What interest is it of one state what another state does? You imply that the governor of one state can dictate to the governor of another. Untrue.
One state leaving the Union is not beating up another state. There is no physical or economic damage. Commerce can continue.
Your argument doesn’t hold water. All you’re saying is that the Federal government is now omnipotent and omnipresent and must be followed no matter what.
It’s the Federal interest you are proclaiming, camouflaging it in another States’ interest. It doesn’t wash. You have shown no consideration for the rights of the individual States in what you have written and I have read. But the 10th Amendment does.
We are a government and a society of laws. Those laws mean what they are intended to curb or enforce. With the courts chiming in when questions arise.
As I said the Constitution nor any other law prohibits secession. No court decision has decided this issue, to date.
The Federal government holds jurisdiction in certain issues and the States in other issues. Both are sovereign in their own right.
Therefore it is legal for a State to secede if it chooses to do so. Until a law is passed or court decision opines differently.
How about protecting the states from the other states? Isn't a good part of the Constitution dedicated to that?
But if there are 50 partners and one or two leave ... the partnership still exists with the rest. There for the partnership and the individual partners are not harmed. They still survive.
But if the partners leave and repudiate their share of the partnerships obligations, or walk out with property jointly held by all, then their actions negatively impact the interests of the remaining parners. A fair and mutually agreeable separation requires that all matters of potential dispute be settled before the members leave.
As I said there is no law prohibiting secession. You have chosen the language basically of interstate commerce. It does not in any way, shape or form address secession.
No, I have chosen the language that recognizes that all parties to the compact have rights and interests to protects and not just those leaving.
One state leaving the Union is not beating up another state. There is no physical or economic damage. Commerce can continue.
There is no physical or economic damage? Say California left tomorrow. They take with her what? About 11 or 12 percent of the population and a considerable percentage of the GDP? What about the debt they leave behind? What about responsibility for Social Security and pensions for the people in the state? What if California cuts off access to the sea for the western states? What if the western states cut off some of California's sources for water? What about the military equipment in the state and other government assets owned jointly by all the other states? States don't operate in a vaccuum. If California walked away from obligations and kept everything they could get their hands on and was in a position to cut off access to the sea and transportation for a considerable part of the country, are you telling me you honestly believe there is no physical or economic damage to the remaining states? And do you seriously mean that there is nothing the states can do except sit back and get slapped around? And that the Constituiton protects that?
Your argument doesn’t hold water. All you’re saying is that the Federal government is now omnipotent and omnipresent and must be followed no matter what.
No. Nor am I agreeing with you that a state can do whatever it wants, regardless of the impact to the other states.
It’s the Federal interest you are proclaiming, camouflaging it in another States’ interest.
Nonsense. You are saying that only one state matters - the one you're allied with. All the others have no say, no rights, no protections.
We are a government and a society of laws. Those laws mean what they are intended to curb or enforce. With the courts chiming in when questions arise.
We do have laws, and they're meant to protect everyone and every state. Not just you and your's.
As I said the Constitution nor any other law prohibits secession. No court decision has decided this issue, to date.
I suggest you read up on Texas v. White, 1869 Supreme Court decision.