On the contrary. Article IV, Section 3: "...no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." Article I, Section 10: No state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state..." Also in Article I, Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation..." So given those restrictions states cannot split, combine, add to their territory by acquiring land form foreign countries, or shift their borders a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress.
Now, shall we discuss all the other controls Article I, Section 10 and Article IV place on the states?
I've already posted Rawle, who specifically says a state could leave.
Great, and I've posted Madison, who specifically says a state may not leave unilaterally.
But speaking of Rawle, he writes: "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents." So Rawle seems to be saying that none of the states in 1829 had the authority to secede as part of their Constitutions. So what changed? What clause was added that suddenly granted the state legislatures the power Rawle himself said that they lacked?
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Wonderful. Now show me Joseph Story, majority opinion in a Supreme Court decision that says the same thing.
Tell me NS, if an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
As analogies go this one is pretty thin. How about my earlier analogy? If you enter into agreement with another party, does that party automatically have the right to walk away from the partnership, repudiate a share of the debt, and take whatever joint property he might get his hands on without any compensation to you?
Marshall was speaking about whether or not a national bank was constitutional. Of course it was. The federal government was instituted with the monies from the several states, they had to have some way to deal with it.
But where does the Consitution explicitly state that such a bank was legal?
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended.
Something I completely agree with.
He says to stay within the Constitution. The same thing I've been saying all along.
Where does Chief Justice Marshall state that actions are outside the Constitution because you say they are?
Yes. Then it is well within your rights to return a petition to him stating you wish to be compensated for the loss you incurred.
If he gives you no satisfaction to the petition, then you either ask for a summary judgment or he has to meet you in court.
Its the way the law works.
-----
Now please answer my question:
if an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
-----
So given those restrictions states cannot split, combine, add to their territory by acquiring land form foreign countries, or shift their borders a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress.
That's right. Because to do so would affect another State, and therefore falls under the authority of the general government.
What does that have to do with telling a State what it can or cannot do within its own borders or whether it can voluntarily leave a contract that it had voluntarily entered provided it followed the laws of notification?
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their [Gianni note: "their" is the state legislature] delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
So Rawle seems to be saying that none of the states in 1829 had the authority to secede as part of their Constitutions. So what changed?
Rawle is saying that none of the legislatures were empowered to seceed by thier respective state constitutions, but makes it clear that the people of that state could delegate such power, were it deemed wise.