Except that in 37 out of 50 cases the state didn't form anything. They were admitted to the Union, and only with the consent of the existing states. Why shouldn't leaving require the same thing at a minimum?
B) the principles upon which our Federal Government are formed are actually based on those of an earlier document, the Declaration of Independence it states in part...
The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasons why the colonies launched an armed rebellion against the Crown. They did not pretend their actions were legal, and it can be argued that the right to rebellion is inherent. Just be sure you win, and don't pretend your actions are sanctioned by the Constitution.
The Civil War settled only two issues: Slavery would not exist, and the North was militarily more powerful than the South. The legality or correctness of secession was not addressed.
It was by the Supreme Court in 1869.
Isnt that 37 out of 57?
“Why shouldn’t leaving require the same thing at a minimum?”
When you join an organization, do you require permission to leave it?
“The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasons why the colonies launched an armed rebellion against the Crown. They did not pretend their actions were legal, and it can be argued that the right to rebellion is inherent. Just be sure you win, and don’t pretend your actions are sanctioned by the Constitution.”
Winners write the history books and determine legality, I suppose. But they don’t determine morality or natural law, which, I believe was what the Founding Fathers were appealing to in their declaration.
I wouldn’t argue that the Constitution states that seccession is a right. HOWEVER, it does NOT specifically disallow it. And I believe the Tenth Amendment reserves to the People and to the respective states, all those rights not specifcally enumerated as being granted to the Federal Government.
I am not advocating seccession. WW2 and the Cold War would have turned out far differently were we two separate states.
But I am saying that the States have a Consitutional Right and a moral responsibility to take whatever action is approptiate to them should the Federal Government dissolve into a tyranny.
You join an exclusive country club with the consent of the existing members. Do you need their permission to quit? Of course not.
“It was by the Supreme Court in 1869.”
And abortion was settled by Roe v. Wade in 1973. Doesn’t make it right.
I would say that most states joined by mutual consent. If either side wants to dissolve that bond, whether the other 49 states kick Massachusetts out, or Texas secedes, so long as mutual consent has dissolved, either party to the union should have the right to dissolve that bond (no fault secession - just like no fault divorce?).
Are not those 37 still governed by the same document that the original 13 (actually it was only nine until the others eventually came on board) acceded to? Do they not have the same rights as those free and independent states which created this union?
I sure as heck think the answer to both is YES!