What way is that? What constitutional provision controls the issue? Were Hamilton and Jay (two of the authors of the Federalist Papers outlining what the Constitution meant) wrong about what the Constitution meant?
Hi Rusty - long time no see.
You know that I’ve always had an admiration for your postings. You have crafted a careful narrative that supports the efforts of the cornfederates that is so reasonable that it almost passes the sniff-test.
A FReeper once scolded me, saying “Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?” I can (sorta) see the point. There was a huge urgency to get an agreement inked and signed, and a great incentive to take care of the broad-strokes and rely on the reasonableness of honorable men to attend to the lingering details.
It is no secret that the theoretic breaking the bonds was a frequent, if not perilous topic of the founders. Splitting the sheets with the Brits was a herculean undertaking, as was devising and implementing a complete, self-sustaining government from whole-cloth. It seems that no one wanted to be so crass as to be the author of any escape-hatch clause. Consequently one was never included.
For authority the agreement was that congress be the place to take their complaints and plead their case.
Article 1 Section 10 outlines some of the powers prohibited the states, including forming alliances outside of the constitutional relationship of the many states. Article 4 defines conduct of the states regarding each other. And Article 5 prescribes the method of amendment to existing agreements.
Contained within those Articles is the means for remedy to whatever grievances the south may have had. Even legislation or agreement that didn’t meet their needs could have been appealed to SCOTUS. All parties knew that they were on soft ground precisely because there was no hard and fast process for leaving the union - all the more reason to tread lightly and make sure that what you were doing was right, both morally, ethically, and LEGALLY.
I submit that the insurrectionists did none of these things. Instead they took the passive-aggressive path of least resistance, framing their movement with the pretentious cloak of secession and daring anyone to object.
Costly error in judgement.
Article III requires that controversies between the states and the federal government be resolved before the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
Of course political agreement could also lead to secession by amendment, or law and there are provisions for that, referencing the representatives of the people (House) the states (Senate) and for amendment, the state legislatures.
Attempts at secession without legal resolution of the controversy, or political agreement of the states and the people... well there is a word for that: insurrection.