[Redmen4ever]

No. The Supreme Court did not say a Constitutional Amendment would be needed. It said, in Texas v. White (1868), that the obligations of the state of Texas continued although the state was in rebellion. The U.S., as the name implies, is “an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”

The argument could be made that the states have actually been destroyed by the accretion of power by the federal government, such that the original design of the U.S. is no longer recognizable. But, I digress.

The Court then stated, “There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” This is called dicta. It wasn’t the issue before the Court. And, so, it’s not a binding precedent. But, it is informative. The Court imagines that States could withdraw from the Union WITH CONSENT or by (successful) rebellion. As to how a rebellion could be successful, I suppose this would involve a peace treaty between the parties, i.e., the seceding state and the Congress.

So, it wouldn’t require a Constitutional Amendment, but it does seem that it requires both parties agreeing, the seceding state and the remaining states, with the latter represented either by a convention of the states or through the Congress.

I wouldn’t mind California seceding, but I would be interested in how people in the various counties of that state felt about it. If this is basically the sentiment of L.A. County and the S.F. Bay region only, then no, even if they have more votes than the rest of the state. Let California figure out how secession is fair to its citizens, because as long as its citizens are also U.S. citizens, we are interested in that.

What I would prefer is to return domestic policy to the states so that if they want to be single payer and outlaw heterosexuality, whatever is within the broad discretion of states, they could. And other states likewise.

[itsahoot]

whatever is within the broad discretion of states,

In truth what would that be? We have plenty of laws to cover political misbehavior but in my lifetime they have not been enforced against politicians or the favored rich.

[Political Junkie Too]

Wouldn't "consent of the states" be via the amendment process? The Congress accepts and passes a proposed amendment announcing the withdrawal of California from the United States, and then three-fourths of the states have to ratify that amendment to allow California to leave.

Any future state secession would follow the same pattern, allowing the remaining states to agree or not on a case by case basis.

-PJ