Spain sends in ARMY to Catalonia as it pushes region to brink over referendum

Not by everybody.

Agreed.

The word I used, ‘commonly’ concedes that.

And as I said about California’s secession, that they should take their share of the Federal debt with them. This is part of what Madison said about “A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."

I will say that the other states would have no right to impose onerous and unfair conditions of the exit of the seceding state so as to preclude its exit.

While we’re checking definitions let’s take a look at “Dual Sovereignty”: Dual sovereignty is a concept in the American constitutional framework that defines the relationships between the individual states and the federal government. It holds that both the State governments and the federal governments are sovereign with the states subordinate to the federal.

The state governments and the federal government each have spheres and can execute powers that the other cannot. The states are sovereign over most domestic issues—whether a will or contract is valid, what a landlord must do in order to evict a tennant, who is married, how old one must be to drive a car, and what the rules governing corporations are. The federal government is sovereign over issues such as trade between the states or foreign countries, foreign relations, etc.

The US Constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the Federal government by the states.

These powers are few. The powers retained by the states are many.

Unfortunately, the people have forgotten this and the Federal government has usurped a great deal of power not delegated to it by the states.

The states have the power and the right to reclaim those powers.

They want to be free from Madrid so that they can be even more beholden to Brussels and even more open to immigration from Africa and the Middle East.

It is doubtful the EU would ever agree to let in an independent Catalonia...Spain itself would have veto power over that decision.

Scotland is a bit different since GB is leaving the EU, but any member country struggling with a separatist/independence movement would likely block them.

At this time there are many national troubles, especially between the government of the United States and the state of South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson's protective tariff has been opposed by South Carolina; and on Nov. 24, 1832, the legislature of South Carolina declares that as of Feb. 1, 1833, Jackson's tariff will no longer apply to that state, and that they will secede if President Jackson tries to enforce the law. On Dec. 10 President Jackson issues a proclamation against South Carolina and threatens to march forty thousand government troops against them.

Your quote demonstrates that states threatened to secede over a tariff. This isn't under debate, what's under debate is whether the Constitution explicitly or implicitly guarantees to the right to secede. It certainly doesn't do so explicitly, and the fact that the first article of the Constitution forbids states the right to engage in diplomacy, wage war, or impose tariffs makes it quite clear implicitly that there are limits to state sovereignty.

What you quote does demonstrate is that not even the Jeffersonian Andrew Jackson (who unlike the Whigs and the Republicans was generally supportive of states' rights) agreed with you that states had the right to secede at will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.