Without being too flippant, wasn't this decided in 1861-65, where the answer was that the side with the largest army got to make the succession rules?
Good point. The Civil War would be the “legal precedent” so to speak, that states can’t just decide to secede.
[i]Without being too flippant, wasn’t this decided in 1861-65, where the answer was that the side with the largest army got to make the succession rules?[/i]
Does anyone actually think the United States would send its military to attack the government of the Republic of Texas? Does anyone actually think the military would obey such an order?
The cultural unity that makes secession unlikely is the very thing that would prevent a civil war in the case of secession. No citizen of the United States is going to tolerate the bombing of Houston over abstract principles of constitutional law, and there is no galvanizing moral issue here at play like slavery.
Not really. It was only decided for that particular instance. And the winning side had to bypass the Constitution in many ways to get it done. (Read one of the many books on how Lincoln acted in many non-Constitutional ways.) The issue of secession is not settled in the least. And who is to say who would have the biggest army this time?
Basically it boils down to “might makes right.” You’ll see some discussion about whether its legal or Constitutional to do so. Its kind of a silly discussion because the act of secession means that the seceding party wants to leave the Constitution, laws, and courts of the country in question behind.