[Robert DeLong]

No, it is in the Constitution that you can amend the Constitution. Then he goes on to state why that amendment would never be offered up, at least by elected members of Congress. But it still could be accomplished by calling for a Constitutional Convention under Article V (5) of the Constitution. That has never been tried either.

So, the argument can be made that LEGALLY there is no prohibition to a state seceding.

First off I was responding to someone else who made a post where he said: Legally, constitutionally, there is no procedure for states to leave the union. Legally, there is a process to admit new states, but not a process for states to secede.

When I responded to his statement(s) with:

Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union. But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union.

To do it constitutionally, you would need to amend the constitution as it exists right now, otherwise, you do it and the U.S. will determine if it allows Texas to secede peacefully or not. After all, the southern states did secede, but it came at a price, did it not?

No one stated that Texas could not secede, just that they could not do so constitutionally, as the constitution currently stands..

[ought-six]

“No one stated that Texas could not secede, just that they could not do so constitutionally, as the constitution currently stands..”

It’s a question of interpretation.

If the Constitution is silent on the matter, then there is nothing constitutionally (the supreme law of the land) prohibiting it. It’s like the old saying about the law: “I didn’t break the law because the law does not prohibit it; thus, what I did was within the law that exists.”