I don`t know much about the US Constitution (I`m German), so honest question: If the US is a federation of states why are states not allowed to secede? Wasn`t that what the Civil War was about? If the states can`t do that the whole federation thing seems to be more of theoretical concept. In that case you might as well end it and acknowledge that you are one state, even if that`s maybe not how you started out.
Oh, now you’ve done it.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Some years ago (can't recall exactly when) there was a referendum in Quebec (Canada) asking voters if Quebec should break away from the rest of Canada and become a sovereign country. It failed. There was no indication that if it succeeded that Canada would send troops into Quebec.
And then there's Scotland. A few years ago (2014?) there was a similar referendum there. It failed. Again,there was no indication that London would have sent troops into Scotland if it had succeeded.
I strongly doubt that any state...or group of states...that wanted to break away would be forced to stay through the use of troops or anything like that.
They are allowed to secede, but only with mutual agreement with the federal government and the people affected.
Same is true with Scotland and the UK
Same would be true of a German state
We are the UNITED States of America!!
They should be. When the states ratified the US Constitution, they all thought they could secede. Nobody at the time said they couldn't. But 70 years later by the time some states wanted to secede other states saw that they would lose a lot of money if those states left - so they started a war to stop them from leaving. After the war was over then the Supreme Court said states couldn't secede *you wouldn't really expect the Supreme Court to say anything different right after the war did you?
Wasn`t that what the Civil War was about?
Essentially, yes.
If the states can`t do that the whole federation thing seems to be more of theoretical concept. In that case you might as well end it and acknowledge that you are one state, even if that`s maybe not how you started out.
The Supreme Court has admitted several times that the states are sovereign. They did not delegate all of their powers to the federal government when they ratified the US Constitution. The structure of the federal government with each state having 2 Senators and the president being elected by electoral votes cast by the states (not individuals), still reflects the fact that the US Constitution is a treaty between sovereign states - again, not individuals.
It is somewhat the opposite of Germany in that respect. Yes, there were separate kingdoms, duchies, free cities, etc. Yes, the Bundeslaender are based on these historical separate kingdoms. BUT by the time the Grundgesetz was written, there was the country of Germany and the question was how to structure it. The country came first then the Bundeslaender were created (based on history) as the best way to administer it. A central government should exist, now what powers should the Bundeslaender have? zb. Von Oben nach Unten.
In the US the states came first. They were recognized as sovereign. The federal government did not exist. They then created the federal government with the US Constitution which was a treaty between them. The question was what powers should the federal government have. zb. Von Unten nach Oben. Naturally, the states kept more power for themselves.
“Wasn`t that what the Civil War was about?”
Our Civil War was about robbery, slavery was the motive.
My theory, in a nutshell, is that the Civil War was fought because the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness recognized in the Declaration of Independence trumped states’ rights in that instance. It was an extreme situation and something not resolved at the founding. Otherwise, states’ rights should prevail except for the federal powers enumerated in the Constitution.
” If the US is a federation of states why are states not allowed to secede?”
A clear and correct observation.
Before the Civil War it was ‘these united States”.
After Lincoln destroyed the Constitution, it was “The United States”.
Half the People want one thing.
Half the people and their Ruling Class want something else. (see Codevilla)
National Divorce is the answer-
They hate us - we hate them
Can’t live under the same rules
No Civil War - Civil Separation
Choose Freedom- Choose Peace
“If the US is a federation of states why are states not allowed to secede?”
In my understanding:
They made an agreement or contract, all parties to which can be can be held to by the other parties (if they can do so) or released from with the acquiescence of the other parties.
The union of states predates the constitution.
It is a social contract. (Note 1)
The beginning was extralegal (Note 2) after which they established a legal system.
Before the agreement to unite, the 13 colonies were sort of in a state of nature (Note 3) in relation to each other. I say ”sort of” because they were part of an organized society in relation to each other in so far as they were part of the British Empire, but they dissolved the relationship with the British Empire when they “seceded” from the British Empire and subsequently strived to establish a new relationship...a new organized society…a new social contract.
When a party to a contract formed under the rules of an organized society wants out, they can be freed from the contract with the acquiescence of other parties to the contract, or held to/freed from the contract under the rules of the society.
When a party to a contract formed outside and not subjected to the rules of an organized society wants out, they can be freed from the contract with the acquiescence of other parties to the contract, or held to the contract, usually by superior force.
Note 1: Social Contract: an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=social+contract
Note 2: Extralegal: not regulated or sanctioned by law. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extra+legal+definition )
Note 3: State of Nature: In ethics, political philosophy, social contract theory, religion, and international law, the term state of nature describes the hypothetical way of life that existed before humans organised themselves into societies or civilizations. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=state+of+nature