Can a US state secede?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,432
Caribbean
Mr. Sculptingman,
Despite request for sources and substantiation, your post simply repeats flasehoods already rebutted. I'l

IThat defines what a State can...do. .
If such a clause existed, everyone would know where it is. Please try to identify this clause, and when you can't, please stop making things up. Because there is no such clause In the Constitution, state powers/rights are described as undefined. You have it backwards.

Um- seriously? The territories had to APPLY for Statehood. They had to meet criteria specified by the federal government.
They had to be voted in by congress.
Again, this falsehood has been rebutted already. You cannot manufacture truth out of falsity by sheer repetition. I already gave you the necessary research link "equal footing doctrine."

So, now I do some of the due diligence that is really yours to perform. From the NW Ordinance of 1787
"...governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States."
On the admission of Tennessee:
"on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever"

Understand? All the states are equal, no matter how they started out. Again, every state was added with this express condition, equal in all respects.
This illustrates the difference between reading the documents and making things up.

Last point. You have no authority to un-declare the Declaration. They say they are going forward under the Law of Nations. You cannot undo that and force them into your hypothetical government based civil contract law

Since, the rest of your post continues in the same vein, personal viewpoints without any quotations, citations, or sources, I see no reason to respond.
 
Last edited:

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,069
Navan, Ireland
Sorry if this has already been answered.

But lets say a State (say Texas) developed a separatist party-- as there is in Scotland , Catalonia, Wales etc--- a Texas national Party ,TNP, gradually they through legal constitutional means gain support, perhaps they even gain control of State government and if that were the case they must have popular support.

They call for a referendum on Independence -- are they given it by the rest of the USA? is it just Texas that votes or all the USA?

What if unilaterally the TNP legislature call a referendum on Independence for Texas and it passes? -- would the result be respected? (I doubt it would be 'legal') but would the USA force a state to stay in the Union against it wishes -- democratically expressed--in the 21st century?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,625
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sorry if this has already been answered.

But lets say a State (say Texas) developed a separatist party-- as there is in Scotland , Catalonia, Wales etc--- a Texas national Party ,TNP, gradually they through legal constitutional means gain support, perhaps they even gain control of State government and if that were the case they must have popular support.

They call for a referendum on Independence -- are they given it by the rest of the USA? is it just Texas that votes or all the USA?

What if unilaterally the TNP legislature call a referendum on Independence for Texas and it passes? -- would the result be respected? (I doubt it would be 'legal') but would the USA force a state to stay in the Union against it wishes -- democratically expressed--in the 21st century?
No one knows. Terms like "perpetual union" are descriptions, not law. SCOTUS rulings are specific to the case at hand. That's how any future case regarding secession will be handled. No one can guarantee that that a future ruling would not allow a state to secede. It might even be possible for a state to be expelled. There's no process provided in law. The fact that states were "re-admitted" after the ACW suggests their secession was recognized in fact if not in law. It would have been better if the "conquered" states were put directly into reconstruction before being given fully restored powers as states without being "re-admitted" because their "secession" was never "legal".
 
Last edited:

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,001
No one knows. Terms like "perpetual union" are descriptions, not law. SCOTUS rulings are specific to the case at hand. That's how any future case regarding secession will be handled. No one can guarantee that that a future ruling would not allow a state to secede. It might even be possible for a state to be expelled. There's no process provided in law. The fact that states were "re-admitted" after the ACW suggests their secession was recognized in fact if not in law. It would have been better if the "conquered" states were put directly into reconstruction before being given fully restored powers as states without being "re-admitted" because their "secession" was never "legal".
steve, I think the statements and concepts in the AoC and the Constitution are more than "descriptions." they are incorporated in enabling legislation, and are therefore "declarations" of a governmental order.

What are "perpetual Union" and "more perfect Union" supposed to mean other than a perfected and perpetual union? The argument stated elsewhere, that the preambles to the AoC and the Constitution are not law because they are not "articles" is counter-intuitive. The preambles are parts of the documents, therefore they express what the following articles are setting forth in law.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,625
Las Vegas, NV USA
the preambles to the AoC and the Constitution are not law because they are not "articles" is counter-intuitive. The preambles are parts of the documents, therefore they express what the following articles are setting forth in law.
That's the problem. They are not law and no laws provide provide for or against succession. BTW the AoC did not give the US the power to legislate for the states nor any power to tax. The central government could only pass ordinances for the unorganized territory north of the Ohio River. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were in charge of the lands south of the Ohio to the Mississippi River. The new Constitution was and remains silent on the issue of secession.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,001
That's the problem. They are not law and no laws provide provide for or against succession. BTW the AoC did not give the US the power to legislate for the states nor any power to tax. The central government could only pass ordinances for the unorganized territory north of the Ohio River. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were in charge of the lands south of the Ohio to the Mississippi River. The new Constitution was and remains silent on the issue of secession.
The preambles ARE parts of the documents.

I don't think the Constitution being silent on secession matters. The documents referenced refer to perpetual union, and to more perfect union. The intent is clear. Both documents (AoC and Constitution) are enabling legislation agreed to by the signatories thereof. The AoC is precedent; the Constitution builds on that precedent. What the Constitution does not say is of less importance than what it does say.

The de facto results of the Civil War, and the SCOTUS deciding in Texas vs White that secession is unconstitutional settles the issue. There has been no further argument before the SCOTUS for 150 years. What happened, or what was understood, before 1865/1869 doesn't mean anything now.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,625
Las Vegas, NV USA
The preambles ARE parts of the documents.

The de facto results of the Civil War, and the SCOTUS deciding in Texas vs White that secession is unconstitutional settles the issue. There has been no further argument before the SCOTUS for 150 years. What happened, or what was understood, before 1865/1869 doesn't mean anything now.
Yes. Secession is illegal until some future court decides it's not illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kotromanic