> There's no provision forbidding secession either
The Article IV Sec. 4 guarantee cannot be interpret as even coherent if a state can secede; once a state is admitted to the union, he federal government is irrevocably obligated to preserve it as a subject and republican government; if a state government could escape this oversight by secession, the guarantee would be empty.
Further, there is ample historical evidence that the idea of reserving the right to secede when ratifying was raised by New York, and rejected because it was understood that it would be viewed by the Congress as an inconsistent condition attached to ratification and thereby nullify the ratificstion.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on the issue, in Texas v. White. So your concept of a right to secession is inconsistent with the text, historical evidence of intent and case law of the Constitution.
> There is nothing in the US constitution that actually allows secession
True, but there is nothing that forbids it either explicitly. And I could argue that from the History of the US, of how they were formed, and the Declaration of Independence, Secession is very much considered to be a cultural Right.
Even Lincoln said that:
> Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
This is further observed by foreign observers such as Tocqueville after the US were established:
> The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.
> Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire.
Technically, they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution.
Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either.
> That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
Well, you can't do that through coordinated state action.
Or even a Constitutional amendment. Maybe two amendments, because the provision prohibiting amendments which alter the equal representation in the Senate isn't itself explicitly protected the same way. Of course, small states can easily block a Constitutional amendment, so that's not going to happen unless they are on board.
> States can leave the US with the consent of Congress.
No, they can't. The Constitution only provides for rules on forming new states and forming states from parts of other states. There is no text on what happen should a state decide it wants to live. In the Civil War, some states argued that the Constitution was a voluntary compact of sovereign states, such that a state could unilaterally leave if it so desired (no need to get consent of Congress). SCOTUS later held that these declarations of secession never held validity.
> Since the power to remove a State from the United States is not delegated to the United States, it is reserved to the respective States, or to the people.
Alternatively, since secession would obviate the requirements Constitutionally binding on the State, it could only be done through Amendment, and, because it would remove it's equal representation in the Senate, not even by that means.
> though then a deeper question might be, when is secession legitimate?
It's an entirely subjective question. Never, according to the state being seceded from or revolted against, and always, according to the secessionists and revolutionaries.
It's worth mentioning that the same American government that added the Second Amendment and spoke in florid prose about the blood-sacrifice of patriots and rebellion against governments also put down rebellions against itself.
>And is there any justification that the United States might simply accept secession of a state from the Union?
No. Cultural reasons aside, there is simply too much money and infrastructure at stake (to say nothing of political instability threatening its superpower status) for the US to be willing to lose even a single state.
Really? You mean that there is something in the US Constitution that explicitly allows a state to secede?
"In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution.[29] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
> The right to secede is in the American constitution from its very beginning. Any State in the US can decide to become independent if their population really wants to. Whether it makes sense is another story, but it certainly would not regarded as illegitimate.
I'm pretty sure Lincoln would argue with you there.
> This is just an attempt to get attention. States can't just decide to split themselves into multiple states, it requires federal legislation.
It requires both State action and federal legislation. But the State action is clearly a required step.
> The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union.
As your own link notes, that agreement specifically cited that it could only be done subject to the requirements of the Constitution, which would seem to mean that Texas can do it exactly as much as any other state can -- that is, with action of the State legislature and the federal Congress.
> It would be California and New York deciding the fate of all other states.
No, it wouldn't.
California and New York, even voting as a 100% block, don't represent a national majority. Heck, they aren't even the two largest states (#2 is Texas.)
It wouldn't be states representing a relatively small fraction of the population dictating control of the Senate while be overly powerful in choosing the President—but they'd still control the Senate, and hereby have a veto on federal law. So why would they secede?
> You would definitely see a mass succession.
(1) you mean secession, and
(2) if the low-population, mostly low-GDP states secede and thereby sacrifice their disproportionate control over be rest of the country, that they otherwise retain as long as the Senate exists with or without also having extra Presidential vote weighting (the small, high-GDP states have largely signed on to the national popular vote, so aren't likely to secede over it), whose loss is that?
> In theory, it’s possible for Texas to split into any number of States.
Such a theory exists, but it requires starting with a dubious interpretation of the act annexing Texas, and then flatly ignoring the act admitting Texas.
> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent.
Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems.
Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede.
Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints?
How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision?
Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else?
I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.
> The fact that it hasn't happened in the U.S. does not mean it cannot be done.
It has been tried before, and there's a pretty big precedent for what happens. That precedent is civil war. How is California seceding going to be any different from the southern states?
> Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.
Why is that obvious? Nuclear weapons are state assets like anything else, and if you're going to follow your logic that a seceding state gets its part of the greater federal it should get some proportion of the nuclear weapons stockpile too.
The US is allied with at least three nuclear weapon states whose population is on the order of the population of Texas.
Besides, if you're going to setup a system where states can secede and seceding states have to hand over all their nukes you've created an absurd system where the last state to secede gets all the nukes.
1865? Military suppression of secession is not a voluntary federation... it sure looks like an empire to me since then. The focus on non-contiguous regions to meet the definition of empire feels beyond what is required given empires can be contiguous.
Can a state democratically secede in the modern age? My (non-US) understanding, is no, it's "unconstitutional". Pfft.
> the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede
This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info.
The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.
> I suppose it depends on what "pass a referendum consistent thereto" means. I have no idea.
It means enacting legislation for a secession referendum, and holding the referendum. It doesn’t mean secession is going to win the referendum.
If Texas held a secession referendum tomorrow, I doubt “Yes” would get anywhere near a majority-and I’m sure they know that. It would be an exercise in moving the Overton window, not in actually seceding. Which I think is their whole point-actual secession would be enormously risky for unclear benefit, making it a topic of live political debate could have great reward for some.
The Article IV Sec. 4 guarantee cannot be interpret as even coherent if a state can secede; once a state is admitted to the union, he federal government is irrevocably obligated to preserve it as a subject and republican government; if a state government could escape this oversight by secession, the guarantee would be empty.
Further, there is ample historical evidence that the idea of reserving the right to secede when ratifying was raised by New York, and rejected because it was understood that it would be viewed by the Congress as an inconsistent condition attached to ratification and thereby nullify the ratificstion.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on the issue, in Texas v. White. So your concept of a right to secession is inconsistent with the text, historical evidence of intent and case law of the Constitution.
reply