Where does the Constitution say that? If not in the Constitution, under what precedent of common law could you say that? The Constitution contains within it a process for expansion to additional states, amendment of itself, and even the wholesale replacement of itself... but none for secession. Does a governor have the right to secede? Do the legislatures? 50%+1? What state Constitution discusses the means of secession?
The federalist papers sought to allay fears of an oppressive, federal government, even discussing the 2nd amendment as a failsafe against tyranny. Yet do any of them mention an ability to secede, or incorporate the right to bear arms to a state as against the union?
Now, many neoconfederates claim the Virginia and New York constitutions specifically allow for secession.:
[W]hen any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.But this Constitution was passed prior to the U.S. Constitution. This passage has nothing to do with secession at all; nor has it anything to do with the principle of secession, for the same state Constitution prohibits the establishment of any other law, independent from the Commonwealth, within the territory of the Commonwealth.
Also note the inherent contradiction of citing this passage for secession: The passage states that when the government is contrary to just purposes, the community has the right to reform, alter or abolish it. There's no mention of the community severing itself, because, indeed, the government to which it refers is that of the entire community; any severable smaller division of government is a minority of that community.
Great post.
I have to say that this entire debate has been fascinating me. It is very similar to the typical libertarian vs. conservative debate in many ways.
I would place those defending the confederate democrats as the libertarians and those defending the union republicans as the conservatives.
Those arguing for secession rights claim to not be arguing for democracy but claim instead that they stand for freedom but I do not see it that way at all. The confederate democrats were arguing for ‘mob rules’ over the ‘rule of law’. They seem to think that it is a right to overthrow the Constitution by simply gaining a majority in a state. (Yet it was already agreed that it took ¾ of the states to amend the Constitution) They even argue that this state right gave them the right to enslave human beings.
Arguments like this are typical to libertarians. They think that the definition of freedom includes the right to trample upon the rights of others through backhanded moral methods when they can gain mob rules in a state. They preach for their right to make legal prostitution, drug addiction, and a host of other activity to enslave human beings.
The successors of the confederate democrats were the progressive democrats. The common link between these two was the KKK. But it also known that libertarians have no problem marching hand in hand with the Marxist progressive democrats, as they have done since they officially founded the libertarian party in the early 70’s. Libertarians and progressive Marxists may not be completely aligned in ideology but morally they are two peas in pod.
So it is no surprise to me that it is a libertarian argument that defends the confederacy and slavery still today.
Remind me what government were they seceding from in the American revolution?
Were not the 13 colonies a minority of the British Empire?
BINGO! Read the NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS. Then, read them AGAIN.
BTW: Several states, in the instrument by which they ratified the Constitution, explicitly retained the right to secede--and the other states raised no objection.
If the Constitution had contained a provision prohibiting secession, it would have constituted a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence.
Any state has the right to secede, and to do so according to whatever process THE STATE deems proper. The notion that the federal government, from which the state is separating itself, has the authority to judge, question, evaluate, or veto the decision is absurd.
I repeat: Roe v. Wade, by purporting that the Constitution prohibits the states from outlawing homicide, made the U.S. Government an illegitimate government. Since all fifty state governments have acquiesced in that crime, they, too, are illegitimate. They continue as dead simulacra of governments because life is tolerable for everyone except those who are being murdered. But the putrescence of the bloating corpses of these defunct governments continues apace. The Obama Administration is merely the latest glob of stinking sputum to be coughed up by the Democratic Party as it gleefully splashes about in the blood of its millions of offerings to Satan.
If a right to alter or abolish the government is inalienable—as the passage you cite says, (and as the Declaration says)—then the ratification of the U.S. Constitution can only leave that right UNTOUCHED!
You have cut off your legs and then attempted to run a sprint.