Other than destroying the Union and the Constitution there is no “right” to secede.
There IS the right to convene a Constitutional Convention to replace our beloved USC with whatever we want (given the 47% problem do we really want that?) God Bless old T.J.
Texas v. White: learn it, know it, love it.
You don’t ask the government that you’re trying to secede from, for permission. You either win or lose, and since the winner writes the history, the winner will always be right.
An Article V Convention (like the Congress) could only propose amendments each of which would not become a part of the Constitution unless ratified by three-fourths of the States. Such a convention (like the Congress) could not replace the Constitution or unilaterally amend the Constitution.
Of course there is a right to secede, it is part and parcel of the right of self-governance. That exists independently of and outside the authority of the United States government, so any court case you cite is irrelevant.
“Other than destroying the Union and the Constitution there is no “right” to secede”
Of course there is. Thats exactly what the founders did from England. And there is not the slightest sign they meant it to be a suicide pact that when you join, you may never depart. They clearly had the chance to address that, and did not. That has an unmistakable meaning under the 10th amendment.
The constitution discusses that admission of states, and not the departure. Then the 10th amendment says powers not specifically granted to the Feds are left with the states. That CLEARLY includes deciding to leave the union.
As for Texas vs White, thats a joke. It was a case heard 4 years after the civil war when a reconstruction court said there is no right to secession over a financial issue. Big surprise. Thats like a wife with a good job, needing the permission of a drunken, abusive, unemployed, syphilitic husband before she can divorce him.
The very concept that the Feds solely retain the right to decide if you may leave is ludicrous on its face.
All they can do is decide whether or not to launch a ground war against you. But the right to leave is inherent in every writing and act of our founders, including the declaration and the constitution.
[Quote]
Other than destroying the Union and the Constitution there is no “right” to secede.
There IS the right to convene a Constitutional Convention to replace our beloved USC with whatever we want (given the 47% problem do we really want that?) God Bless old T.J.
Texas v. White: learn it, know it, love it.
[Unquote]
You are bady mistaken and misrepresenting Texas v. White, which does confirm only one means of lawfully seceding a State from the Union of the United States., which is with the same consent of the States which authorized the accession to the Union of the United States.
The only other means of secession is unlawful revolution as described by Texas v. White. Petitions for secession to a lawful President or to an unlawful usurper of the Office of the President may when accompanied by violence or the threat of violence be construed as qa violation of a number of Federal criminal statutes. Compliance with the Constitution requires a State to submit a request to the U.S.Congress for approval by the Congress and ratification by the States. This is exactly the same procedure used to admit the State to the Union. Petitions to the White House are by their very nature subversive of the Constitution and Federal law.
LOL! Yes there is. The States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and the new treaty they wrote called the U.S. Constitution didn't change that.
And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
-----
Texas v. White: learn it, know it, love it.
DO please show us the authority given in the Constitution OR the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allows the US Supreme Court to sit in judgment on a case between a State and one of IT'S OWN citizens.
A sham ruling by the Supreme Court of an illegal force of occupation.