Skip to comments.How to Secede from a State Without Really Trying
Posted on 10/11/2013 1:00:22 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat
Secession fever is spreading. In red and blue pockets of America, disgruntled residents are organizing efforts to split up with their home states, from liberals in southern Arizona to conservatives in rural Colorado and Western Maryland.
The biggest obstacle for these movements would seem to be the Constitution, which requires secessionists to get the blessing of their state Legislature and then Congress.
There might be an easier way, says Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University, in a provocative post at Volokh Conspiracy. Rather than forming a new 51st state, how about seceding to join an existing state?
The state secessionists best bet would be to have some local referendum or Convention that would overwhelmingly favor joining another state, he writes.
But heres the kicker: While it may be more convenient, theres no constitutional requirement that states be contiguous. That means, he writes, potential secessionists could go on the market to find the best potential state to unify with.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
pls provide some details on how to do...let’s go!!!!!!!
We're essentially at the point where few people would have to pick up and move, if this is the case. The cities and outer urban areas are already almost 100% blue. Everywhere is, by and large, already red. What say we just call the blue places "Obamaland" and the red (traditionalists that we are) can hang onto the "U.S.A".
John Roberts says “No”.
Can a state send a part of its territory to another state. . .for example. . .Let’s just say all territory north of the Occoquan River will now be Maryland (formerly Northern Virginia)
My lawyer buddy says this is all intellectual...uh “self abuse”, and that no state is going to allow any part of itself to secede.
I’m not so sure, at least that some group won’t have the motivation to at least try, and end up in a court battle. Maybe this is the lever they should pull.
“pls provide some details on how to do...lets go!!!!!!!”
First I’ve heard of it. If I see anything else, I’ll pass it along.
It really is an intriguing idea. A win/win/win. Alaska could get some vaunted warm weather locales, and Wyoming could get some population. Conversely, the socialists could join Vermont and be just as socialist as they wanted to be.
We are getting more willing to go every day.
Have northern Colorado join Wyoming.
Northern California (excluding Frisco) and parts of Oregon should join Nevada. That would cancel out Harry Reid’s constituency in Las Vegas. Also it would save the Northern Sierra from the crazies in the Bay Area.
CRAP! I already moved from Seattle to KY.
Never mind. I prefer the climate anyway.
West Dakota :)
Actually, this professor is moving in the direction of what would be an interesting solution—have every citizen choose his or her state of affiliation/residence. Regardless of the physical location of the individual, residency would be a choice. The handling of land deeds, interstate commerce, and some matters would require considerable theorizing to arrive at a practical model, but it is an interesting thought experiment.
“John Roberts says No.”
John Roberts won’t be around forever. And I’m not so sure he could prevent it if all parties were up for the change. Courts settle disputes. So where’s the dispute?
Let’s take northern CO for example and assume secession to Wyoming. The seceshers are stirring up all sorts of problems for the libs in Denver, and the libs have a point: these parts of the state are economic drains from their perspective. So let them go. The libs keep their revenues to spend on welfare or marijuana or whatever and they get rid of the bible-thumpers that they detest. Wyoming picks up more land and people.
“...no state is going to allow any part of itself to secede.”
Which is the bigger problem with secession. However, at a certain point a very dedicated and troublesome region becomes less of a problem to simply be rid of, rather than being kept.
—and that no state is going to allow any part of itself to secede—
Specially the part with the money.
You said; “John Roberts says No.”
He is not in congress.
-—beat me to it -—boot Clark County out of Nevada along with most of Reno, join the northern rural California counties-—and Inyo-Mono and San Bernardino county excluding San Bernardino proper-—
The article addressed that very point. Give it a read.
No! Let the Left-wing losers secede, then we can lock the doors and block the borders. Yea! WE WIN!!!!!!
Heheheh. On my commute one day a few months after moving to KY I took a picture on my cell phone of one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on the road. It was a black prius with a “friends of coal” personalized license plate. ;-)
If I showed it to some of my friends in Seattle their heads would explode.
Your lawyer buddy is correct and has obviously heard about the civil war.
I can see this as one of the excuses that the left would use to use force to keep any part of the USA from seceding from their control -
that the seceded states would damage the environment.
Sounds like “T for Texas, T for Tennessee” was more than a song!
Talking about things popping up overnight, I see down the street from me that a “Texas Secessionist” group has moved into an office, sporting a big sign outside. Might have to go give them a visit, out of curiosity.
I can’t deny that over the past few years, I’ve grown to view myself more as a Texan than an American. As America itself continues to decay into grotesque, one-party socialist statism, and embraces cultural deviancy like homo marriage, I have less and less allegiance to it. I often ask myself that if another 9/11 occurs, whether I’ll even really give a damn at this point.
If at first you don’t secede, try, try again.
I wish the rest of Pennsylvania could boot Philly out and make them involuntarily secede to Jersey.
Take the landmass north of Virginia’s Interstate 64 and east of Interstate 81 and just merge the whole she-bang into ‘VERMONT’. Give the few conservatives one year to move out, with tax incentives paying for the relocation. Easy peasy.
Yes some day we will long for the good old says of John Roberts.
Travel to ANY of the nations that were British colonies (and are now 3rd world hellholes) and the only things that remain standing were built by the Brits.
The World is lost if America breaks up into factions and destroys itself without a single conquering army firing a shot.
-—why would Wyoming want “population”?
Something like that worked for Bosnia, I guess. Or was it Somalia?
Citizenship -- or residency -- has to be tied to something halfway real. Colorado isn't going to let people put a strain on its roads and sewers everyday and get out of paying taxes by declaring themselves to be residents of Wyoming or Idaho.
It's not going to let somebody sell liquor without paying taxes because their house in the middle of Colorado has been declared to be in Mississippi or New Hampshire. It's not going to let you rob a bank on your way home and declare that it has to draw up
Some people look to greater "localism" or "regionalism" or devolution of powers down to smaller units. I don't know if that would work or be a good thing, but it makes more sense than letting everybody in a town or neighborhood declare themselves to be the citizen of whatever polity they happen to like best at the moment. That's a recipe for nobody caring about what goes on outside their front door until it hits them in the head.
Just as a thought experiment, though, you couldn't let people simply suddenly declare themselves to be members of a given state or territory and be eligible for things like in-state tuition.
They'd have to put in a given number of months or quarters or years of affiliation and taxes. And then what are they in the mean time? Citizens of what? Residents of where? And what happens to their right to equal protection of the laws when they're in limbo?
Can I join Texas? I held a referendum and Texas won, 1-0.
The outcome of the Civil War was determined by force, not by the law.
It's not going to let you rob a bank on your way home and [have you] declare that it has to draw up extradition papers to get you out of the house to a courthouse across the street.
The constitutional principle is that territory cannot be carved out of a state without the state’s consent. It’s more of a preservation of the state’s pre-constitutional sovereignty than the granting of a right. The US constitution might not expressly prohibit it, but the state’s own laws would still be sovereign. The best chance, IMO, would be for identical referenda to be placed on the ballot in two states which would agreed to transfer the territory of one of the states to the other state. For instance collaborators in Nevada and California might put referenda on the ballot transferring the Las Vegas metro to California.
What are the demographics of such has been nations?
“You’re talking crap. Individual members of the once powerful British Empire bought into the modern “Independence Movement.”
Their choice, their problem.
“The World is lost if America breaks up into factions and destroys itself without a single conquering army firing a shot.”
National divorce is coming. You might have missed it, but I’m ANTI secession, at least in the sense of states breaking away from the union. I’m not going to get what I want, I fear.
Regional secession on the other hand I see being less of a problem. It defuses the issues and allows folks half a loaf.
Okay as an illustration or teaching example, but 2/3 of Nevada's population is in Clark County (Greater Las Vegas), so if anybody leaves the state it would have to be somebody else.
Come to think of it, that might the best play for the Colorado counties. Pass referenda in Wyoming and Colorado transferring the Colorado counties to Wyoming, and get it on the ballot in an off year election. Theoretically, congress wouldn’t have a say, and in an off year, they might push it through on turn out alone.
The constitution only allows a state being formed out of another state if both that state legislature and the US Congress agree to it.
No way a conservative break-away would get approved in a liberal state or with either half of our Congress in liberal hands.
Sure they would. Upstate NYers would be happy to jettison their parasite.
Of course upstate might bloom if it didn't have to pay the high state taxes. The Buffalo Tea Party has endorsed separation. But NYC pays more in taxes to the state than it gets back -- 11 billion more according to Bloomberg in 2008.
You said; John Roberts says No.
He is not in congress.
But, I’m afraid it would wind up in front of SCOTUS.
I was hoping to give Camden to Pennsylvania :-0
“Individual members of the once powerful British Empire bought into the modern “Independence Movement” and now it’s a devastated powerless bunch of hasbeen nations.
Travel to ANY of the nations that were British colonies (and are now 3rd world hellholes) and the only things that remain standing were built by the Brits.”
The US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Ireland, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Singapore Hong Kong and South Africa don’t seem like devastated hellholes. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq kinda do, but in fairness it’s a mixed bag, and likely would have been a mixed bag either way.
The Brits cut their empire loose because it was costing them more money than it worth. Capitalism is more profitable than imperialism.
So wheres the dispute? ... Obama/DOJ, maybe?
Northern South Carolina? Doubt it :)
We already have enough troubles with Northern liberals invading our state.
The southern Arizona secessionists sort of shut up when they were asked how they were going to fund THEIR university, THEIR national guard, THEIR school system, THEIR health care system, and THEIR Indian reservation.