Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
Why would the founders be so explicit in requiring the approval of Congress in every other matter affecting the status of state, why would the Constitution restrict the actions a state may engage in that could affect the interests of the other states, and then imply that a state may unilaterally leave at will without consent of all the parties affected? That is what makes no sense at all to me.
2. Secession is not addressed explicitly in the United States Constitution, but you present secession as not being prohibited by the document (which it most certainly is not), and then you string the implicit nature of its legality further by noting a Constitutional distinction between unilateral and multilateral secession.
On the contrary, I have never said that secession was prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the subject. Some may take that to mean that secession is prohibited, but I do not. But absent specific instructions on how to accomplish it, it makes sense, to me at least, to look at the other ways the Constitution deals with the states. States do not join the Union at will. They are admitted with the approval of a majority of the other states through a vote in Congress. Once admitted they become part of the body politic, enjoying the same benefits as the other states. They take on the debts and the obligations incurred by the country as a whole, and they accept the restriction imposed on the states by the Constitution. They agree not to enter into any treaties or compacts with foreign countries without consent of Congress. They agree not to place duties on imports or exports unless Congress approves. They agree not to enter into compacts with other states unless Congress approves. And on and on. And the one common thread in these is that such actions, if done in a unilateral manner, could have a negative impact on other states. So why should secession be any different? A state ups and leaves, walking away from debts and treaty obligations and commitments, possibly blocking trade or access to the sea for other states, ceratinly appropriating property owned by the country as a whole. Why should something as drastic as this be the one unilateral action that, by implication, would be permitted?
I don't have a problem, per se, with secession. But I believe that the Constitution is pretty clear on what states may and may not do on their own. If a state wants to leave then fine, do it in the same manner that the state entered the Union to begin with. As far as I'm concerned you can negotiate settlements on all questions of concern to both sides, allow Congress to vote approval, and then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Pleas read my posts before replying. You said "The state could pass legislation removing the area from it's jurisdiction. No agreement of compact with another state necessary. Borders reduced or enlaged, Congress out of the loop." That is illegal and prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
No. Please cite the revelent clause requiring Congress to approve the sale/purchase of land, the clause requiring a state to seek approval to cede/sell/purchase lands.
Depends. Are you referring to a state selling land it owns to a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company to build a factory? I don't think that requires Congressional approval. But I suspect your talking about something ridiculous like California selling Orange County to Japan. That would be an agreement with a foreign country and unless approved by Congress would violate Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.
Please cite the revelent section of the Constitution prohibiting secession.
There isn't one. However it was the unilateral action of the states which made secession illegal. One can infer this from Article I and Article IV regarding actions states are not permitted and which required Congessional approval in change of state status.
Nonsense. What came first, the states or the federal government?
When they were permitted to join the Union, states agreed to abide by the Constitution, including the part which made the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So any laws or acts of the legislature which violated the Constitution were illegal. That included the acts of the Texas legislature in support of secession and the following rebellion, or so the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
The Constitution has no prohibition against the people of the state changing their form of government.
Sure it does. If Georgia decided to declare itself a hereditary monarchy with His Royal Highness, King 4ConservativeJustices as ruler and belevolent despot then that would violate Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 and Article IV Section 4.
The federal Constitution has no prohibition against the people resuming their delegated powers, it has an EXPLICT reservation to the powers 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it'.
And the Constitution explicitly delegates the power to admit states into the Union and to approve changes in their status and certain of their actions. Implicit in this is approval for leaving the Union altogether.
Please read the Constitution. No agreement is necessary with anyone to reduce a state's borders.
However it was the unilateral action of the states which made secession illegal. One can infer this from Article I and Article IV regarding actions states are not permitted and which required Congessional approval in change of state status.
Nope. The only time congressional approval is required is for the creation/admission of a new state. Please post the section requiring approval to purchase/divest lands, or remove from US jurisdiction.
So any laws or acts of the legislature which violated the Constitution were illegal. That included the acts of the Texas legislature in support of secession and the following rebellion, or so the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
The acts of the people are required to be recognized as legal per the Constitution. The Texas legislature did not enact the act of secession. It was not an act of the Texas legislature. Numerous individuals attending the convention were NOT legislators – even the President of the convention, a justice of the Texas Supreme Court. The delegates were elected by the people to attend the convention. They were not the legislature.
If Georgia decided to declare itself a hereditary monarchy with His Royal Highness, King 4ConservativeJustices as ruler and belevolent despot then that would violate Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 and Article IV Section 4.
Hereditary would be illegal if the state was still in the union, but an elected monarch for life would not (Hamilton argued for an elected monarch in convention). A 'republican' government is one where the people are represented by elected officials.
And the Constitution explicitly delegates the power to admit states into the Union and to approve changes in their status and certain of their actions. Implicit in this is approval for leaving the Union altogether.
Nonsense. There is no clause stating that the ratification is permanent or perpetual, or that permission must be sought to leave. Forget 'implicit' powers, the states possess EVERY power not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states.
I've read the Constitution. Any agreement with a foreign power requires consent of Congress.
Yep. Article IV covers admission of states and changes in status, including removing a state from the Union through splitting or combining.
Hereditary would be illegal if the state was still in the union, but an elected monarch for life would not (Hamilton argued for an elected monarch in convention). A 'republican' government is one where the people are represented by elected officials.
Sure it would. Titles of nobility are forbidden by the Constitution.
Nonsense. There is no clause stating that the ratification is permanent or perpetual, or that permission must be sought to leave. Forget 'implicit' powers, the states possess EVERY power not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states.
Ridiculous. The Constitution reserves powers to the United States, and some of those may be implied from the Constitution.
Nope. Only the admission of a new state, or the creation of a new state within an existing state, or from merger of two states, or a new state from parts of existing states. It is absolutely silent about a state reducing it's borders or removing itself from the union.
Titles of nobility are forbidden by the Constitution.
Please note, my comment indicated the "monach" was elected, not hereditary titled.
The Constitution reserves powers to the United States, and some of those may be implied from the Constitution.
Wrong. The Constitution reserves "delegated" (capable of being resumed) powers to the states, not to the federal government.
If you create a new state from uniting two other states, then that removes one state from the Union and requires Congressional approval. Removing a state through secession should be no different.
Please note, my comment indicated the "monach" was elected, not hereditary titled.
But still a title of nobility and therefore covered by the Constitution. Titles don't have to be hereditary, the U.K. grants individuals titles of nobility which are not passed on to the next generation, Margaret Thatcher is an example of that.
Why? It's not enumerated. The powers not delegated ....
But still a title of nobility and therefore covered by the Constitution.
The Constitution states, 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States'. Hamilton advocated election (requirement for republican government) of the executive for life. Call him a monarch, Mr. Peanut or anything you want, you must call him something. But titles of nobility are for an 'order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people' [Bouvier Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856)]. Madison argued against tiles not 'because I fear the danger of any power they could confer, ... instead of encreasing they diminish the true dignity and importance of a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true dignity of the first magistrate himself.'
The power to approve the removal a state is delegated, as per Article IV. It specifically mentions one way, by implication any removal will need Congressional approval.
The Constitution states, 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States'.
Read Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 again.
Ok, lets play the implication game. The states aceded to the Constitution unilaterally, so by implication, they can leave unilaterally.
Read Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 again.
Article I § 10 clause 1: 'Section 10 No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility.' The election of a President is not a conferring of a title of nobility by a state.
Read Article I § 9 clause 8 again: 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.'
Nonsense. They agreed to abide by the provisions of the Constitution when they were admitted to the Union. They were admitted by a vote of Congress.
Nonsense. There's no agreement to "abide by the provisions of the Constitution" anywhere. It does state that the 'Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.' So, implicitly, the convention of a state can withdraw it's ratification. Forget implicit, the Constitution EXPLICITLY states, 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'
They were admitted by a vote of Congress.
The originial states were not. And SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the latter additions were admitted as equals of the original states.
And the Constitution EXPLICITLY states the Constitution will be the supreme law of the land, "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So when the public acts, records or judicial Proceedings violate the Constitution then full faith and credit are not warranted.
The originial states were not. And SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the latter additions were admitted as equals of the original states.
The later states were admitted under the provisions outlined in the Constitution, which was adopted by the original 13 states when they ratified it.
Of course. And it applies to those states that are members of the Union, not those that have seceded (no prohibition against it!)
The later states were admitted under the provisions outlined in the Constitution, which was adopted by the original 13 states when they ratified it.
But the original states did not need congressional approval to be admitted. SCOTUS has ruled the states equal (despite the latter states admission having to be approved by Congress). There still is no requirement for ANY state to seek permission to leave.
interesting read thanks.
I'm not up on much of Civil War history, but didn't I read somewhere that Honest Abe slept with men?
The reasons that politicisna go to war for are generally not the reasons that individuals are motivated to go to war for.Economic reasons are generally the reasons that bring on war but the publicity is for God and Country and that is what the soldiers fight for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.