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.