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.