U.S. Constitution -- Is secession legal?

[AndrewR]

I really have no idea as I've never read anything discussing it from a legal perspective. However, if we are to assume that people have the right to self-determination, which we have fought for overseas so ardently in many cases either physically or diplomatically, then why do the people of a state not have the ability to form their own country? Abraham Lincoln did not think there was such a right on the part of the southern states in the 1860's but doesn't that go against the ideals that formed this country to begin with?

I am not saying that "the South will rise again!!!" I know that the chance of a secession right now is none, but there's no way to predict the future, especially with the increased fractionalization of the U.S. population into tech "haves" and tech "have-nots" which is often quite related to geography. This is entirely hypothetical.

Regardless (if you think "irregardless" is correct, please leave now), what is your perspective? Does our Constitution (with our inalienable rights) support a possible Balkanization of our country?

 

[Lorax]

it is illegal. i believe it actually says somewhere that no state may secede from the union.

but i dont know exactly where.

 

[syber321]

I believe it is illegal. Think about all those people like in Texas or something that wanted to form their own country and crap... The government just said screw that, you're still part of our government.

 

[Tripleshot]

I am of the opinion that if the masses wanted to seceed from the union,they could.What would the feds do,bomb them into submission?
If the government can gobble up Hawaii and 50 years of statehood do not appeal to the Hawaiians,is Washington D.C. going to say no? How would you inforce it?

does anyone have documentation on this topic? I know a bunch of people in Northern calif want to break from So. Cal.!!

 

[Soybomb]

Its illegal, try to break off and if necessary they'll use military force to bring you back in ala civil war.

 

[Mill]

In theory, our constitution was based upon John Locke's writings. He believed that if the government did not provide life, liberty, and the attempt at happiness, then the people could revolt.

In the constitution, it says that unless something is specifically mentioned, then it is left to the people and the states. Slavery was not mentioned until the later amendments. In all reality, the Civil War was a direct attack upon state's rights and the validity of the constitution. However, since it was amended to outlaw slavery, that argument is null and void.

In theory, a state could suceed if it proved to the judicial branch that it was not given its rights that were expressed in the constitution. Since slavery was not illegal at the time, I believe the sucession was legal. Do I think slavery caused the war? Nah. The struggle over state's rights did.

Do I think slavery was right? Hell no. Slavery and the Civil War are just an attempt of revisionist historians and their propaganda. Every textbook implies that slavery was the cause, and this is pure propaganda. It did influence it, but the battle was about state's rights.

 

[DanC]

Millenium-
HOW OLD ARE YOU????

This is one of the most coherent responses I've ever seen to this question. BRAVO!

He, BTW is RIGHT.

It is our DUTY as citizens to OVERTHROW the government if it becomes out of hand, and oppressive. It's one of the basic tenets of the second amendment.

Right ON!

 

[sandorski]

This is a question that us Canadians have been pondering for some 30 years now. As you may know, the Province of Quebec(the government to be more exact)has attempted to secede twice in the last 20 years. Both times involved referendums that the Government of Canada was willing to abide by if successful. The Canadian Constitution doesn't address this situation, so how it is dealt with will be somewhat determined by the government of the day, moreso than any law.

 

[dennilfloss]

Though nothing about it is said per se in the 7 Articles of the US Constitution or its 27 Amendments, here's a little analysis of Abraham Lincoln's reasoning for not allowing secession of the 13 states.

Why Abe did it

I think that section 10 of Article 1 applies to this discussion:

-Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.


No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.


No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.-

Individual state secession is not specifically addressed but ante facto collusion to secede between states definitely runs against Article 1, Section 10.

One must therefore first check all the 13 secession acts to decide if there was collusion. Here they are for you people to decide:

The 13 States Secession Acts.

The Secession Acts can also be viewed as ex post facto laws (the fact being the Union) and therefore considered unconstitutional on that merit.

For those who want to peruse it, here's the US Constitution:

US Constitution

You Can Do It (Hot)

 

[cxim]

The question is not: " Is it legal ? ". There is no law that applies or can apply, so the term & question is out of context.

The question is: " Is it Constitutional ? "

There is no Constitutional provision for a political sub-entity to leave the Union of the USA. An amendment would be required to allow exit of a state or region.

A state or region could be sold to another country by treaty which superceeds the Constitution.

A state or region could not be sold to itself as there exists no legal political entity to negotiate for & accept the sale.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Even so I doubt that in the hypothetical situation occure where there was a referendum & the majority of one state decided to succeed, the US would use armed force to stop it.

Among other things, there would be a cry of hypocracy from the rest of the world, because the US recognised & later supported Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Macadonia in there split from Yugoslavia.

Personally, I think the Canadians have got it right in recognising the right of Quebeq to succeed if they get a majority in a referendum, as long as Quebeq recognise the right of the Native Americans in Northern Quebeq, to succeed from Quebec (if they choose to do so in a parrallel referendum), & re-join with the rest of Canada.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Bloody triple post

 

[DABANSHEE]

WTF

 

[BiB]

Dabanshee I didn't catch that, say again?

 

[ElFenix]

cxim, thats a dangerous thought, that if its not in the constitution it must be illegal. its for because of those thoughts that monroe opposed the bill of rights, that it would come to be considered the full set of rights instead of just a subset.

secession is only illegal because the supreme court declared it to be after the civil war. when secession was first brought before the court in the 1830s (? on the year) it was not addressed.

 

[uncouth]

DABANSHEE, so that's how one becomes a "Golden Member".

 

[JellyBaby]

New lands can be granted statehood (look at Puerto Rico's recent history)...so existing lands should be allowed to seceed. In fact I had thought the Republic of Texas did so years ago.

 

[THELAIR]

What dabanshee is trying to say is... if enough people in quebec want to leave canada, then the federal government of canada will say "so be it, you are now a soverign nation", however the problem has arrisen that the natives who occupy a large majority of the territory in nothern quebec will loose all their privilages provided to them by the canadian federal government, because now they will be citizens of the new country of Quebec. The native population has quite bluntly stated that they will go on a war path before that happens (Oka anyone?), so there would in essence be a split of quebec, the north going back to canada (id imagine?) and the rest staying as the seperate country of quebec. The only threat of war is that of the Natives. I doubt too many central Albertans will take up arms to keep en in the country ;P

Now how many people does it take to win the referendum to say that the "people choose" to split? 50%? 50%+1%? 2/3rd's 66% ??

there is also the problem of how the question is coined, the seperatist quebec government have always been the ones that wrote up the question to ask the people if they want to split from canada, but it has always been worded in a "special" way so as to create confusion. Its not a simple question of: Do you want quebec to be a seperate nation? YEs/No ? Im sure someone on here who is canadian can find the original `95 referendum question, it currently eludes me, but none the less they were critized for not printing a VERY clearly stated question to ask the people.

Also if the province does split and calls itself a free country, who else will recognize the fact? Its known quite well that hte US does NOT support a torn Canada, in fact the only nation to throw its support behind quebec is France, then again it was Charles De Gaule after all who came to Montreal and got all the seperatists going with his "Vive le Quebec" (sp?) speech, which promptly got him kicked outta the country.

Anyways, Canada is the only nation in the world to seriously allow a chunk of its territory to potentially succede from the union, at least this isnt Britain and all the crap with the IRA, or Israel with the PLO, or East Timor, or Spain with the basque seperatists etc etc...

Its a known fact that Texas has flapped its wing about being seperate, the indigenous peoples of Hawaii arnt to happy and you cant say that hte Puerto Ricans are complacent either. There is also a group called ?? Cancadia or somthing like that ?? which is primarily the Pacific North West, including OR, WA, ID, and BC to create their own nation etc etc... So its not just in our back yard as well.

btw we'll save the FLQ for a later history lesson okay?

 

[rush2112]

As already discussed, secession is not legal and don't get caught trying to do i . Sorry there Texans.

But interestingly enough, (if I remember correctly) Texas does maintain a provision to split into 5 seperate states if need be.

-=)Rush(=-