• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitution contains no language prohibiting secession

Samwise

Samwise

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
200
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
In another thread about the electoral college the topic of secession came up. Rather than derail that thread, I thought I would start a new thread.

The constitution contains no language forbidding any of the several sovereign states from quitting the union.
 
Samwise said:
In another thread about the electoral college the topic of secession came up. Rather than derail that thread, I thought I would start a new thread.

The constitution contains no language forbidding any of the several sovereign states from quitting the union.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution lacks provision for secession. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that no state can unilaterally leave the Union.

The Constitution does not directly mention secession. ... The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding. Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal.

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia.

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[53] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. Although the Federalist Party briefly explored New England secession during the War of 1812, secession became associated with Southern states as the north's industrial power increased.[54] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[53] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[56] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.
Click to expand...

No, the Consitution does not explicitly mention secession. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that it is illegal, however.

End all be all, if you want to secede, you'll have to win that war.
 
HumblePi said:
The US Constitution lacks provision for secession. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that no state can unilaterally leave the Union.

The Constitution does not directly mention secession. ... The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding. Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal.

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

So...no language in the document that prohibits any state from quitting?
 
Ikari said:
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia.



No, the Consitution does not explicitly mention secession. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that it is illegal, however.

End all be all, if you want to secede, you'll have to win that war.
Click to expand...

So...no language in the treaty that prohibits any of the several sovereign states from quitting the union?
 
Samwise said:
So...no language in the treaty that prohibits any of the several sovereign states from quitting the union?
Click to expand...

SCOTUS ruled on it, they decide on whether something is constitutional or not. Secession is deemed illegal and thus is law of the land. Like it or not.

End all be all, if your State wants to secede they'll have to fight a war and win it. That's the only way.
 
Ikari said:
Secession in the United States - Wikipedia.



No, the Consitution does not explicitly mention secession. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that it is illegal, however.

End all be all, if you want to secede, you'll have to win that war.
Click to expand...

No war is necessary. We would just have to amend the constitution to allow it, then it is legal. I would support such an amendment if it also gave the rest of the union the power to kick a state out.
 
Ikari said:
SCOTUS ruled on it, they decide on whether something is constitutional or not. Secession is deemed illegal and thus is law of the land. Like it or not.

End all be all, if your State wants to secede they'll have to fight a war and win it. That's the only way.
Click to expand...

But did SCOTUS actually cite the relevant language that forbids any of the states from quitting?
 
Drawdown said:
No war is necessary. We would just have to amend the constitution to allow it, then it is legal. I would support such an amendment if it also gave the rest of the union the power to kick a state out.
Click to expand...

That is true, if we amended the Constitution to specifically allow for mechanisms of secession or forced ejection from the Union, then yes both of those could be done without a war. Barring such amendment, however, secession is illegal and one would have to fight a war and win to obtain it.
 
Drawdown said:
No war is necessary. We would just have to amend the constitution to allow it, then it is legal. I would support such an amendment if it also gave the rest of the union the power to kick a state out.
Click to expand...

Why would the treaty need to be amended to permit something that isn't prohibited in the first place?
 
Ikari said:
That is true, if we amended the Constitution to specifically allow for mechanisms of secession or forced ejection from the Union, then yes both of those could be done without a war. Barring such amendment, however, secession is illegal and one would have to fight a war and win to obtain it.
Click to expand...

How can it be illegal if it's not prohibited?
 
Ikari said:
SCOTUS ruled on it, they decide on whether something is constitutional or not. Secession is deemed illegal and thus is law of the land. Like it or not.

End all be all, if your State wants to secede they'll have to fight a war and win it. That's the only way.
Click to expand...

That assumes that the rest of the country and the POTUS would be willing to go to war. I personally think that if California quit, we would have one hell of a going away party for the old gal.
 
Samwise said:
So...no language in the document that prohibits any state from quitting?
Click to expand...

Nope, just a Supreme Court ruling. There many things that aren't in the US Constitution that has become established law due to Supreme Court rulings.
 
HumblePi said:
Nope, just a Supreme Court ruling. There many things that aren't in the US Constitution that has become established law due to Supreme Court rulings.
Click to expand...

That damned article III of the Constitution.

:2razz:
 
HumblePi said:
Nope, just a Supreme Court ruling. There many things that aren't in the US Constitution that has become established law due to Supreme Court rulings.
Click to expand...

And the ruling didn't cite any actual language prohibiting any of the states from quitting?
 
Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Joseph Story disagrees and states the language in the Constitution that he believes prohibits secession

(which the OP refuses to read and secondly dismisses Story out of hand)


And despite the fact every constitutional scholar since Story agrees with his assessment, that the language of the Constitution prohibits secession, the OP won't acknowledge he has a very personal opinion that he absolutely cannot substantiate or find any credible source that agrees with him
(he will say his "sources" are the Constitution and "anyone who can read/reason etc)


Anyway, for the record here is a link to Story's comments (that the OP won't read):


Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



(the OP will wait for a few pages to pass and then deny anyone can point to the language prohibiting secession).
 
Rich2018 said:
Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Joseph Story disagrees and states the language of the Constitution that he believes prohibits secession

(which the OP refuses to read and secondly dismisses Story out of hand)

And despite the fact every constitutional scholar since Story agrees with his assessment, that the language of the Constitution prohibits secession, the OP won't acknowledge he has a very personal opinion that he absolutely cannot substantiate or find any credible source that agrees with him
(he will say his "sources" are the Constitution and "anyone who can read/reason etc)


Anyway, for the record here is a link to Story's comments (that the OP won't read):


Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



(the OP will wait for a few pages to pass and then deny anyone can point to the language prohibiting secession).
Click to expand...
So what language does this justice story of yours cite?
 
Samwise said:
So what language does this justice story of yours cite?
Click to expand...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,..."

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Click to expand...
Texas v. White - Wikipedia
 
Rich2018 said:
(told you he won't read it)
Click to expand...

Dude, you're the one who said he cited the language in the constitution prohibiting any state from quitting. So now it's on you to actually say what he cited.
 
Ikari said:
You can read the quote and go to the link.
Click to expand...

So nobody can actually cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from quitting?
 
Samwise said:
So nobody can actually cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from quitting?
Click to expand...

I gave you the cited material that the SCOTUS used for its decision. The Constitution empowers the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of acts and laws. If you don't like it, I guess you'll have to take it to the SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom