Constitution contains no language prohibiting secession

rahl · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
A ruling you clearly never read. There is no mention of Congress or the States giving two-thirds approval. Furthermore, if the Supreme Court prohibited secession, as you erroneously claim, then how could Congress or the States give their approval?

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869) states:

Which means that every State has the right to secede from the Union through the consent of the other States. However, States may not unilaterally secede, like the southern States illegally attempted to do.

Next time read the sources you post and you won't appear so ignorant.

I see comprehension isn't your thing. The supreme court specifically points out that states can not secede. It's why texas is still a state, and not an independent nation. And as I pointed out, it takes the permission of congress and the states to leave the union.

Rich2018 · Jul 9, 2020

rahl said:
I see comprehension isn't your thing. The supreme court specifically points out that states can not secede. It's why texas is still a state, and not an independent nation. And as I pointed out, it takes the permission of congress and the states to leave the union.

Or a constitutional amendment allowing for unilateral secession.

Glitch · Jul 9, 2020

rahl said:
I see comprehension isn't your thing. The supreme court specifically points out that states can not secede. It's why texas is still a state, and not an independent nation. And as I pointed out, it takes the permission of congress and the states to leave the union.

What part of "except through revolution, or through consent of the States. " did you fail to grasp? The Supreme Court held that States can secede, exactly the opposite of the BS you are trying to spew. Congress is not mentioned by the Supreme Court. That is entirely your fantasy because you obviously have serious reading comprehension issues. And you didn't point it out, I did. It is rather futile to lie when all it requires is scrolling back to see who posted it first, and certainly wasn't you.

You can't even make up your mind what your position is. You say that States cannot secede, and then say they can secede with permission. It can't be both.

Rich2018 · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
What part of "except through revolution, or through consent of the States. " did you fail to grasp? The Supreme Court held that States can secede, exactly the opposite of the BS you are trying to spew. Congress is not mentioned by the Supreme Court. That is entirely your fantasy because you obviously have serious reading comprehension issues. And you didn't point it out, I did. It is rather futile to lie when all it requires is scrolling back to see who posted it first, and certainly wasn't you.

You can't even make up your mind what your position is. You say that States cannot secede, and then say they can secede with permission. It can't be both.

When did the SC say states can secede legally, under the Constitution as written that is ?

rahl · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
What part of "except through revolution, or through consent of the States. " did you fail to grasp? The Supreme Court held that States can secede, exactly the opposite of the BS you are trying to spew. Congress is not mentioned by the Supreme Court. That is entirely your fantasy because you obviously have serious reading comprehension issues. And you didn't point it out, I did. It is rather futile to lie when all it requires is scrolling back to see who posted it first, and certainly wasn't you.

You can't even make up your mind what your position is. You say that States cannot secede, and then say they can secede with permission. It can't be both.

As I said, you have comprehension issues. The Supreme Court specifically pointed out that stated can not secede.

Gator · Jul 9, 2020

jonny5 said:
After they left the Union, thus the constitution didnt apply to them. Its the constitution of the Union, not the world.

But they couldn't legally leave the Union, so the Constitution still applied. They had to win the war before they could claim freedom from constitutional rule.

Gator · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
Secession is not prohibited. It is neither a treaty, alliance, nor a confederation. Try again.

Many things are not prohibited in the Constitution, but that does not mean the power exists.

The Confederate States of America was indeed a confederation. No nation ever recognized it as an independent nation.

Glitch · Jul 9, 2020

Gator said:
Many things are not prohibited in the Constitution, but that does not mean the power exists.

Actually, it does. Under the Tenth Amendment if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a specific power, or prohibit that power from being exercised by the States, then the power in question becomes the exclusive authority of the States and/or the people, respectively.

Since the US Constitution does not specifically grant the power of secession to Congress, or any federal branch of government, and since the document does not prohibit the States from seceding, then under the Tenth Amendment the States have the exclusive power to secede. However, as the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), States may only secede with the consent of the other States.

Gator said:
The Confederate States of America was indeed a confederation. No nation ever recognized it as an independent nation.

The CSA was a confederation, but doesn't mean when a State wishes to secede they will become a confederation. They can choose to remain a constitutional republic, like the US, but with a completely different constitution, for example. There are many other types of governments besides confederations. We already know that confederations are a complete failure. Which was why the US Constitution was created in the first place.

rahl · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
Actually, it does. Under the Tenth Amendment if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a specific power, or prohibit that power from being exercised by the States, then the power in question becomes the exclusive authority of the States and/or the people, respectively.

Since the US Constitution does not specifically grant the power of secession to Congress, or any federal branch of government, and since the document does not prohibit the States from seceding, then under the Tenth Amendment the States have the exclusive power to secede. However, as the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), States may only secede with the consent of the other States.

The CSA was a confederation, but doesn't mean when a State wishes to secede they will become a confederation. They can choose to remain a constitutional republic, like the US, but with a completely different constitution, for example. There are many other types of governments besides confederations. We already know that confederations are a complete failure. Which was why the US Constitution was created in the first place.

states can not secede. The constitution precludes them from doing so. Texas v White.

Gator · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
Actually, it does. Under the Tenth Amendment if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a specific power, or prohibit that power from being exercised by the States, then the power in question becomes the exclusive authority of the States and/or the people, respectively.

Since the US Constitution does not specifically grant the power of secession to Congress, or any federal branch of government, and since the document does not prohibit the States from seceding, then under the Tenth Amendment the States have the exclusive power to secede. However, as the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), States may only secede with the consent of the other States.

The CSA was a confederation, but doesn't mean when a State wishes to secede they will become a confederation. They can choose to remain a constitutional republic, like the US, but with a completely different constitution, for example. There are many other types of governments besides confederations. We already know that confederations are a complete failure. Which was why the US Constitution was created in the first place.

"The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"'. Do you think the framers believed a republic would be less perpetual than a confederation.

The issue of secession came up in the ratifying conventions of some states (NY) and was rejected.

Rich2018 · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
Actually, it does. Under the Tenth Amendment if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a specific power, or prohibit that power from being exercised by the States, then the power in question becomes the exclusive authority of the States and/or the people, respectively.

Since the US Constitution does not specifically grant the power of secession to Congress, or any federal branch of government, and since the document does not prohibit the States from seceding, then under the Tenth Amendment the States have the exclusive power to secede. However, as the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), States may only secede with the consent of the other States.

ie: through the amendment process

We already know that confederations are a complete failure. Which was why the US Constitution was created in the first place.

How do we know that confederations are a complete failure ?

Glitch · Jul 9, 2020

Gator said:
"The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"'. Do you think the framers believed a republic would be less perpetual than a confederation.

The issue of secession came up in the ratifying conventions of some states (NY) and was rejected.

Of course not, as the Supreme Court said in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), also referred to "the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union." All such unions require being perpetual and incapable of being undone or they wouldn't exist in the first place. You don't create unions by defining how someone can leave the union.

A completely different example that demonstrates that point is the EU. There is no secession provisions in the EU charter for one of their members to leave (similar to the US Constitution), and it is also considered a perpetual and indissoluble union. Yet the UK chose to leave that union. However, unlike the southern US States the UK didn't start a war with the other EU members when they attempted to leave the union.

The Tenth Amendment is the way out of the Union for the States, but it requires the consent of the other States.

Rich2018 · Jul 9, 2020

Glitch said:
The Tenth Amendment is the way out of the Union for the States, but it requires the consent of the other States.

How does the 10th amendment give states a legal route of secession ?

jonny5 · Jul 10, 2020

Rich2018 said:
They were not foreign countries.

According to the USA, who is a bit biased. But I guess that why there was a war and a million people died. Over the two idea of whether people cant not be slaves, and whether people have a right to independence.

jonny5 · Jul 10, 2020

Glitch said:
Don't be silly. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence contains the founding principles of the US, but is not in any way legally binding and supersedes nothing.

If a power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, and the power is not specifically prohibited to the States by the same document, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people. With regard to secession specifically, it is a power reserved exclusively for the States, but it is not a unilateral power.

If a State wishes to secede from the Union, they have that constitutional authority under the Tenth Amendment. However, they cannot make the decision on their own.

Gator said:
But they couldn't legally leave the Union, so the Constitution still applied. They had to win the war before they could claim freedom from constitutional rule.

So you disagree then that people have a natural right to be free? That its unalienable?

Rich2018 · Jul 10, 2020

jonny5 said:
According to the USA, who is a bit biased. But I guess that why there was a war and a million people died. Over the two idea of whether people cant not be slaves, and whether people have a right to independence.

Well I guess if Britain had won the Revolutionary War, in their view, the USA would have never existed.

Gator · Jul 10, 2020

jonny5 said:
So you disagree then that people have a natural right to be free? That its unalienable?

Being part of the Confederacy was not being free any more than being part of the Union was being free. In both people were subject to the laws of the country. If people have the inherent right to be free it means little since slaves did not have that freedom. An inherent right is not really inherent if government can restrict it.

Gator · Jul 10, 2020

Glitch said:
Actually, it does. Under the Tenth Amendment if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a specific power, or prohibit that power from being exercised by the States, then the power in question becomes the exclusive authority of the States and/or the people, respectively.

The federal government is not limited to those powers specifically granted to it. It also has the power to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out the delegated powers. Creating a national bank or a military draft are not specifically given Congress but they are implied powers necessary to carry out delegated powers.

uptower · Jul 10, 2020

So just to be clear: the 'strict constitutionalists' think the constitution allows them to secede so they won't have to follow the constitution anymore?

Rich2018 · Jul 10, 2020

uptower said:
So just to be clear: the 'strict constitutionalists' think the constitution allows them to secede so they won't have to follow the constitution anymore?

I guess that's one way of putting it.

Glitch · Jul 10, 2020

Gator said:
The federal government is not limited to those powers specifically granted to it. It also has the power to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out the delegated powers. Creating a national bank or a military draft are not specifically given Congress but they are implied powers necessary to carry out delegated powers.

The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers the US Constitution specifically grants them, and no others.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is the "Necessary & Proper Clause" and grants Congress the power to enforce any of the powers the US Constitution grants them. It does not give Congress the power to do whatever they please, but only to enforce the powers granted to them by the US Constitution.

It has been argued that the National Bank was unconstitutional, by no less than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and it has been abolished for that reason. The First National Bank of the US only lasted until 1811. Its charter was not renewed because it violated the US Constitution. However, Congress decided to unconstitutionally create the Second National Bank of the US in 1816. The Second National Bank of the US lasted until 1836, when it was argued as being unconstitutional again. This time by President Andrew Jackson. The bank failed to have its charter renewed and in 1836 became a private corporation and was eventually liquidated in 1841. The Bank of the United States was indeed a violation of the US Constitution. Which is why it ceased to exist 141 years ago.

With regard to the military draft, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 & 15 gives Congress the authority to create a military draft.

Glitch · Jul 10, 2020

uptower said:
So just to be clear: the 'strict constitutionalists' think the constitution allows them to secede so they won't have to follow the constitution anymore?

Not quite correct. The US Constitution does not specifically prohibit any State from seceding from the Union once becoming a member. Since the US Constitution also does not specifically grant Congress or any branch of the federal government the power to determine secession of any State. Under the Tenth Amendment the power to secede from the Union is granted exclusively to the States.

However, as the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), States must have the consent of other States before they secede. It cannot be a unilateral decision.

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Gator · Jul 10, 2020

Glitch said:
The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only those powers the US Constitution specifically grants them, and no others.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is the "Necessary & Proper Clause" and grants Congress the power to enforce any of the powers the US Constitution grants them. It does not give Congress the power to do whatever they please, but only to enforce the powers granted to them by the US Constitution.

It has been argued that the National Bank was unconstitutional, by no less than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and it has been abolished for that reason. The First National Bank of the US only lasted until 1811. Its charter was not renewed because it violated the US Constitution. However, Congress decided to unconstitutionally create the Second National Bank of the US in 1816. The Second National Bank of the US lasted until 1836, when it was argued as being unconstitutional again. This time by President Andrew Jackson. The bank failed to have its charter renewed and in 1836 became a private corporation and was eventually liquidated in 1841. The Bank of the United States was indeed a violation of the US Constitution. Which is why it ceased to exist 141 years ago.

With regard to the military draft, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 & 15 gives Congress the authority to create a military draft.

McCulloch v. Maryland ruled the Second Bank of the U. S. to be constitutional which defined the broad powers of Congress under the necessary and proper clause.

The first bank was created in 1791 under Washington and proposed by Hamilton. Jefferson, an anti-federalist in a Federalist administration, opposed it but Washington supported it and Congress passed it. It ended because it was only a 20 year charter. But McCulloch clearly established Congress had the power to create the bank.

There is nothing giving Congress the specific power to create a military draft. The Constitution says Congress can "raise an army" and it was "necessary and proper" to have a draft to carry out the delegated power.

The 10th Amendment does not limit the federal government to those powers specifically granted them. It limits the federal government to the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The necessary and proper clause is a power delegated to Congress and allows Congress the power to pass laws necessary to carry out the other delegated powers that are not specifically granted; for example, the national bank.

I never said the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to do anything it wants. I specifically said it can do those things necessary to carry out the other delegated powers.

The courts have allowed broad authority to Congress to determine what is "necessary" and does not limit it to Jefferson's concept of "absolutely necessary." While Jefferson took a narrow view of federal power in the bank debate he made the Louisiana Purchase for which he had no authority.

Glitch · Jul 11, 2020

Gator said:
McCulloch v. Maryland ruled the Second Bank of the U. S. to be constitutional which defined the broad powers of Congress under the necessary and proper clause.

The first bank was created in 1791 under Washington and proposed by Hamilton. Jefferson, an anti-federalist in a Federalist administration, opposed it but Washington supported it and Congress passed it. It ended because it was only a 20 year charter. But McCulloch clearly established Congress had the power to create the bank.

There is nothing giving Congress the specific power to create a military draft. The Constitution says Congress can "raise an army" and it was "necessary and proper" to have a draft to carry out the delegated power.

The 10th Amendment does not limit the federal government to those powers specifically granted them. It limits the federal government to the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The necessary and proper clause is a power delegated to Congress and allows Congress the power to pass laws necessary to carry out the other delegated powers that are not specifically granted; for example, the national bank.

I never said the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to do anything it wants. I specifically said it can do those things necessary to carry out the other delegated powers.

The courts have allowed broad authority to Congress to determine what is "necessary" and does not limit it to Jefferson's concept of "absolutely necessary." While Jefferson took a narrow view of federal power in the bank debate he made the Louisiana Purchase for which he had no authority.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) wouldn't be the first time, or the last time, that the Supreme Court was flat out wrong. The Tenth Amendment does limit the federal government to only those powers the US Constitution grants to them, and no other powers. As you yourself agreed, the Necessary & Proper Clause only grants Congress the ability to enforce the powers granted them by the US Constitution. Therefore, if a power exists that is not granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, and if that power is not prohibited by the US Constitution to the States, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people, respectively.

An example of such a power not granted by the US Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the US Constitution to the States, is education. Which means that education is a power exclusively reserved to the States and the very existence of the federal Department of Education is unconstitutional.

Of course Jefferson had the authority to arrange a treaty between the US and France for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution gives Presidents the authority "to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." The Senate ratified the treaty on October 20, 1803 by a vote of 24 to 7. Contrary to what leftist may be spewing in their history propaganda and indoctrination courses, it isn't reality. There was nothing unconstitutional about the Louisiana Purchase.

Read some actual history instead of the made-up leftist propaganda: The Louisiana Purchase | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Rich2018 · Jul 11, 2020

Glitch said:
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) wouldn't be the first time, or the last time, that the Supreme Court was flat out wrong.

LOL

It's amazing how posters on here know more about constitutional law than Supreme Court justices !

Law degrees...who needs them ?