A Constitutional Issue Regarding Secession Cleared Up

[Galileo Galilei]

A Constitutional Issue Regarding Secession Cleared Up

There has been a lot of debate, not just here, about secession.

The debunkers claim that a state legislature can't just make a binding vote to secede. I agree with that.

To secede, you must undue what you did. Each state got in the the Union by holding popularily elected ratifying conventions.

So to secede, you must un-ratify the Constitution by holding an un-ratifying convention.

That is what actually happened, I believe.

I know that Virginia's state legislature voted to secede in 1861, and then held a un-ratifying convention to make it legal. I think Alabama did as well. And also Georgia.

Also, by analogy, you could substitute a statewide referendum for an un-ratifying convention, which is what some southern states did.

If anyone has any info on this, please let us know.

PS

For states not part of the 13 original colonies, by analogy, they have equal rights and obligations as the original 13. Some argue that only the 13 original states can secede, because the rest were created by the federal government (Texas excepted).

[mport1]

Who cares what the Constitution says? If states want to seceed they should. More importantly I would like to see a movement of personal secession from government at all levels.

[TCE]

Please see the Virginia Constitution. There is a clause in there that allows them to succeed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Please see the Virginia Constitution. There is a clause in there that allows them to succeed.

They can secede. But the state legislature does not have the right to overule the ratifying convention. That's why Virginia held a un-ratifying election.

[Galileo Galilei]

Who cares what the Constitution says?

You sound like Obama or Bush. Thanx.

[mport1]

You sound like Obama or Bush. Thanx.

Except I don't care about the Constitution for different reasons. It is antithetical to liberty. I believe in complete liberty.

[FrankRep]

Except I don't care about the Constitution for different reasons. It is antithetical to liberty. I believe in complete liberty.
Anti-Federalist, right?

Articles of Confederation.

[Sandman33]

Who cares what the Constitution says? If states want to seceed they should. More importantly I would like to see a movement of personal secession from government at all levels.

EXACTLY!

If the feds aren't going to adhere to the blatant rules WHY should the states and more importantly...why should WE?

[literatim]

State legislators are popularly elected. They hold a convention every time they vote on laws.

The federal government has no authority to decide how a State wants to secede.

[axiomata]

This is one area that the Constitution is lacking and needs to be amended. It should have been fixed after the Civil War but wasn't. Even if the Constitution would have banned secession it would be better than this implicit "banned because we fought a war over it and the North won remember?" thing we have going now.

Of course, since secession is compatible with a free society, the best option would be to have an amendment outline the legal path to secession.

Ideally such an amendment would have states, when applying for membership to the union, provide their preferred method of ratifying secession. The rest of the states could then consider their proposal when deciding whether to admit them. It is a little harder for states already part of the union, because if you see statehood as a contract between each state and the union of states, one party should not be allowed to break the contract willy-nilly. The best option would be to force a seceding state to prove that its rights have been violated, (which should be quite easy these days -- though I'm not sure the court system that would be used), or allow secession if the wish is mutual (ie a majority of the other states approve).

[John of Des Moines]

State legislators are popularly elected. They hold a convention every time they vote on laws.

The federal government has no authority to decide how a State wants to secede.

While true, there needs to be an orderly withdrawal from the Union.


This is one area that the Constitution is lacking and needs to be amended. It should have been fixed after the Civil War but wasn't. Even if the Constitution would have banned secession it would be better than this implicit "banned because we fought a war over it and the North won remember?" thing we have going now.

Of course, since secession is compatible with a free society, the best option would be to have an amendment outline the legal path to secession.

Ideally such an amendment would have states, when applying for membership to the union, provide their preferred method of ratifying secession. The rest of the states could then consider their proposal when deciding whether to admit them. It is a little harder for states already part of the union, because if you see statehood as a contract between each state and the union of states, one party should not be allowed to break the contract willy-nilly. The best option would be to force a seceding state to prove that its rights have been violated, (which should be quite easy these days -- though I'm not sure the court system that would be used), or allow secession if the wish is mutual (ie a majority of the other states approve).

The amendment would have to cover issues such as citizenship and removal of federal property.

[mport1]

Anti-Federalist, right?

Articles of Confederation.

No, voluntaryist :)

[axiomata]

While true, there needs to be an orderly withdrawal from the Union.

The amendment would have to cover issues such as citizenship and removal of federal property.

True, but there's no way a state with large acreage of National Parks, for example, would be able to afford purchasing the land from the federal government at a market rate. I'm not sure whether they should just be given the land, and forced to pay for the improvements to it (roads, buildings etc.) or whether they should be required to fully pay the market rate, which could only be done through a plan of slowly privatizing all the land and buildings to the new nation's citizens, and forwarding all the proceeds to the federal government.

As far as citizenship, would there be an issue with just following the same rules (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html)as the US does with every other nation? I guess the issue may be whether someone freely chooses to become a citizen of a new country, or are effectively forced to because they live in the territory in question. I guess it wouldn't hurt to clarify.

[Charlie41]

It makes no difference if it's "legal" or not, or how to go about it.
I assure you, that if your state does secede, the feds will say it's an act of war, and attack. Just like honest Abe did.:rolleyes:

[literatim]

True, but there's no way a state with large acreage of National Parks, for example, would be able to afford purchasing the land from the federal government at a market rate. I'm not sure whether they should just be given the land, and forced to pay for the improvements to it (roads, buildings etc.) or whether they should be required to fully pay the market rate, which could only be done through a plan of slowly privatizing all the land and buildings to the new nation's citizens, and forwarding all the proceeds to the federal government.

A State seceding from the Union wouldn't recognize the authority of the federal government and thus wouldn't pay a dime for any land.

[Thesemindz]

What possible constitutional issue could there be regarding secession?

Secession is when one party decides they don't want to be a part of your little club anymore, so they take their ball and go home.

Why would the person doing the seceding give a rat's ass what the other party thinks about it? That would be like a woman not being allowed to divorce her abusive husband without his permission.

If you are seceding, you are seceding from their constitution too. Their laws no longer apply to you.

The government doesn't have any say in whether or not anyone secedes. They can only enslave through violence, they can not forbid individuals from seeking their own freedom.


-Rob

[axiomata]

What possible constitutional issue could there be regarding secession?

Secession is when one party decides they don't want to be a part of your little club anymore, so they take their ball and go home.

Why would the person doing the seceding give a rat's ass what the other party thinks about it? That would be like a woman not being allowed to divorce her abusive husband without his permission.

If you are seceding, you are seceding from their constitution too. Their laws no longer apply to you.

The government doesn't have any say in whether or not anyone secedes. They can only enslave through violence, they can not forbid individuals from seeking their own freedom.


-Rob

A divorce is a fine example. As I said in my original post, if a seceding state can prove that the federal government has infringed on the terms of the original union contract, the Constitution, then the seceding country needs not any permission.

If one partner domestically abuses the other, or if the feds initiate violence against a state, the abused party should separate from the abuser and should be paid damages. In this case, I think it would be fair for the feds to give up all federal property in the state.

A less extreme case is when one party violates the terms of the contract. For example if one spouse cheats on the other when the marriage contract called for monogamy or when the feds overstep the powers delegated to it in the Constitution. In this case again, the party that upheld its end of the contract, should be able to separate, and doesn't need any permission. But, unless the original contract specifies differently, does such a violation merit the separating party taking tons of property from the party at fault? (Nevermind the fact that federal government's "property" isn't really its own -- it's the taxpayers' of the country who are real individuals, with a reasonable expectation that their property won't be confiscated.)

If a husband cheats on his wife, and before they were married the husband brought all the furniture and appliances, and the wife supplied the house. The wife chooses to divorce, she obviously gets the house, but does she also get all the husband's property in the house? Or does a society of law and order devise a system to divvy up the property as fairly as possible, taking into the consideration who is at fault as well as various damages the one party inflicts on the other. And stretching the analogy as far as possible, what if the husband was storing some friend's property in the house, does the wife also get this?

This is all I am asking for. I do not discount the right to secede, I simply see value in a predicable prescription on how it is done that will limit animosity and the possibility of violence.

[Thesemindz]

A divorce is a fine example. As I said in my original post, if a seceding state can prove that the federal government has infringed on the terms of the original union contract, the Constitution, then the seceding country needs not any permission.

If one partner domestically abuses the other, or if the feds initiate violence against a state, the abused party should separate from the abuser and should be paid damages. In this case, I think it would be fair for the feds to give up all federal property in the state.

A less extreme case is when one party violates the terms of the contract. For example if one spouse cheats on the other when the marriage contract called for monogamy or when the feds overstep the powers delegated to it in the Constitution. In this case again, the party that upheld its end of the contract, should be able to separate, and doesn't need any permission. But, unless the original contract specifies differently, does such a violation merit the separating party taking tons of property from the party at fault? (Nevermind the fact that federal government's "property" isn't really its own -- it's the taxpayers' of the country who are real individuals, with a reasonable expectation that their property won't be confiscated.)

If a husband cheats on his wife, and before they were married the husband brought all the furniture and appliances, and the wife supplied the house. The wife chooses to divorce, she obviously gets the house, but does she also get all the husband's property in the house? Or does a society of law and order devise a system to divvy up the property as fairly as possible, taking into the consideration who is at fault as well as various damages the one party inflicts on the other. This is all I am asking for. I do not discount the right to secede, I simply see value in a predicable prescription on how it is done that will limit animosity and the possibility of violence.

I see where you are going, and it's a good point. But if a state is seceding based on a breach of contract, then all contractual obligations are null and void.

Besides, how will the state pay for that property in the first place? By stealing from their citizens? The property wasn't rightfully owned by either the federal or state government in the first place. It was stolen from individuals and paid for with stolen money. If it should be repatriated to anyone, it is to the citizens from whom it was initially seized.

There can be no non violent secession. There can be no amicable seperation. Because the abuser, in this case the government, will never, ever, allow their victim to leave. They may entertain the idea, or allow the states to discuss it and debate it, but if it comes to putting their bags in the taxi and driving to their apartment across town, it comes to bullets. Without exception.

Because abusers are what they are. And they will never stop abusing.

Besides, the states are no more just in ruling over others. They are equally oppressive and illegitimate. State secession is simply choosing one ruler over another. Individual secession is the only path to freedom.

To each his own, and nothing more.


-Rob

[axiomata]

I see where you are going, and it's a good point. But if a state is seceding based on a breach of contract, then all contractual obligations are null and void.

Besides, how will the state pay for that property in the first place? By stealing from their citizens? The property wasn't rightfully owned by either the federal or state government in the first place. It was stolen from individuals and paid for with stolen money. If it should be repatriated to anyone, it is to the citizens from whom it was initially seized.

There can be no non violent secession. There can be no amicable separation. Because the abuser, in this case the government, will never, ever, allow their victim to leave. They may entertain the idea, or allow the states to discuss it and debate it, but if it comes to putting their bags in the taxi and driving to their apartment across town, it comes to bullets. Without exception.

Because abusers are what they are. And they will never stop abusing.

Besides, the states are no more just in ruling over others. They are equally oppressive and illegitimate. State secession is simply choosing one ruler over another. Individual secession is the only path to freedom.

To each his own, and nothing more.


-Rob
As far as paying for the property, it is up to the seceding state. If the new state is libertarian, then it will allow private citizens to purchase the property. If it still sees value in public property, then yes, it will have to be paid for by confiscating taxes from its own citizens. The good news is, that since such a state is smaller, and more localist, the citizens of that state have greater power to say to their state government "no, we don't want to be taxed to pay for this land". (And of course say if counties feel that their own state is being too tyrannical, then they too can threaten peaceful secession. And so on down theoretically to the individual, if you wish to take it that far.)

As far as "the government, will never, ever, allow their victim to leave. They may entertain the idea, or allow the states to discuss it and debate it, but if it comes to putting their bags in the taxi and driving to their apartment across town, it comes to bullets." goes. Well in attempting to pass a sensible amendment first, at least the seceding state can have a clear conscience and say they did everything they could to peacefully secede, and any bloodshed is on the fed's hands.

[Thesemindz]

I have a clear conscience anyway. Every group and individual has the right to disassociate from another group or individual. Anything else is compulsive association, which is nothing more than simple slavery. The ones leaving, regardless of the laws or opinions or permissions they do or don't abide by bear no burden of guilt. At all. If the other group attempts in any way to prevent them from leaving, then they are commiting an act of aggression from which those leaving are perfectly justified in defending themselves.

All association must be voluntary, or it is slavery. Slave masters have no claim to legitimacy, regardless of what documents or scriptures they cite in their defense.


-Rob

[Bucjason]

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Secession is perfectly constitutional, but it could also be argued that slavery was NOT, which may have given old Abe some standing in refusing it.

[Galileo Galilei]

I agree that secession is legal.

The issue has to do with state vs individual power.

I favor individual power, rather than state power.

The Articles of Condeferation gave the power to the states, and none to the people, while the Constitution divides power between the individual, the states, and the federal government.

The state legislatures did not ratify the Constitution, the ratifying conventions did. Hence, to secede, only a ratifying convention or statewide referendum can legally secede.

This is what in fact happened in many states, maybe all.

I asked if anyone knew what states seceded legally. I know that Virginia and Alabama did, and I think Georgia did, but I don't know about the other states.

The Constitution delegates the right of secession to the People, not to the state legislatures.

So can anyone here find out what method the other states used in secession?

[raystone]

Like (almost?) every other crumbling empire, the root cause is money or currency problems.

So, I see secession happening in steps (like most revolutions occur) starting with instituting a non-hyperinflated currency ...

1) States start using gold, silver, or a commodity backed currency for conducting some in-state business (both in payments and receipts, ala Edwin Viera's proposed legislation.
2) States begin having citizens send federal tax income payments through a state conduit.
3) States begin holding payments hostage in return for 10th amendment adherence.
4) #3 fails and we have secession

[John of Des Moines]

True, but there's no way a state with large acreage of National Parks, for example, would be able to afford purchasing the land from the federal government at a market rate. I'm not sure whether they should just be given the land, and forced to pay for the improvements to it (roads, buildings etc.) or whether they should be required to fully pay the market rate, which could only be done through a plan of slowly privatizing all the land and buildings to the new nation's citizens, and forwarding all the proceeds to the federal government.

As far as citizenship, would there be an issue with just following the same rules (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html)as the US does with every other nation? I guess the issue may be whether someone freely chooses to become a citizen of a new country, or are effectively forced to because they live in the territory in question. I guess it wouldn't hurt to clarify.

Under the Constitution the state legislature needs to approve of federal use of property within the state. Legislature removes its approval federal government hanging,

[Krugerrand]

If Kentucky secedes do they get to keep Fr. Knox and all its contents (assuming it has any.)

[Athan]

What's the deal with Texas exception?

[jsu718]

What's the deal with Texas exception?

The rest of the states were territories of the US before they were granted statehood. Texas was an independent nation.

[Dianne]

A wish a state would hurry up and do it. I am ready to move.