Secession and the Constitution

[CroSpartacus]

I tend to think secession was legitimate because it was the States that created the Federal government, so they can opt out.

However, in Article I of the Constitution, I came across this:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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.

Does this mean that the Confederate States were unconstitutional or did "Confederation" mean that no State could enter into any confederation with a foreign country?

 

[NMCB3]

In the beginning secession was generally believed to be legitimate, the New England states were thinking about it when Jefferson was president, and he said go if you wish.

 

[wormyguy]

On the other hand, there's no provision for secession if you're approaching it from a strict constructionist perspective. One of the ways that a strict constructionist and an originalist reading of the Constitution differ.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

Does this mean that the Confederate States were unconstitutional or did "Confederation" mean that no State could enter into any confederation with a foreign country?

It means that the States cannot join a foreign Confederation. But if multiple states seceded and formed a confederation, that would constitute a foreign county, would it not?

But there is another clause that prevents the States from forming their own Confederation anyways. I would also like to point out the Compact Clause

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.

Secession is constitutionally possible only though revolution (or any other means of losing territory) and consent from Congress

 

[Anti Federalist]

Moot issue.

If you secede, then all the limits, laws, conventions, rules and regulations no longer apply to you.

The fedgov does not follow the constitution in any meaningful way anymore, making the issue doubly moot.

They will respond to a secession move with violence, whether it was constitutional or not.

 

[phill4paul]

They will respond to a secession move with violence, whether it was constitutional or not.

They would have no other choice. Precedence has been set. They are not about to lose a monopoly on power.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They would have no other choice. Precedence has been set. They are not about to lose a monopoly on power.

Nor are they about to let the slaves just walk off the plantation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Moot issue.

If you secede, then all the limits, laws, conventions, rules and regulations no longer apply to you.

The fedgov does not follow the constitution in any meaningful way anymore, making the issue doubly moot.

They will respond to a secession move with violence, whether it was constitutional or not.

+a zillion , and it never really did.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It means that the States cannot join a foreign Confederation. But if multiple states seceded and formed a confederation, that would constitute a foreign county, would it not?

But there is another clause that prevents the States from forming their own Confederation anyways. I would also like to point out the Compact Clause

Secession is constitutionally possible only though revolution (or any other means of losing territory) and consent from Congress

That clause refers to foreign States and Governments, not American ones.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

That clause refers to foreign States and Governments, not American ones.

If State A seceded from the United States, then State A would become a foreign country. If State B secedes and joins State A, that would be joining in a confederation with a "foreign" government, right?

Moot issue.

If you secede, then all the limits, laws, conventions, rules and regulations no longer apply to you.

The fedgov does not follow the constitution in any meaningful way anymore, making the issue doubly moot.

They will respond to a secession move with violence, whether it was constitutional or not.

The States are contractually bound by the compact known as the United States Constitution and cannot leave the Union unilaterally. To leave out of the contact legitimately (or "breaching the contract"), the seceding State must either demonstrate enough sovereignty to the point the enforcer of the contract (that is, the Federal government) cannot enforce the contract on that State (Think the American Revolution) or the Congress of the United States consents. The Confederate States of America, while not wrong to take the path of secession, has taken the former route and failed.

Also, if Congress consented to the State seceding, that would be bloodless, would it not?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If State A seceded from the United States, then State A would become a foreign country. If State B secedes and joins State A, that would be joining in a confederation with a "foreign" government, right?

The States are contractually bound by the compact known as the United States Constitution and cannot leave the Union unilaterally. To leave out of the contact legitimately (or "breaching the contract"), the seceding State must either demonstrate enough sovereignty to the point the enforcer of the contract (that is, the Federal government) cannot enforce the contract on that State (Think the American Revolution) or the Congress of the United States consents. The Confederate States of America, while not wrong to take the path of secession, has taken the former route and failed.

Also, if Congress consented to the State seceding, that would be bloodless, would it not?

Again, you fall back on false "Contract Theory". No living person agreed to this "contract" (a laughable misnomer). Those who agreed to it cannot logically make decisions for future generations (they didn't even act in accordance with those who elected them). We do not have a "Civil Union" here, we have an occupying force (the State and its lackies in the Government) and an occupied population ("citizens").

 

[Acala]

secession

The Federal government was created by the states to serve the interests of the states and the people. The states arranged it so that they selected the senators and they selected the President. The states restricted the federal power to a short list beyond which the federal government could not go. The states kept their plenary power and limited the power of the federal government to interfere in the states' plenary powers ONLY in those areas where the states felt THE STATES would benefit by having uniform rules among them relating to trade and an impartial arbitrator for disputes. It was hotly debated whether the new federal government should have the power to even have a standing army. And with all those limitations and controls, the states still demanded a bill of rights that specifically reserved all rights to the states not specifically granted to the federal government and included a right for the people to be armed so as to overthrow the federal government if it slipped its bounds.

With this in mind, the idea that the states would have intentionally signed onto a compact that they could never voluntarily leave and if they tried the new government they were creating could conscript soldiers, levy taxes, issue fiat money, and hire foreign mercenaries, so as to raise an army, invade the state that tried to leave and crush it by brute force, is ridiculous on its face.

And as for strict constructionists, show me where the federal government was granted the power to keep states in the union by force? It is not enumerated so they did not have it.

 

[wormyguy]

And as for strict constructionists, show me where the federal government was granted the power to keep states in the union by force? It is not enumerated so they did not have it.

Actually, it is one of the enumerated powers:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Acala]

Not

Actually, it is one of the enumerated powers:

Insurrection is not at all the same as secession. Insurrection is rising up against government. Secession is withdrawing from participation. The Constitution DOES authorize the federal government to defend itself against groups trying to overthrow it. But it does not authorize using force against states that peacefully withdraw from the voluntary compact.

And the section you cite relates to the calling forth of the militia, which is a state body, not a federal army. That provisions provides the circumstances in which the federal government can impose upon the states by calling on their militias. It doesn't even make sense to construe it as calling on the state militias to do battle against the states. And the absence of an express power to stop secession by force in the cited section just reinforces the argument that it was not a granted power. Even Lincoln waffled on this, justifying his invasion of the south on the grounds that they were no longer states but a separate country and so could be attacked.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

If State A seceded from the United States, then State A would become a foreign country. If State B secedes and joins State A, that would be joining in a confederation with a "foreign" government, right?

Once a state secedes, the Constitution no longer applies to that state; it is completely free from all limitations and obligations of the Constitution. For two or more states to secede and then join into a new union with one another would be an example of foreign countries entering into a union; the United States has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What the Constitution prohibits is states, without the consent of Congress, joining into certain unions/alliances while they remain members of the United States.

The States are contractually bound by the compact known as the United States Constitution and cannot leave the Union unilaterally.

Incorrect. While the states are bound by their compact so long as they remain in the union, it is also a structural founding principle of the Constitutional compact that the union is voluntary and that any state could peacefully leave if it chose to do so.

 

[Acala]

Exactly

Once a state secedes, the Constitution no longer applies to that state; it is completely free from all limitations and obligations of the Constitution. For two or more states to secede and then join into a new union with one another would be an example of foreign countries entering into a union; the United States has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What the Constitution prohibits is states, without the consent of Congress, joining into certain unions/alliances while they remain members of the United States.



Incorrect. While the states are bound by their compact so long as they remain in the union, it is also a structural founding principle of the Constitutional compact that the union is voluntary and that any state could peacefully leave if it chose to do so.

^this is exactly correct.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Once a state secedes, the Constitution no longer applies to that state; it is completely free from all limitations and obligations of the Constitution. For two or more states to secede and then join into a new union with one another would be an example of foreign countries entering into a union; the United States has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What the Constitution prohibits is states, without the consent of Congress, joining into certain unions/alliances while they remain members of the United States.



Incorrect. While the states are bound by their compact so long as they remain in the union, it is also a structural founding principle of the Constitutional compact that the union is voluntary and that any state could peacefully leave if it chose to do so.

The bolded is incorrect. We already have soverign nations within the official borders. They belong to the aboriginal people (indians). The tribes are not bound by the laws that bind the citizens. They have their own laws and agreements with their respective states and the FedMonster.

 

[Acala]

tribes

The bolded is incorrect. We already have soverign nations within the official borders. They belong to the aboriginal people (indians). The tribes are not bound by the laws that bind the citizens. They have their own laws and agreements with their respective states and the FedMonster.

The tribes are mostly the equivalent of states. They make their own laws, but are bound by Federal law which is supreme. They are not bound by the laws of the states in which they are located unless specifically authorized by Federal law. Yet the tribal members can vote in state elections.

But they are not REALLY sovereign nations. They are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

The bolded is incorrect. We already have soverign nations within the official borders. They belong to the aboriginal people (indians). The tribes are not bound by the laws that bind the citizens. They have their own laws and agreements with their respective states and the FedMonster.

If the tribes were completely sovereign and thus truly independent from the United States and all of the states, they wouldn't be subject to any federal or state law, nor would they be required to make any agreements. If a tribal people were truly sovereign, they wouldn't reside in any state at all; the land they occupied would be their land, not the land of a foreign government.