4 ms·

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

palata 2y ago
> In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. How does it work? Doesn't it mean that if a state seceded now, the Supreme Court may still decide that it is constitutional? Genuinely interested.
- vel0city 2y ago
  The full quote: When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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. - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 A state cannot itself just decide to leave. It has to be allowed to go or successfully fight its way out of it. The secessionists' revolution failed; thus they were never not a part of the US. So, I guess they could unilaterally leave, assuming they win their revolutionary war. But otherwise no, they can't unilaterally leave without the rest of the union agreeing to it somehow. The governor can't just sign a piece of paper and say California is now its own country separate from the United States and have that take effect from the perspective of the federal government. California would still be legally considered a State in the United States.
  - chasd00 2y ago
    Further, "the union will be preserved at any cost". There's a bloody and destructive precedent set for that.
  - palata 2y ago
    I find it very interesting that the Constitution doesn't say that a state cannot leave, which suggests that when the state joined the union, it did not explicitly accept this condition. Then later, when a state wants to leave, it is the Supreme Court (representing all the states) that says "hmm so it was not written, but we now decide that we don't want you to leave".
    - vel0city 2y ago
      By [the Articles of Confederation], 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?. . . When, therefore, [a state] became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. — U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. White (1869). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

> In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. How does it work? Doesn't it mean that if a state seceded now, the Supreme Court may still decide that it is constitutional? Genuinely interested.

vel0city 2y ago
The full quote: When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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. - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 A state cannot itself just decide to leave. It has to be allowed to go or successfully fight its way out of it. The secessionists' revolution failed; thus they were never not a part of the US. So, I guess they could unilaterally leave, assuming they win their revolutionary war. But otherwise no, they can't unilaterally leave without the rest of the union agreeing to it somehow. The governor can't just sign a piece of paper and say California is now its own country separate from the United States and have that take effect from the perspective of the federal government. California would still be legally considered a State in the United States.
- chasd00 2y ago
  Further, "the union will be preserved at any cost". There's a bloody and destructive precedent set for that.
- palata 2y ago
  I find it very interesting that the Constitution doesn't say that a state cannot leave, which suggests that when the state joined the union, it did not explicitly accept this condition. Then later, when a state wants to leave, it is the Supreme Court (representing all the states) that says "hmm so it was not written, but we now decide that we don't want you to leave".
  - vel0city 2y ago
    By [the Articles of Confederation], 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?. . . When, therefore, [a state] became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. — U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. White (1869). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union