Article I, section 10, and secession

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Longshot, May 2, 2018.

  1. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is where I somewhat agree and disagree. Joining a foreign state could mean many things. Is it treason for a former state to join a state or country we're at war with, for example? If not, we have no jurisdiction over other countries so it may not be a big deal.

    Regarding former states linking up and joining the same Conferency, it could be possible, but the civil war says otherwise. I guess they leave as single states first. Then as time goes by become an alliance.

    If our foreign policy is anything to go by, I doubt it's a good idea to try the loophole. Jmo.
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    States can not leave the union or secede. Congress must agree to expel them, or an article V convention is required and 2/3 of the states must agree to expel the state.
     
  3. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Because someone blew out Abraham Lincoln's brain housing group because one political party refused to except the outcome of the 1860 Presidential election, let me speak for Abraham Lincoln and quote what Lincoln had to say about secession from the Union.

    " Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones. "

    source -> https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:444?rgn=div1;view=fulltext;q1=Lyceum
     
  4. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with this. I see singular states leaving (at different times) a loophole to the creation of Confederate states. The issue it seems is outright joining an existing Confederacy, alliance, etc.

    That said, the hostilities that would come of it make it not worth doing.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  5. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alright...
     
  6. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So do you agree with every ruling the SCOTUS makes?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty much. I can’t think of a single ruling that I disagree with them on.
     
  8. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree with Citizens United?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes
     
  10. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What about Kelo v. City of New London?
     
    Longshot likes this.
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not familiar with it. However, reading the summary just now, yes.
     
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once a state leaves the union, which is not prohibited, then they are a foreign state. The constitution doesn't apply to them, no more that the constitution applies to Germany or Italy.
     
  13. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The words of Lincoln are not the words of the constitution.

    Article I, section 10 has no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You’ve been shown it is prohibited.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Supreme Court says otherwise.
     
  16. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    legal or not, if a state's residents decide to secede from the union, who and what's to stop them... and at what cost...ie, should we expect DC's central planners to wage war within the US to try (in vain) to keep the union intact?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh, ask Virginia and company how that worked out.
     
  18. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Exactly.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  19. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically it establishes the legal right for government to claim private property under eminent domain so they can sell it to a corporation.

    Do.you agree with that?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  20. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's 2018. Everyone in this country over the age of five has a video camera within arms reach 24 hours a day. Disgust and disillusionment-wise, how do you think a Kent State event would play out today? Now imagine an entire state of Kent States.

    (The union would collapse.)
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
    Longshot likes this.
  21. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If It was so clear in Article 1, Section 10 that a State may not leave, then why didn't Lincoln bring it up before hostilities began?

    Why didn't Chase, who wrote the Texas v White decision, say something? He was at the time a member of Lincoln's cabinet. For that matter, why didn't he explicitly refer to Article 1, Section 10 in his decision?

    Why did James Madison, the 'father' of the constitution, talk about a "righteous secession" without mentioning Article 1, Section 10?
     
  22. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,674
    Likes Received:
    26,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're right - it contains no prohibition but it grants no permission, either.

    I'm not seeing any language that permits a state to leave the union and any language that establishes 1) the legal grounds for secession and 2) the legal mechanisms and procedures required to execute secession in a lawful and constitutional manner.

    That's a profound omission.

    My answer (opinion) to your question is that Article 10 Section 1 does not provide legal/constitutional grounds and permission for secession.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2018
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since it contains no language that forbids a state from seceding, the states retain the power to do so. Per the 10th amendment.
     
    Talon likes this.
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Check out article I, section 10. These are the powers that the states agreed to forgo as a condition of being a member of the union. Any of the states in the union agree to not do those things. However, there's no language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving the union.
     
  25. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have a better question. In Art 1, is there any language that allows the union to cast out a state, or two? As in F you people, you're out? Now that would be fun...
     

Share This Page