Article I, section 10, and secession

And one more thing to the point I made above.
Every land acquisition was accompanied by agreement between United States, which means all existing states, and the giving up party - French, Russians, British, Mexicans, Spanish and Natives. So, for each acquisition each existing state had to give up something - their citizens died in wars, or taxpayers funded purchases. So, each land that wants to leave must get an OK to leave from every state in the union. At least, that’s how a judge or justice would look at it. And it was actually part of the reasoning why states cannot leave in Supreme Court ruling regarding Texas independence.

 

California is a great geography to support itself as a major world economy.
Agriculture, mountain snow pack, industry, etc.

The Winner Take All laws need to be replaced with something more representative.
In 2012 Mitt Romney received more popular votes than the total vote of many heartland states.
Yet Mitt Romney did not receive one California Electoral College vote because of the winner take all policies.

California is just too, too, too LARGE for winner take all delegations.
California is a naturally balanced State and should not be cut to pieces.
California needs to stop winner take all for a more just system.
I like the Electoral College Vote goes by Presidential win of a Congressional District and give the 2 extra college votes as winner take all.
Imagine the diff from a straight popular assignment of a percent.
Could be interesting.


Moi

r > g

If Not Now, When?
If Not , Who? ​

 

There's no language in article I, section 10 that forbids any state from leaving, so it's not up to the federal government.

 

On the other hand, there's a glaring absence of any affirmative right to secede expressed in the Constitution, much less an articulation of the legal conditions and mechanisms governing secession, but I am inclined to agree with your argument that the 10th Amendment grants the states that power.

That being said, having literally lived on the battlefields of Virginia my entire life I have never been a fan of secession and I have never appreciated many people's cavalier attitude towards it. I don't see losing a presidential election or legislative battle as legitimate grounds for secession. We are a democratic republic, and in a democratic republic you don't always get your way. However, that's just my personal opinion and despite it I am still inclined to agree with your 10th Amendment argument.

 

Sovereign states may leave treaties, as long as the treaty they agreed to doesn't prohibit it.

 

The question is, does that matter, since SCOTUS has ruled on it.

 

I think it matters, since the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

 

I've often wondered that myself, particularly in light of the comments Antonin Scalia made prior to his death. If the language in our statutes means nothing, there's really no point in going through the extravagantly expensive charade of paying people to write, execute and adjudicate those statutes.

 

Good question, but consider Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

A ruling from a time that hardly validates it as worthy.

Reconstruction!
Immediate post War Between the States


​

Moi
Repeal the 14th passed under duress
with 4 sections, unrelated
and a bane on our judicial freedoms today .

 

Sorry, I don't agree with undoing the 14th amendment, as it disallows states the right to deny citizens due process. States are non-existent without the citizens that inhabit them and thus ought to have greater rights then the states they compose.

 

under the reasons stated in the ruling. An otherwise vacant lot, in an urban setting, that is not being developed for the benefit of the community. Yes.

 

How is kent state in any way relevant to a state in open rebellion and treason?

 

the supreme court says otherwise. States can not secede. Congress must agree to expel them, or the states must have a convention and 2/3 agree to expel the state.

 

Texas v White

 

no, it's just the fevered delusions of libertarians. The supreme court has ruled on this. You lost.

 

article 1 section 10.

Texas v White

 

CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. Congress will not allow them to leave.

 

If Texas was part of the Confederacy, a different country, had seceeded as you state it could then it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States and the SCOTUS.

 

SCOTUS ruled they were never part of the confederacy, as states can not secede. They were and remained a state of the union since they were first accepted.

Texas v White.

 

Exactly. Since there is no prohibition, it is permitted.

 

except as you know, and the SCOTUS pointed out, states are prohibited from seceding from the union. It requires congressional approval, or a convention of states.

 

The right to secede is thusly retained.

 

Exactly. What's not prohibited it allowed.

A sovereign state may always leave a treaty into which it has voluntarily entered.

 

Most treaties have an exit clause - and if they do not, a party can simply declare it shall no longer be part to same.