because they are bound by the constitution. They are precluded from leaving the union. safety, trade etc
What does that have anything to do with it? Again why would a state join the Union if they didnt have the option to leave if especially the house became just a kangaroo court?
The alt left radicals refuse to cite the text of the constitution they are "referring" to. Best to not feed trolls on here anymore. We've done it too often.
I am still amused some posters think America is Hotel California, you can check in anytime you like but can never leave..
Of course its revenant, they never would of joined a free country if they never could leave. Common sense, no?
They can't cite it because it doesn't exist. And of course they know this, so they say, "I already cited it."
Sweet- just cite the text of the constitution you're referring to and we can believe you. Easy peasy.
You actually failed to do that. You posted a link to a Court Ruling. Is it too difficult for you to cite the TEXT from the Constitution that you're referring to? If that's too difficult...feel free not to reply so we know it's such a challenge. If you reply once again, by failing to cite the Constitution text you're referring to...we know the strength of your argument. Thx!
Which cites the specific parts of the constitution preceding states from seceding. Read the ruling. Or don’t. I don’t give a **** either way. States won’t be able to secede whether you read it or not.
There's no provision that says they can't either. In fact the Constitution clearly states that anything not explicitly spelled out is up to the states. So the Constitution not banning anyone from leaving means states can leave. The official interpretation is that states can't leave unilaterally which is logically consistent with how states join but succession by consent is legal.
Huh ? Simple fact they can. Its preposterous to think a person can enter a marriage and no way out if the other person is cheating on them/screwing one over in the land of the free
Thank you for once again, refusing to cite the mere text of the constitution that could verify your "claim". Much appreciated. Look forward to future discussions when you claim someone "lacks evidence".