From post #6 in the "New States?" thread:

What States may consider leaving the Union, and why?

By the way, when I studied at a US Law School, I had a teacher who said in a lecture that the War Between the States was considered to be a precedent establishing legally that States could not leave the USA.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

There are several States that have something in their Consitutions that express the right to leave the US if they choose. I will have to research a bit. Also somewhere in the Constitution it does say something to the effect if one State can do something they all can.

Vermont has been rumbling a little about seceding since the Amnesty bill was introduced.

__________________
Listener of the Wilkow Majority
Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian

Would Vermont chose full independence, or could they consider joining Canada?

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

didn't we fight a Civil War over this a while ago. I believe the federal government won.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Constitutionally, sucession is not mentioned, therefore it falls to the States under the 'powers not prohibited' mentioned in (IIRC) the 10th amendment. IIRC, Lincoln had to rationalize his justification for war by citing the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution and forbade sucession, which many of the southern states had signed.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

And we see where THAT has gotten us.

__________________

I never said it was a good thing, just that we've had this argument already.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Lawful secession never made any legal sense, just revolutionary sense. It is a breach of contract to withdraw without consent of others in the pact. Speakers at the time addressed such questions and they said it was intended to be perpetual, including Pinckney of South Carolina of the state later most famous for claiming the ability and its structure evidences that intent. It was intended to form 'a more perfect union' and there is no withdrawal clause. Most of the states were formed by the federal government anyway on land purchased or acquired by it, so it makes even less sense that the states can do this to the very entity that acquired and created them.

__________________

Winning a war doesn't mean you are right. It just means you get your way. At least for the time being...

My opinion on sessestion is that if a group of people want to be independent, then it should be allowed. I'm a big believer in self determination in a lot of cases.

Of course, I really don't think it would make too big of a difference for people living in a state if one left.

__________________
Nothing to see here.

nah the government there wants a free land where child molesters can roam free...the judges are in full support of that idea.

__________________

The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity; where everything is made simple, and in that simplification the truth is lost.

It is also a breach of contract to largely ignore significant terms of the pact, as the Feds do. At that point, I believe the standard is to consider the pact null and void unless the agrieved party has some lesser acceptable recourse, which I don't think any of the states do.

And yet there was no mention of it, nor reference to the preceding pact. They even tacked on the Bill of Rights to codify things that many members considered implicit. This leaves us with 'Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.'

Okay, here you have a good point. I still think the breach of contract would take precedence, but this aspect would put the Feds in good position for any post-partum squabbles over residual rights and responsibilities.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

It is a good point, but that cannot overrun the principle stated in the Constitution that that which is not given to the Federal Gov't to decide upon by the Constitution lies upon the States to decide upon. Talking about "penumbras" of the Articles in the Bill of Rights etc. may get good results when the SCOTUS resolves cases on civil rights, but it is still an extention of Federal power outside that which is expressly stated to be the realm of Federal jurisdiction. Even a State created by the Federal Gov't has all the powers not vested in the Union by the Federal Constitution. If the Federal Gov't cedes this power, so be it.

By comparison, would it be fair to have denied the Canadians sovereignty from Britain based on the argument that it was the British Gov't that set up Canada?

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

SCOTUS ruled secession illegal in Texas v. White:

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Of course that won't stop the propagandists from beating their dead horse.

__________________
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief." - Alan Greenspan

A long read, but apparently a correct interpretation of the majority opinion. An opinion using rationale that I expect would never hold up in any other context of contract law.

So an entity joins an organization. The bylaws of that organization include a comment (not even a binding clause) that does not explicity refer to a preceding set of bylaws, but could be construed to if one is well versed in those earlier documents. So the entity is thus bound by the preceding bylaws, which they never endorsed, rather than by the clear text included in the new bylaws that they Have endorsed? Judicial sophistry at its finest!

And whether one considers TvW to be applicable or not, it still doesn't address the 'breach of contract' aspect of any possible new successionist movements.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian