**PLEASE NOTE** I am neither wanting nor hoping for this discussion to devolve into a re-hashing of the Civil War, of slavery or for any "states' rights" issue(s) which are solely aligned with those issues. Further, I'm not wanting to start a debate about the error or correctness of such an effort, or however un/successful, feasible or wise it may ultimately prove to be. I am merely, and quite sincerely, asking about the legal and logistical questions of secession, as an ideal, and independent of any other and unnecessary encumbrance. Simply, I understand that you cannot discuss the issue of secession without some mention of "states rights", and that everyone will likely have an opinion on the subject, and don't mean to prevent that, where such is necessary - but don't want the discussion to sway too far beyond the strict confines of secession, alone. I am am not advocating for secession. I am not arguing for a dissolution of the U.S., in whole or in part, or of any injurious acts being committed toward it. I am not arguing for or against anything, really. I have no expectations as to where this discussion may go, and frankly, don't really care as to what conclusion we may arrive. ***End Note*** I'm a Civil War fan, but purely in a political / legal sense. I like to read about the political events of the time, and basically see how it all unfolded, and to learn about and understand the arguments and motivations of the main characters from both sides. I like to think about possibilities, and play "What if" - could it have been avoided, why did it come to a head at this time, and not 20 years prior or after, etc.? While I could rattle off the names of some major battles, prominent characters from either side, I am largely ignorant of the military aspects of it all, and truly have absolutely no idea as to who did what, when, why, etc. And even now, I don't fully understand the issue of singular importance to the entire episode - secession, itself. So, I ask: Can someone explain to me, using whatever knowledge, example, research, source you may wish or most prefer, why, exactly a state cannot secede from the Union, if it so chose to do so, and through peaceable petition and means? Is is there any means by which a state could officially, legally and peaceably secede? If so, what is it? Should a state petition to secede, what court could hear it? Wouldn't the federal court system, including SCOTUS, be forced to recuse themselves, as direct participants in the decision? What if they refused to hear it, at all, or to recuse themselves? Why would the US wish to force the perpetual membership of a state who did not wish to remain? And what would that forced membership say about how we value freedom and liberty? It's an interesting subject for me, and I'd appreciate any thoughts that anyone had about it.
As far as secession goes, no, I do not think it is legal for any state to secede from the Union. There is no allowances for it in the Constitution. You join, and that is it. State's Rights are superseded by Constitution, and as there are no legal means to secede, it is not allowed. The only way to secede is to do what the South did and declare you are leaving and risk war for forming a rebellion.
So, that's the only means by which secession may occur? Armed conflict? I don't doubt that this may be the case, but still, I find that impossible to believe.
I can't fathom why a nation would willingly allow a section to break away in it's Constitution. The only way it can happen is by a rebellion.
According to precedent, yes. Of course, slaves were property based upon precedent as well at one point. Unless there's a different ruling, there currently is no other way out besides winning an armed conflict.
I doubt it is the only way, but it is the only foreseeable way. Obviously, if the Federal Government was in no shape to fight, it would just have to let it go (see USSR breakup). But in a healthy state, the only way, as far as I can see, is to openly rebel and risk all that comes with that.
Speaking to your points (and not "at" you), and again, in full admission that you may absolutely be right, and even likely are: It's a convenient argument to say that there is no Constitutional basis for it, but what if the very reason you wish to secede is to be removed from / throw off that very authority? Simply, albeit cautiously offered, it seems like the equivalent of simply requiring that an atheist may only assert their disbelief in the existence of God, insofar as the Bible provides and allows. There are a great many things which are not explicitly allowed, provided for or guaranteed as rights within the exact text of the Constitution - but which have been successfully petitioned and allowed or prevented. Meaning, its absence cannot necessarily imply impossibility, at least perpetually. Should a state petition to secede, how could SCOTUS possibly refuse to hear it? But then, how could they actually hear it, as the embodiment of the third branch of the very government that the petitioner wished to throw off?
I think I can answer one question, why would the USA want to prevent secession? Simply precedent, let one go then others can follow. Yeah I know that one is easy. Of course in the case of California, I would be willing to take the risk.
Your first sentence speaks to the heart of the main question(s) I have. There is an inherent and intentional conflict there, and which seems simply unjust to me, at least on the face of it.
So, they would hold that state, or group of states, together, even against their will, and not for their benefit, but for the federal government's? That is likely absolutely true - but that neither sounds fair nor right to me. Hence, my conundrum.
That is the crux of it. There is no Constitutional language that the SCOTUS can even debate. Ergo, secession is illegal. Much like an atheist will be punished by God for his discretion, the Federal Government will come down on any state/territory that wishes to secede (ie openly rebel).
I hope Texas and Alabama test these waters, so to speak. There's others, but I'll just stick with those two for now. The questions you ask, and ask with good reason, are responsible for my belief that as it stands now, winning an armed rebellion is the only route for secession. There's no one authority either side would recognize to render a judgement on the matter. Who could? The UN? Well, most of the states that have loosely thrown secession around recently hate the UN more than they hate the US Gov't. The US Gov't would never forfeit their right of sovereignty over it's territory to a foreign body. It the definition of a conundrum.
I think I know the answer to this, but will wait for one of our legal experts to confirm: What would any court do with a contract between two persons and/or entities which was to be held in perpetuity, but offered neither the means nor allowance for one or more of the parties to terminate or dissolve it? It is my understanding that such would not be permissible without any means of exit, and would be thrown out / overturned, etc.
But I also doubt there is any serious desire by the populous to secede. Sure, it might be cute to sign an online petition, just to "stick it to the Man", but if the rubber were ever to hit the road, no one would seriously want to secede. Except, of course, for your superminority nutjobs. As far as being just or keeping a people/state in Union against their will, I would argue this is territory vs citizenry. At no point has the US ever held someone in country as a citizen against their freewill (sans the ugly slavery thing). You are always welcome to either a) leave or b) change the system via the system. But to secede means removing territory from the Union, and that is a different kettle of fish. The land ostensibly belongs to the Union (in the grandest sense, not on an individual level). You are subject to Union laws while living and owning said property, yet also you are granted a large helping of rights and freedoms as well. And there has never been any language to allow said land to leave. And that is just, in my opinion, as again, the land belongs to the Union, and the Union has a right to defend its land.
