Is secession legal under the US constitution?

[I WUB PUGS]

Secession is not illegal. There is a process and it is more than possible.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ok my internet just crashed when I was 95% through replying to your posts so I'm pretty pissed right now. I will try to remember the essence of what I wrote, but to be honest it probably won't address your points nearly as effectively as before.

Supporting California secession does not mean any of the things you mention there.

Secession is not illegal. There is a process and it is more than possible.

Secession is unconstitutional. The kind of Anti-Federalism persuant of nullification is unconstitutional. I wrote a bit about it here and the ensuing discussion. PM me for more info.

[I WUB PUGS]

Secession is unconstitutional. The kind of Anti-Federalism persuant of nullification is unconstitutional. I wrote a bit about it here and the ensuing discussion. PM me for more info.

Texas vs White says different.

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Source

A State may apply for secession and will do so if the other states in the Union agree to it.




This kid is fun to read though, a perfect wonder of a young entrenched mind who will probably mutate into a communist by the time he's 30. Oh the wonders of youth and how people change once the world gets a hold of them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Texas vs White says different.
Source
A State may apply for secession and will do so if the other states in the Union agree to it.

Texas v White was contradictory and idiotic since the US gov declared any Confederate contracts and liabilities null and void at the end of the war.

A state gaining the Congressional and USSC approval to leave the Union and Constitution which said state agreed to follow by joining the Union would certainly be unprecedented if legal. What is not legal or Constitutional is nullification and/or the right of a state to secede on its own volition, as I pointed out in the linked thread. That is what is currently implied by the term "secession." If California, for example, gained federal approval to be discharged from its rights and responsibilities as per the Constitution, that would probably be legal. If the California state government simply voted to secede and threw the Feds out, that would not be legal as the states do not have that Constitutional power. If they did, there would be no sovereign law as any person could simply decide not to follow it just because - the very definition of "nullification." Pretty simple stuff that has been obscured and romanticized by Lost Cause simpathizers who don't want to admit that the South seceded to protect slavery. See the linked thread.

[Admiral Piett]

Texas v White was contradictory and idiotic since the US gov declared any Confederate contracts and liabilities null and void at the end of the war.

A state gaining the Congressional and USSC approval to leave the Union and Constitution which said state agreed to follow by joining the Union would certainly be unprecedented if legal. What is not legal or Constitutional is nullification and/or the right of a state to secede on its own volition, as I pointed out in the linked thread. That is what is currently implied by the term "secession." If California, for example, gained federal approval to be discharged from its rights and responsibilities as per the Constitution, that would probably be legal. If the California state government simply voted to secede and threw the Feds out, that would not be legal as the states do not have that Constitutional power. If they did, there would be no sovereign law as any person could simply decide not to follow it just because - the very definition of "nullification." Pretty simple stuff that has been obscured and romanticized by Lost Cause simpathizers who don't want to admit that the South seceded to protect slavery. See the linked thread.

Not speaking for the Civil War as this isn't the thread for that can of worms you seem to drag in, but Texas was a sovereign nation, which voted to annex to the US. That is what makes the case unique. Texas was not bound by the same rules as the other states. Hawaii has a similar situation. When a sovereign nation is annexed or absorbed by a foreign power, there is a legal precedent historically for separation. Like Ukraine from Russia. Regardless if its constitutional or not. Separation is rarely truly 'legal' in that sense. In actuality, President Polk had bypassed, illegally, the necessity of a formal treaty with the Texian Republic and it caused a great controversy then. The US had sought treaties for annexation of Native American territory. It took a great deal of political posturing to get the vote to pass for annexation and bypassed several of these technicalities.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Not speaking for the Civil War as this isn't the thread for that can of worms you seem to drag in, but Texas was a sovereign nation, which voted to annex to the US. That is what makes the case unique. Texas was not bound by the same rules as the other states. Hawaii has a similar situation. When a sovereign nation is annexed or absorbed by a foreign power, there is a legal precedent historically for separation. Like Ukraine from Russia. Regardless if its constitutional or not. Separation is rarely truly 'legal' in that sense. In actuality, President Polk had bypassed, illegally, the necessity of a formal treaty with the Texian Republic and it caused a great controversy then. The US had sought treaties for annexation of Native American territory. It took a great deal of political posturing to get the vote to pass for annexation and bypassed several of these technicalities.

Depends on the interpretation of Texas v White. In the interpretation that I WUB PUGS seemed to have adopted to support his argument, he claims that the decision affirmed Texas' sovereignty. In fact it did the exact opposite. The case had nothing to do with Texas' status as an annexed nation, and the bonds were issued 5 years after the state joined the Union anyway. On the one hand, which I adopted to match I WUB PUGS' perspective, the case is "idiotic and contradictory" because if the USSC was recognizing Texas' right as a "sovereign state," this would have conflicted with the federal cancellation of Confederate debts and contracts and any justification the federal government had for forcibly restoring the Union. I followed I WUB PUGS' line of thinking for the sake of argument to show that, even if the case meant what he claimed it did, that would only conflict with existing federal law.

The actual, official opinion of the Court, however, determined that Texas was a state even after secession. Remember, an important part of Lincoln's war policy was to treat the war and secession as a police-action, because to do otherwise would have recognized Confederate sovereignty. Hence the Court acted in accordance with this policy and allowed Texas to sue White and his partner to redeem the bonds because White had sold them illegally. The US Treasury was not responsible for bonds used illegally, but Texas, as a state in the Union, had the right to sue to recoup its losses. Texas did not argue as a sovereign state. She argued to the effect that precisely because the Confederate state legislature did not have the right to sell the bonds to finance the rebel war effort, everything White did with the bonds was also illegal; thus Texas had the right to sue for what was essentially stolen property. This is the argument that carried the day, not some "states rights" nonsense that was never even part of the case. Lost Cause sympathizers often paint this as a triumph of Texas' sovereignty when in fact it was a reaffirmation of federalism. If I remember correctly, you also used this case in the other thread as a legal precedent for secession (even though it took place after the war). Consider this the rebuttal I refrained from at the time.

Sorry to beat a dead horse about secession, nullification, and the war, but it was in response to a direct claim that secession is legal. I had little choice, especially since this is a vital issue that, as you can see, is horribly misunderstood.

[Simon Cashmere]

That is what makes the case unique.

Not unique, same thing with California.

[Admiral Piett]

Ah okay, I see your point Italica. Thanks for the explanation.

Not unique, same thing with California.

The California 'Republic' never existed. It was a 40 day revolt from Mexico which was stirred up by an American army. It resulted in US occupation of the territory and the acquisition of it via the Mexican-American War. California was never an independent entity.

[I WUB PUGS]

Secession is legal. The Supreme Court Justice specifically stated that it is legal but only through revolution (which the South tried) or the concession of the States.

The Chief Justice was slammed for this because he was a staunch Federalist during the Civil War and the opinion issued left the door open for further exploitation.

You obviously didn't read the entire opinion or understand anything about Constitutional Law. The majority of the opinion is about the bonds and whether or not he sale was valid. Every single word in an opinion issued by the SC is taken as law. We operate on precedence and this decision left open the possibility to leave the union through successful revolution or the consent of the states.

Constitutional Law can be incredibly complex unless the CJ takes a point to make a point plain, in this case he did so perfectly. A state may leave the union if by successful force of arms or by consent of the states.

I have been wrong though because I always believed that it needed to be all states consenting. The opinion of the court does not specify and therefor it is entirely possible that should a state sue for independence that even a slight majority in favor from the other states could result in independence. I would imagine that then again this would go before the Supreme Court, but they could not rule on whether or not secession is legal since it plainly is, they would have to rule on what exact vote from the states would constitute an approval.

But sure Legio, thanks for missing the real significance of the ruling and diverting away from it. I've never said that California or any state can simply vote to leave and then it's settled. There is nothing keeping a state from holding a vote on secession; according to the 10th amendment and then submitting it to the Federal Legislature and Executive for approval.




I said nothing of sovereignty for Texas, I was merely pointing out the that the Supreme Court of these here United States specifically left open the possibility of secession and they did so almost immediately after the country went to war over it.



The Bear Republic barely existed. When Commodore Sloat landed not 2 miles from where I type this, California essentially became an American protectorate and the California Republic died as soon as American troops made their presence known.

There are rumblings about Texas though. Apparently Texas retains the right to split into 6 States. This would give them 12 Senate seats of near identical mind and more weight than the Founding Fathers intended. If the SC blocked this, by rights it is possible that Texas could secede under the US Government breaking the contract it made with the Republic of Texas.

[Vanoi]

Secession is legal. The Supreme Court Justice specifically stated that it is legal but only through revolution (which the South tried) or the concession of the States.

Not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy[57] decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."[55][58]

If its successful, its legal. If its not, its illegal.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Secession is legal. The Supreme Court Justice specifically stated that it is legal but only through revolution (which the South tried) or the concession of the States.

Sigh...Secession is illegal, the USSC never even insinuated otherwise, and in fact reaffirmed federalism in cases like the one you yourself posted. The "natural right of revolution" is not secession, and the US government never entered any sort of "conditional contract" with Texas. See the linked thread and PM me to start a thread about it elsewhere.

In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy[57] decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."[55][58]

If its successful, its legal. If its not, its illegal.

I've heard this dichotomy before. It is ridiculous. If I murder someone and get away with it, that doesn't make murder legal.

[Vanoi]

i've heard this dichotomy before. It is ridiculous. If I murder someone and get away with it, that doesn't make murder legal.

But murder ≠ rebellion.

[I WUB PUGS]

Doesn't say if secession is legal or not White vs Texas does; although I doubt if Texas was independent for 10 years but fell on terrible times and the US tried to eat it without consent of the Texans, the Texans would be all happy about it.

[I WUB PUGS]

Find a USSC case that throws out the ruling from White vs Texas. I don't need to PM you or see your thread. You are throwing out the part about "Consent of the States" and focusing solely on the revolution part. If a state asks to secede and the other states okay it, then that is legal secession and is not barred by the constitution, and it is still secession and nothing nowhere says anything that you can't talk about it.

The Constitution works on precedence. No future rulings can remove what was interpreted in White vs Texas unless the Constitution is amended to expressly prohibit petitioning for secession or even talking about it, which no amendment like this exists.

You go out and find me the USSC opinion that nullifies what was written in White vs Texas. Future rulings can put constraints on White vs Texas, but they cannot nullify, only an amendment can.

*sigh* how cute, nice of you to not address:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

At all. These are the words of the Chief Justice, they are the interpretation of the law and cannot be changed by another Chief Justice, they can only be further defined, but they cannot be wiped away. You don't get to pick and choose in an SC Opinion for what is law and what isn't, every word in every phrase in every paragraph is chosen for a reason and they define how the law is interpreted.

...through consent of the States.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Find a USSC case that throws out the ruling from White vs Texas. I don't need to PM you or see your thread. You are throwing out the part about "Consent of the States" and focusing solely on the revolution part. If a state asks to secede and the other states okay it then that is legal secession and is not barred by the constitution, and it is still secession and nothing nowhere says anything that you can't talk about it.

The Constitution works on precedence. No future rulings can remove what was interpreted in White vs Texas unless the Constitution is amended to expressly prohibit petitioning for secession or even talking about it, which no amendment like this exists.

You go out and find me the USSC opinion that nullifies what was written in White vs Texas. Future rulings can put constraints on White vs Texas, but they cannot nullify, only an amendment can.

*sigh* how cute, nice of you to not address:

At all. These are the words of the Chief Justice, they are the interpretation of the law and cannot be changed by another Chief Justice, they can only be further defined, but they cannot be wiped away. You don't get to pick and choose in an SC Opinion for what is law and what isn't, every word in every phrase in every paragraph is chosen for a reason and they define how the law is interpreted.

...through consent of the States.

Fine, let's have this debate here....in the GOP VP thread.....your choice. Texas v White proves you wrong, and I find it hilarious that you would continue to try and use it to support the idea of legal secession. Did you even read the summary analysis of the case I posted? The case was not even about states' rights or sovereignty to begin with, but even if you want to have that discussion, Texas herself argued on the basis that secession is illegal and that is the reason she won the case If secession was legal, Texas could not have sued White because the sale of the Treasury bonds by the seceded Texan government to White would have been legal. Because secession is illegal, the effectively criminal seceded Texan government could not have sold Treasury bonds, especially not to further the cause of secession. Hence the sale to White was illegal, and White was liable to repay the value of the "stolen property" to the government of Texas. Where in the world do you get "secession is legal" out of that?

The Court furthermore stated that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". Chief Justice Salmon Chase, former Lincoln cabinet member, delivered the opinion of the court:

Chase first rhetorically asked how secession could be legal when the Articles of Confederation established a "perpetual union" that was then strengthened by the Constitution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Chase then affirmed the fact that Texas, by entering the Union, had not merely made a conditional agreement with other states, but wed herself to the perpetual union itself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

Chase then said that because the Union was perpetual and indivisible, Texas' secession was not legally valid. Texas had been a state since 1845, and remained a state during that time, regardless of an "insurgent" Texas government adopting ordinances of secession.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation

Chase clarified that the action of the US Government to restore the insurgent government of Texas to order was not a recognition of Texan or Confederate sovereignty because such an action was undertaken by the Constitutional power of the Federal Government to put down insurrections (Article I, Section 8).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former

Having established that Texas had always been a state in the Union, Chase maintained that the sale of the bonds to White was treasonous and therefore illegal because such action had been undertaken with deliberate intent by the insurgent government of Texas to aid the cause of illegal secession and insurrection against the United States.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void

So you basically continue to hold up a USSC case as justification for legal secession when in fact that very case monumentally declares secession to be illegal and invalid. You are completely, totally, inexorably, blatantly, unmistakably, and repeatedly incorrect, sir. If you mean to say only that an unprecedented scenario could arise whereby a state receives Congressional approval to leave the Union, that specific case could be legal. That is not what is conveyed by your statement "secession is legal."

But murder ≠ rebellion.

Murder and secession are both illegal, hence the legal premise is the same. Successfully committing a crime without discovery or punishment does not make the crime legal.

[I WUB PUGS]

It is illegal through revolution unless it is successful. It plainly states that secession is legal if the states consent. This is not hard to understand. Texas never left the Union because the states did not consent and she did not win it by revolution.

This does not close the book on secession, it leaves it open by stating that you can leave by successful revolution or by the consent of the states. The rest of the opinion is about the bonds, not about whether or not a state may secede. Once the CJ defined how a state can secede, which he did (DUH Jesus how hard is this) he went on to stipulate extensively how the bonds were still valid.

I don't need to have a debate the SC has plainly stated that states may leave if the rest of the states okay it. This seems to be some pet subject of yours but you still have not gotten around.

"through consent of the states"

You can't use historical examples either because the states have never consented to another state seceding and no state has won independence via revolution. This is the linchpin of the ruling, the door is still open and because of the opinion, the door cannot definitively be closed, only narrowed.

Nice job on the quotes though, really snazzy.

All you have to do is find a statement from the SC saying "secession is illegal under any circumstance". You won't because it doesn't exist because the CJ already defined how a state may secede. But hey, have at it. You don't need a huge post, you just need one quote and a source. Too bad it doesn't exist.

But hey if you want to look at history, look at how much heat Chase took for the opinion. No one gave a rats ass about the bonds, they cared about how a Lincoln Republican could leave open the door to secession. Real head scratcher, but it's law now.










I just reread this:

If you mean to say only that an unprecedented scenario could arise whereby a state receives Congressional approval to leave the Union, that specific case could be legal. That is not what is conveyed by your statement "secession is legal."

You are now trying to worm your way out of this with that statement. With this you acknowledge but underhandedly do so that a state may leave via consent. A state leaving via consent of Congress is still secession correct? So secession is legal, and you still can't produce a source saying that it is illegal to talk about.

Kids these days, it's like you want to argue even though you just wrote out what I've been saying all along. I never said "secession through force of arms" no I said "secession is legal".

It is, just gotta get an okay, and I've been saying that from day 1.

derp
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secession

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is illegal through revolution unless it is successful. It plainly states that secession is legal if the states consent. This is not hard to understand. Texas never left the Union because the states did not consent and she did not win it by revolution.

This does not close the book on secession, it leaves it open by stating that you can leave by successful revolution or by the consent of the states. The rest of the opinion is about the bonds, not about whether or not a state may secede. Once the CJ defined how a state can secede, which he did (DUH Jesus how hard is this) he went on to stipulate extensively how the bonds were still valid.

I don't need to have a debate the SC has plainly stated that states may leave if the rest of the states okay it. This seems to be some pet subject of yours but you still have not gotten around.

"through consent of the states"

You can't use historical examples either because the states have never consented to another state seceding and no state has won independence via revolution. This is the linchpin of the ruling, the door is still open and because of the opinion, the door cannot definitively be closed, only narrowed.

Nice job on the quotes though, really snazzy.

All you have to do is find a statement from the SC saying "secession is illegal under any circumstance". You won't because it doesn't exist because the CJ already defined how a state may secede. But hey, have at it. You don't need a huge post, you just need one quote and a source. Too bad it doesn't exist.

But hey if you want to look at history, look at how much heat Chase took for the opinion. No one gave a rats ass about the bonds, they cared about how a Lincoln Republican could leave open the door to secession. Real head scratcher, but it's law now.

I have not "wormed" my way out of anything. You said:

Secession is legal. The Supreme Court Justice specifically stated that it is legal but only through revolution (which the South tried) or the concession of the States.

Two things are wrong there. Even if you meant "secession" to be a mere severance of political bands and were not referring to Constitutional context or historical secession, you specified what you meant by the word "secession" as meaning the actions of the seceded Southern states. That action and any similar action is clearly illegal.

Chase specifically said that the Union is perpetual and indivisible. That statement alone would mean a state probably couldn't leave the Union even with Congressional approval, but I was willing to give you that since its never been attempted. Because such an action would be unprecedented, you cannot simply say "secession sanctioned by Congress is legal." If that's what you mean (though that's not what you originally said), then you are wrong there too because the issue would need to be carefully examined to judge whether it is legal. The natural right of revolution is not secession.

Texas v White did not "leave the door open" for secession, it slammed it shut once and for all. The War Republicans were angry, not because Chase left the idea of secession undecided, but because the latter argued in a manner that clearly defined secession as illegal whilst maintaining that the Southern Ordinances of Secession were not valid and thus the War Republicans could not treat the latter as conquered territories. The Conservative Democrats were angry because Chase firmly established federal supremacy. Once again, you seem not to understand the very case you continue to reference.

The US is the United States, not these United States. The states are not sovereign entities capable of deciding their relationship to the federal government at whim. No matter how southern sympathizers try to twist laws and history, secession is illegal in every existing context. Always has been, always will be. There is no debate about it, no "open door" loophole. You cannot theorize about a nonexistent scenario as though it is a fact. As I told Azoth, getting away with a crime does not make said crime legal.

[I WUB PUGS]

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't specifically refer to the Civil War at all and I never said the "secession" of the states during the war was legal. I simply said secession was legal, because it is, you just have to do it legally which is either through a successful revolution or consent of the states.

If Texas secedes through force of arms and is successful how is that illegal? Illegal to the US? Sure, but does Texas give a ? No, they aren't part of the US anymore if they succeed via revolution and US law no longer has a hold over them. So secession through successful force of arms is legal because a state has just successfully broken the bonds of union via force of arms. The US could say "it's illegal" all day, but they still lost the war.

If Florida petitions to leave the US via well a petition for secession and the Congress approves, then it is secession and Florida is then no longer part of the US. So not illegal.

"secession sanctioned by Congress is legal." If that's what you mean (though that's not what you originally said),

Quote me, find it, I've said in this thread and numerous other threads that California can secede if the other states approve/okay it.

Not my fault you automatically think I'm talking about the Civil War or raising arms and banners to break the union.

Chase said the Union is what it is, but he DID say you can leave through successful revolution or consent of the states.

I can theorize all I want about legal secession because it has never been officially barred. You can say it's unprecedented all you want (which is dumb because obviously there isn't a precedent) but it still doesn't change the fact that secession is legal.

If my state secedes through force of arms and we sign a peace treaty with the US saying we are independent, then I would say we successfully seceded, same thing if we did it via petition.

Once again, find the USSC Opinion that completely abolishes forever and always the ability of a state to secede and then while you're doing that find the one that says every time I say "California should seceded" I will be punished by the government. You can't find either of those because they don't exist.

Stop putting words in my mouth or assuming instead of getting clarification.

All I've ever said was:
"Secession is legal"

It is according to Texas vs White as I've laid out repeatedly that ever single word in an USSC Opinion is absolute law until an amendment makes it othewise.

You find the ruling that says:
"Secession is illegal"

I don't care if you don't like my make-believe-hypothetical-fantasy, you can't say that secession is illegal because it isn't, there are no laws saying so. Maybe I'm wrong but White vs Texas says I'm not, and you still can't find a ruling that says I am wrong.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't specifically refer to the Civil War at all and I never said the "secession" of the states during the war was legal. I simply said secession was legal, because it is, you just have to do it legally which is either through a successful revolution or consent of the states. Stop putting words in my mouth or assuming instead of getting clarification.

Really? Quoting you saying that secession "like the South tried" is legal is putting words in your mouth? If I am, I am merely putting the words back where they came from.

If Texas secedes through force of arms and is successful how is that illegal? Illegal to the US? Sure, but does Texas give a ? No, they aren't part of the US anymore if they succeed via revolution and US law no longer has a hold over them. So secession through successful force of arms is legal because a state has just successfully broken the bonds of union via force of arms. The US could say "it's illegal" all day, but they still lost the war. If my state secedes through force of arms and we sign a peace treaty with the US saying we are independent, then I would say we successfully seceded, same thing if we did it via petition.

For the umpteenth time, successful secession is not legal secession. For you to be correct, you would need to say "secession is possible," not "secession is legal."

If Florida petitions to leave the US via well a petition for secession and the Congress approves, then it is secession and Florida is then no longer part of the US. So not illegal.

That has never happened and there is no legal provision for that, so you can not refer to it in black and white terms. You could say "this scenario could be legal," not "this is legal," and you certainly can't then use your hypothesis to generalize and say "secession is legal."

Quote me, find it, I've said in this thread and numerous other threads that California can secede if the other states approve/okay it.

The states would have no say in it if you assume we are operating on a Constitutional basis. Since Congress admitted California, Congress would need to expel California and the USSC would decide if its legal. You don't even seem to know how your own hypothesis works.

Not my fault you automatically think I'm talking about the Civil War or raising arms and banners to break the union.

Really? What other "South" are you talking about when you say "like the South tried?"

Chase said the Union is what it is, but he DID say you can leave through successful revolution or consent of the states.

Really? The Union is indivisible unless the states, who would not have any say in the matter anyway, permit it to be dissolved? Obviously you are misreading something.

I can theorize all I want about legal secession because it has never been officially barred. You can say it's unprecedented all you want (which is dumb because obviously there isn't a precedent) but it still doesn't change the fact that secession is legal.

You must have a pretty interesting idea of what "the Union is indivisible" and "the Ordinances of Secession are null and void" means. I want to take whatever English class you took to arrive at this conclusion and derive "secession is legal" out of that.

Once again, find the USSC Opinion that completely abolishes forever and always the ability of a state to secede and then while you're doing that find the one that says every time I say "California should seceded" I will be punished by the government. You can't find either of those because they don't exist.

You find the ruling that says:
"Secession is illegal"

Texas v White

All I've ever said was:
"Secession is legal"
It is according to Texas vs White as I've laid out repeatedly that ever single word in an USSC Opinion is absolute law until an amendment makes it othewise.

Yeah, I know, it's not. The USSC case you keep harping on says so. You also said "like the South tried" which is especially illegal.

I don't care if you don't like my make-believe-hypothetical-fantasy, you can't say that secession is illegal because it isn't, there are no laws saying so. Maybe I'm wrong but White vs Texas says I'm not, and you still can't find a ruling that says I am wrong.

The official USSC Decision on Texas v White specifically says that the Union is indivisible and any attempts to secede from it are not legally valid. To a conventional English-speaker like me, that means "secession is illegal." To you, who I am beginning to think simply don't want to be wrong and refuse to admit it, this means "secession is legal." The only real justification you have for making the broad and clearly false statement "secession is legal" is a hypothetical scenario, which means nothing.

[I WUB PUGS]

Again, how would a successful force of arms or petition resulting in secession by consent of the states not equal secession?

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't and again, the blah blah blah more perfect union statement was then qualified immediately after that sentence with "by successful revolution or consent of the states".

Secession is legal if the states consent or through successful force of arms. You can't get around the statement.

The only possible scenario is a hypothetical one there genius since the only previous scenario is one where the states failed through force of arms, and 4 years later Texas vs White stated exactly HOW THEY COULD'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL BUT Texas did not meet either of these points so the bonds were still valid.

I don't care if you don't like the hypothetical, there is no definitive shutdown of the possibility of secession. Secession plainly in the plainest of plain English is "leaving an organization", Texas vs White specifically states how a state could leave the union.

A State may apply for secession and will do so if the other states in the Union agree to it.

Where in this statement do I refer to the south or the civil war?