Do states have the right to secede?

To answer your question dear author, I would like to say that states do have the right to secede since most of them volunteered to join the union hence they also have the right to get out of the union. Just think of the action as a contract joined together by two voluntary members. If one can join, then one can also leave. Unless of course, the contract is somewhat like what's going on in the Mafia, but of course our world is not like that. In addition, to make a more modern analogy, just imagine every worker rights to enter to the workforce and leave when they want to.

I tend to agree with you Hoa. States have every right to secede. If one did, however, I think it would promptly be invaded by the feds and forced back into line. Because that's our fake freedom in the 21st century.

People have complained about taxation for generations, and the solution is quite simple, if even 2/3 of the current workforce were to stop working for three months, the government could not function. the loss of income would so great, that there would be no way for the federal government to recover, and would simply have no choice but to dissolve. We the taxpayers, hold all of the cards, yet many of us are blind to that fact. There are no laws on the books that states that any american citizen must have a job, or be gainfuly employed. We hold the power, but we have been told by the government for so long that they have the power, we have all been snowed into this beleif.

The problem with the idea of secession is the simple fact that americans as a whole, have truely lost the willingness to place their personal issues aside, and stand together for a common cause. Such a stand has not been made since the civil rights movement. However, the "tea parties" although small in scale, if handled properly may be able to bring like minded citizens together for that common cause. The question that would remain is would they be willing to place all they have on the line for such an idea. My guess would be no. We as a nation have become so cozy with our lifestyles, that very few would be willing to risk all for change. Example: Every week the lottery holds drawings for millions of dollars, we all would like to be millionaires, however none of us are willing to drain our bank accouts and spend it all on lottery tickets. why? the risk of losing everything is simply too great. This may not be the perfect analogy, but i think i is a simple way of putting things into perspective.

Why is it that the United States wants Russia to allow its states to be free to govern themselves in a democratic fashion and, yet, it forces its will on its own states? Before it is over with, there will be a series of secessions from the United States...some joining to form a formidable oil rich region with major ports. The people of a region are more than capable of governing themselves...no need for Nancy Pelosi or the other cronies.

My opinions tend to lean towards your way of thinking. I cannot support an entity enforcing a standard on someone else that it does not apply to itself. I'm listening to a very interesting audio book called Empires of Trust that compares the Romans with the Americans as far as government. I wonder where the American cycle is at this point in the game. How long before Washington's arrogance becomes its own worst enemy?

Secession in many ways could be a positive development, except for the geo politics of the age. Imagine a fractured USA, The Republic of Texas, New Britannia (New England), California Republic...etc...
No one voice speaking for all, each supporting their own ideas would probably lead to the conquering of one at a time by a foreign power like China all the time promising that it had no problems with the other republics.
AS Lincoln said, United we stand, Divided we fall...and that didn't only mean for slavery.Our strength is in our unity. Division will totally and forever end our existance as a people.

Interesting comments. I live in Canada and a few years ago I started wondering about Lincoln's right to force the South back into the Union. We had a referendum in Quebec about whether they wanted sovereignty association. This was a rather mealy mouthed proposition that looked like it was to sway Quebecers to vote 'oui' to leave Canada.

Anyhow, I don't remember anybody saying that Canadian armed forces would invade Quebec if they voted yes.

There was some talk from some of the Indian tribes in Quebec that they would *not* secede from Canada. This could have been interesting.

The vote was *extremely* close... something like 49.5 in favor of separation and 50.5 not in favor.

Whether there was vote tampering is a debatable point.

It seems to me, and many people that live in Western Canada that Quebec leaving the confederation would not necessarily be a bad thing.

This referendum got me thinking about other countries that had divided. Norway and Sweden, Czechoslovakia, the USSR. None of these fought civil wars.

So, how was the United States justified in forcing the South back into the Union? The question of slavery is just a smoke screen as has been pointed out, Lincoln himself had said that he would free every slave to maintain the Union, but also would keep every slave in bondage to maintain the Union.

I don't agree that just because the Civil war has been fought and decided that it is meaningless to discuss whether or not the North had the right to try and force the South back into the Union.

@Me: Time has a way of changing everything.

Fact is,
The American people are not interested in seceding. So it doesn't make any difference. In order to secede the people must be unhappy enough to get involved. And as long as our celebrities make the headlines, our prime time television is still entertaining and we have enough pepsi in the fridge, gas in the tank and food in the cupboard, we are perfectly happy with Government running our lives. You have to be unhappy enough to put up a substantial stink, and be willing to sacrifice substantially in order to make a change large enough to matter. And we are to well fed, fat, and happy to do that. Government wants us content, so much so that they are willing to hand out free coupons in order to keep us in front of our televisions, watching what they want us to watch, caring about what they want us to care about.

something so monumental as splitting the country up is well beyond the American public's capabilities, we couldn't even muster up enough momentum to get Immigration tackled, so our borders are still overrun.

we are a well fed, fat, happy lot who will do nothing. we are exactly where Government wants us.

Did you seriously compare our prison numbers to the angelic, freedom-supporting democracy of China?

I hope to God that you arn't that nieve, China simply executes its prisoners or alters the data. The main problem in the U.S. is a corrupt culture.

If you look at the name, it is the United States, not New Britian, or South Africa, or Australia, or any other former English colony, the states were their own governments that, once severed from England, were independent countries, they agreed to act together for mutual self-benefit, just like the current European Union.

The civil war didn't decide anything. Lincoln provoked the South by retaining part of South Carolina's territory, then invaded the south, drafting thousands of civilians, many of whom would be sent to their deaths to defend what? The answer is federal power. The problem with a central government is it never wants to give up power, sadly people have forgotten our history, they don't realize how important the individual state governments were supposed to be. Over the years, the state governments have slowly lost power and been manipulated by the national government.

For example, the migration of birds is considered inter-state commerce so the national government takes over. That is ridiculous. Where in the constitution was the Supreme Court supposed to be able to dictate or override and state laws, why are there no checks and balances for what the supreme court says.

Secession was not banned in the constitution, and the power to force them to stay in the union was not given to the federal government. Sadly, today, state leaders and governors are too greedy and concerned with receiving money from the federal government to confront the leash around their neck. All that money comes from the states anyways.

Lincoln illegally arrested senators from Maryland who were going to vote to secede, he arrested them, and it was determined to be illegal 4 years later in 1864, by then it was too late. If Maryland had joined the south, the south could have been the United States, and the north the "rebels".

Our nation is divided between those who are willing to preserve their own heritage and their own culture and those who want to embrace socialism and see their culture paved over by multiculturists and political correctness. I say, let the Northeast secede, and california too, those are the only real democratic powerhouses. If they think socialism works, then let them try hit, history tells a different tale. And if they think national socialism will work, I would like to see what happens when Obamas Civilian National Security Force starts to repress any dissidence.

When did the supreme court decide that if it didn't like a law, it could choose to re-define the meaning to the point of redundancy. The constitution is the supreme courts toilet paper. I can't believe that they almost voted to ban the right to bear arms, it was a 5-4 vote against. Its too bad they didn't vote for it, they knew they didn't have the power to enforce it back then.

I want to see them try to take away our right to defend ourselves from tyranny. 3/4ths of the military is from the south, who would enforce their rules.

Oh, and being willing to spill the blood of its own citizens won't always be a position the federal government can take. When a state points a nuclear weapon at D.C., all of the greedy, self-absorbed politicians will think twice about invading it.

The federal constitution has absolutely nothing in it that prohibits a state from seceding from the Union.

The federal constitution has absolutely nothing in it that requires a state to stay in the union.

That said, the powers of the 9th and 10th amendments of the federal constitution clearly specify whether a state has the right to secede.

These amendments clearly state that any rights or privelidges not covered in the federal constitution are left to the states and or citizens themselves.

From this standpoint, the states do infact have the right to secede. And the people as well.

I quote the Declaration of Independence:

"When any form of government becomes destructive to [the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], *it is the right of the people* to alter or abolish it, laying its foundation in such principles and structuring its powers in such form that as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

That may not be verbatim, I'm quoting from memory.

It seems pretty obvious that the 10th amendment recognizes the right of states to succeed. That being said, what does the Constitution really matter in government anymore?

We should have the right to secede, although the punishment that would be enforced upon any state doing so by the rest of the republic would probably unbearable.

Although the whole concept of "what about all the money states get from the federal government" is moot, because all the money the federal government gets comes from forced taxation upon citizens of a state, so in reality if we were taxed the same amount and it went directly to our states we would probably have more money because less would be wasted in overhead.

and to "I won’t try to speculate on the validity of democracy as a form of government; its what we have and", you should know we don't have a Democracy, we have a constitutional Republic, that allows for a Democratic process in many of our elections. None the less we aren't completely ruled by the majority or those in power but by what the constitution says and allows.

Quote from Trevor

"fair and undisputed is clearly inaccurate. The election was clearly disputed or there wouldn’t have been a civil war."

That is not entirely correct. The election results themselves were not disputed. The South had long standing grievences against the North and the results of the election of 1860 were just the straw that broke the camel's back. The election was fairly held.

The secession (not to trivialize the matter) was a lot like the idea of a kid who "takes his ball and goes home" when he loses at basketball. This is obviously an over-generalization and is only intended make my point about the election of 1860.

And I think you are correct that we may not have been "reclaimed" by Europe. But I have a feeling that Canada would be alot bigger today. :)

PDX,

Assuming you buy into democracy as a valid system of governance then yes, the election of 1860 was a "fair" election.

However, if 6 people vote to kill 3 and take their property, I advise the 3 to fight the election results. I'm fairly certain that's how a lot of Southerners were feeling in 1860.

It's a complicated issue, particularly when the slavery issue gets brought into it. Over the years I've come to feel that we traded chattel slavery of dark skinned people for economic slavery of everyone.

I'm still thinking it over though. Thinking about freedom and the nature of government is probably a lifelong project.

Fair enough,

I won't try to speculate on the validity of democracy as a form of government; its what we have and, until that changes, we need to play by the rules. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the "rules" are usually dictated by those that have more resources (money, guns, people, whatever).

It's not always fair, but if enough of us dislike things we can change them, and that is something special indeed.

I usually play by the rules. However, I reserve the right to ignore the rules when the rules are in opposition to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If God only dictated ten rules to follow, Congress does nothing to engender respect for rules by writing volumes of gibberish every time it convenes.

I have to go with my conscience over Congress. If we must agree on rules to follow - the rules of the land - I'll accept the spirit of the Constitution as my guide.

Well said, and not at all unlike the reasoning for secession. The "spirit of the Constitution" is a noble term (and one that I think we can all agree on), however, where we run into problems is when we try to decide who interperates that "spirit". The Constsution is vague and our problems are specific.

That being said, nothing in my origianl post should be construed to mean that I do not understand, or even sypathize with, the feelings of Southerners during secession. I was simply offering my opinion on why the North may have felt that allowing seccession was not a viable option.

Ultimately I’ve come to believe that only I can interpret right and wrong. I realize this means others will judge me.

Freedom is a state of mind. Political systems exist to serve those with power. Power engenders choice. Choice equates to freedom. It all gets complicated.

The bottom line is that I want to live in a society that breeds, fosters, encourages, values and rewards independent constructive creativity.

Change you can believe in is long overdue, and Obama is going to be a huge disappointment to most of his acolytes.

Here’s my 2 cents on the issue.
 
The decision of the North to not allow secession was not a matter of economics or some moral obligation to curtail slavery.  The real issue (in my opinion) was a more basic idea: the preservation of the United States.  Not in a geographic sense, but the preservation of the very existence of the U.S. itself.  Its power.
 
To allow the secession of states which disagree with the result of a fair and undisputed election (i.e. Abraham Lincoln) is to allow any state to override the authority of the U.S. Government whenever it chooses.  Allowing Southern secession would set a precedent that would undoubtedly lead to the unraveling of the remaining states.   If Montana disapproved of Roe v. Wade . . . secede.
 
The southern states claimed that they had the right, since the “states” had created the Federal government, to overturn any federal law within their own borders if they disagreed with it.  The federal government, on the other hand, thought that the interpretation and judgment of laws should be left to the Supreme Court.
 
Regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal, allowing secession is a risky move; the North just happened to come out on top.  Had the South won the civil war, they would not have been able to justify trying to stop any state inside the CSA from seceding in the future (since that’s how they came to exist), thus securing for themselves the same fate bestowed upon the USA. 
 
I believe that, had the South won, there would not be any United States, or Confederate States, in existence today.  We would have long ago been reclaimed by Europe as our own internal squabbles eroded our power base and left us vulnerable to foreign influence or attack.

Thoughtful comment but I have a point of contention - fair and undisputed is clearly inaccurate. The election was clearly disputed or there wouldn't have been a civil war.

I am dubious that we would have been "reclaimed" by Europe, at least long term. How many European colonies exist in 2008, worldwide?

That reference to Sun Tzu should be Karl Clausewitz.  Sorry.

Ed -- who, exactly, is teaching that the "southern confederacy [was] wrong?"  Can you point to any actual academic text that says that?  I'd be really interested in seeing that kind of bold statement in print, mainly because I would've expected my Georgia relatives would've plastered it on posterboard and stuck it on the side of their houses with all their other pro-Confederacy minutae if they could find such a thing.  I went to school in several states, and the spiel I always got was:  1) the South seceded to protect its states' rights, 2) the federal government (via the non-seceding states) started the Civil War, 3) the federal government eventually broke the back of the Confederate Army and destroyed much of the south's social and economic institutions in the process, and 4) after the war, slavery was abolished.  If something different is being taught today, I'd be interested to see the texts espousing such a view (please note that anecdotes that start with "I have a friend" or "my cousin" aren't helpful).
In any event, the issue of the "right" to secede is largely a rhetorical one (along the lines of "if we were to fight the Civil War today, who would win?").  The Constitution simply doesn't address the issue. 

The common interpretation of the Constitution is that the federal government is one of enumerated powers ... that is, it has the powers explicitly set out in the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment says everything else goes to the states.  Someone above said that amendment was "tossed out the window" in the 1930s, but that's not true -- the Supreme Court regularly invokes the 10th Amendment, stating that a wide variety of issues are controlled by state, not federal, law and principles.  Anyway, history seems to show that the drafters of the Constitution thought of the Constitution as somewhat of an experiment, and that several states expressed reservations about making the Constitution "permanent" -- they wanted to be able to leave if it didn't work out.  In a nutshell, that's your "legal" case for secession. 

The case against it?  Strict constructionists like Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas would tell you what the states and the drafters thought at the time was irrelevant.  Their intent is meaningless -- you have to look at the wording of the Constitution, and that's it.  Using that as a standard, one would have to have a very vivid imagination to find something in the 10th Amendment granting a "right" to not adhere to the Constitution.  After all, the entire Bill of Rights describes rights that must be afforded to people -- it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say you can dictate all these rights (to the people) on one hand, and then let state governments choose to ignore all of them on the other.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ on how that debate should come out.  Lord knows enough ink has been spilled over the issue.  But the reality is this:  the composition of a state or country or whatever is a political issue.  And what is "legal" when it comes to political issues like this is irrelevant.  I mean, just where would one go to get a ruling on such a "right?"  The International Criminal Court?  (We aren't members)  The U.N.?  (not likely)  Some county court in Kansas? 

This is the quintessential Marbury v. Madison question:  who will enforce this "right?"  The answer, in this case, is:  nobody -- the issue will be decided politically.  And remember that Sun Tzu accurately pointed out that war is politics by other means.  A state secedes and the larger state either allows it peacefully (think Hungary) or goes to war over it (think Kurds in Iraq).  Is it "legal?"  Was going to war in Korea legal?  Vietnam?  Iraq?  Does it matter to anyone but academic head-scratchers?  No, it doesn't.  If South Dakota decides to secede, no one will ever care if they have a legal right to do so -- the issue will be whether or not the federal government launches a war to suppress the revolution, and, if so, who wins the fight.  It isn't like some judge is going to issue a ruling on the legality of it all.  And even if some judge did, no one would really expect anyone to actually listen to that judge (just look at the controversy around most of our Supreme Court decisions).  It all comes down to whether a political agreement is brokered or the decision is made through a contest of force.  If South Dakota wins, the nation becomes one of 49 states.  If the state loses, we go back to business as usual (that is, we debate the "legality" of it all ... even though the debate is irrelevant for all intents and purposes ... for the next 200 years).

The South seceded (legally or otherwise) and the North imposed its will by force (legally or otherwise).  We can debate the merits of that until the cows come home, but as I implied above:  that's nothing more than junior high debate-team fodder.  I mean, what if Katrina hadn't broke the levees?  What if Chamberlain's appeasement worked?  What if we won the Korean War?  Was there an international legal principle justifying apartheid?

Who cares.

You can only dissect these issues so far.  In the end, it just doesn't matter.  The Confederacy was wiped out more than a century ago, we don't have slavery anymore, we aren't part of England, no state is even discussing the possibility of seceding (cut off those highway $$$?  no way!), and the Civil War gets about 2 hours worth of discussion in any high schoolers' education.  Yes, a lot of people died, but it's over.  It's done.   The southerners are the biggest "proudtobeanAmerican" flag wavers we've got in this country.  It's time to just get over it and move on.

__

I do have to note that the states probably wouldn't get much use out of the nuclear weapons on their soil -- the folks guarding them are federal troops, only the feds have the launch codes, and (assuming the state respects the rule of law) those bases are on exclusive federal jurisdiction property.  The airmen guarding the silos are just as likely from New York and Vermont as they are from Alabama, so you can't really expect them to just throw down their guns and say, "Heck, ya!  I wanna secede!"  Remember they're being paid by the feds ...

And for Bryan, above:  The kid is yours, and you have a responsibility to care for him/her.  Pay your child support and quit bellyaching about it.  If you didn't want to support a child, then you should have used a condom.  I highly doubt you'll get any support from the former Confederate states on this issue, because having -- and supporting -- a kid is all about (hello) personal responsibility.

Did the US colonies have the right to secede from England? I would say yes.

Most people don't recognize the similarities between 1776 and 1861, but they're quite comparable. In both cases, one part of a country thought they were getting shafted economically, and so they broke away. In both cases, the people on both sides of the conflict viewed themselves as coming from a single national culture (the colonists thought of themselves as Englishmen, and the confederacy thought of themselves as Americans).

And in case the issue of slavery is confusing things for you, remember that in both cases the breakaway region owned slaves.

So why were the American revolutionaries right and the southern confederacy wrong? Only because that's how it's taught in schools...

Many people today share the view that the Confederacy committed treason by it's peaceful secession from the rest of the states. This is because its the winners that get to write the history. I doubt that any of the states will attempt to leave the union again, but Texas would have a pretty good shot at it, if it wanted to. :p
 
 
I agree that slavery=bad, but at the time, it was legal, and also found in the 'good' north, as in the 'evil' south. Many people assign the tag 'racist' to me, just because of my geographic origin, and not by my actions or beliefs.  I'm sure that the girls that showed up at my daughters birthday would be surprised at me being pegged as a racist, because they all happened to be of African decent...
In the meantime, the American people will be content to swallow any rewritten history that our public schools and public opinion will shove down their throats. Just as long as our Big Brother government provides them with "Bread and Circuses".

To secede or not to secede? That is the question.

FREEDOM! the right to seceded is a freedom and anyone who use force to impose and idea on someone else is a tyrant.

sic semper tyrannis!

john wilkes booth was justified and abe lincoln was wrong

1.)The 10th Amendment and 2.)"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " New Hampshire's Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's Bill of Right's:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The Kentucky Constitution also guarantees a right of revolution in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem properAll states shouldn't have to have this in their own Constitution, but sure wish mine had it!No debate here! 'Nuff said.

I agree with Snowbrdgrl 100%. The United States of America is made of of 50 INDIVIDUAL STATES, each with its OWN CONSTITUTIONS. The United States is a UNION!!! And as a Union its members HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ITS BEST INTEREST. When the Federal Govt. STOPS DOING ITS JOB, it is up to the Individual State to take WHATEVER ACTION NEEDED that is in the BEST INTEREST of ITS PEOPLE!

An estimated 25 million non-custodial parents in the Unites States with restricted access to their children and forced into a system of indentured servitude to their estranged families, a system which unquestionably violates the Geneva Convention on Slavery.

Anyone need a better reason to secede?

Gringo,

For some reason my blog has been tagging some of your posts as spam. I apologize, and I've been retagging them. My anti-spam tools are supposed to "learn." Hopefully, you'll become a safe poster in those routines shortly.

As to the likelihood of revolution, I think it's high, whether from without or within. And yes, it's more likely to be primarily economic.

Of course, change in human societies has thus far always been accompanied by some level of violence. I don't expect this century to usher in a new era of peace for the world.

Trevor,

Dale is correct that the issue was settled by force in the 1860s, but you and Jefferson Davis are correct that, "A question settled by force of arms remains forever unsettled." Anyone can resort to force at any time.

America's large prison population does not imply that America is not free. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "On June 30, 2006, an estimated 4.8% of black men were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9% of Hispanic men and 0.7% of white men." As in the case of illiteracy, the statistics merely indicate that we have a large minority population. China has a lower prison population because it's populated almost exclusively by Chinese, but America is certainly more free than China, this week.

I doubt that any state will secede in the near future. I expect that our socialist government will collapse economically, as socialist governments are wont to do. I can't predict what might happen after that.

Trevor,

As Dale said, the quesiton of secession was decided by force in the 1860s. I agree with you that the question was not settled for all time. Anyone can appeal to force any time he feels lucky.

As for prison populations, according to the Department of Justice, "At yearend 2005 there were 3,145 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,244 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 471 white male inmates per 100,000 white males." Like the statistics on illiteracy, the statistics on our prison population might simply reflect our large minority population. China has fewer prisioners because it doesn't have our minorities.

In any case, Americans won't revolt because their freedoms are diminished. As long as they have a car, a place to live, and a TV to follow the antics of Paris Hilton, the American sheeple will be content.

The Civil War said 'no'. I am thinking this is a settled issue.
The government of the United States will never permit a peaceful secession. So whether it is legally possible or not, the answer is still 'no'.

Once part of the United States the individuals are citizens of this country and their territory is not separate from the unified country. A "state" is not a nation state and part of a club, but a jurisdiction which is part of the United States of America.

Indivisible.

Indivisible is only any good if you can keep the rebellion down.

Interesting question Trevor. I'm just not certain of the answer, but this does make one ponder.

I can make a case for secession based on the 10th amendment. You know, the amendment that got tossed out the window in the '30s, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, nor does it empower Congress to wage war upon a state that secedes. Therefore, the 10th amendment implicitly authorizes states to secede.

The president does have power to suppress insurrections, but when a state votes to leave the Union in the same orderly manner in which it entered, it's hardly an insurrection. Lincoln's actions were entirely illegal. He should have been shot before the 1860 election.

Some of the books I've read suggest that the Yankee government could not afford to let the southern states secede. Most of the government's revenue was supplied by tariffs. The South imported more goods from Britain and Europe, and therefore paid the lion's share of the tariffs.

I can't answer for slantedplanet, but I would hope that a secessionist Republic of Texas would control its borders and abolish socialism. Neither of those things will happen under our present federal government.

Ironically, nowadays any state able to obtain control of nuclear weapons within its borders could secede with impunity. You might have noticed that the Bush administration has invaded Iraq and is rattling its saber at Iran, but has done and will do nothing to North Korea. North Dakota could become the principal nuclear power on the planet if a sufficient number of its citizens were so inclined.

So what makes you want to secede Slanted?

Maybe so, but this is one pissed-off Texan who would like to try it.

There is nothing in the Constitution about rights of the states in the first place.

There is Article I, Section 10 of the document provides the powers forbidden to the states which prohibits private money, raising armed forces and entering private treaties with foreign nations etc.

But its a interesting question. There really is nothing in the document that says a state can not secede from the union. But saying that every state is dependent on the federal government for allot of tax money for their budgets and programs. I would imagine that there would be a large outcry if a state attempted to do it today.

The Constitution may not directly address the right of states to secede but the Declaration of Independence addresses the right of individuals to band together and do so.