Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, in deciding the merits of Texas v. White, the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to seced 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".
An Act of Congress would not be secession. It would be dissolution.
TX v White is baseless opinion by Chase, he ignored the 10th Amendment, took quotes from the Articles of Confederation out of context, etc.
I don't have to. It's been studied and debated by legal scholars and historians for over 140 years. Furthermore, the ruling had zero impact on the legal matters after the war: the Congress treated the states as conquered territory under military rule not as states, in contradiction to Chase's claims the states never left the union.
I don't have to. It's been studied and debated by legal scholars and historians for over 140 years. Furthermore, the ruling had zero impact on the legal matters after the war: the Congress treated the states as conquered territory under military rule not as states, in contradiction to Chase's claims the states never left the union.
That should put an end to the debate (if in fact there ever was a real debate) right there. The odds of Congress giving consent for a state to secede are somewhere in the vicinity of Slim and None.
A Republican Congress could very well give consent for California to secede as that would make it considerably more difficult for a Democratic presidential candidate to prevail in the Electoral College.
I don't have to. It's been studied and debated by legal scholars and historians for over 140 years. Furthermore, the ruling had zero impact on the legal matters after the war: the Congress treated the states as conquered territory under military rule not as states, in contradiction to Chase's claims the states never left the union.
Exactly right!
The Texas v. White case involved bond sales, not the right of secession per se. In order to get to the ruling they did, the majority of SCOTUS of the time, had to "prove" Texas had never left the Union. However, since that was not the original issue, the explanation they came up with was "dicta" and thus not binding in the realm of stare decisis, nor anything else.
As it is, no court has ever addressed the issue of secession, directly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
