Hal (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
libertango) wrote2001-02-06 10:12 am
libertango) wrote2001-02-06 10:12 am
Entry tags:
State of the Union
From a recent post to Slate.
"No one seriously believes today that states have the right to secede."
Hmm... I suppose that makes me "no one", or that my beliefs are frivolous. :)
It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "secede". If by that one means a unilateral withdrawal by a state (or states) from the Union, yes, that question is settled.
Three questions, though, are not:
* Is it permissible for Congress and a state to mutually agree that a state may leave the Union?
* Is it possible for Congress to unilaterally boot a state out?
* And, a question where I haven't done enough research, but I mention it: It is my understanding that the three states that joined the Union as independent nations -- Vermont, Texas, and California -- all have language in their respective treaties that allow a withdrawal based on mutual state-Federal consent. If such treaty language exists, is it legal?
This all isn't as frivolous as one might be tempted to think. Leopold Kohr, in his book The Breakdown of Nations, suggests that the reason the USA has been able to adhere as well as it has is due to the fact that no one state has the power to overwhelm the combined force of the other states. He uses Europe as a counter-example, where the Great Powers have long had the ability to stomp over smaller countries. Arguably, moves toward European union were advanced by the Cold War, because the old Great Powers were all equally inferior in power to the Superpowers.
The speculation to put on the table, then: Is it possible for any state to gain enough power to be a viable threat to the others? I suggest that Texas and California are possibilities, in the 50-75 year time frame. And if my belief about mutually agreed dissolution of the Union above is correct for those two states...
"No one seriously believes today that states have the right to secede."
Hmm... I suppose that makes me "no one", or that my beliefs are frivolous. :)
It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "secede". If by that one means a unilateral withdrawal by a state (or states) from the Union, yes, that question is settled.
Three questions, though, are not:
* Is it permissible for Congress and a state to mutually agree that a state may leave the Union?
* Is it possible for Congress to unilaterally boot a state out?
* And, a question where I haven't done enough research, but I mention it: It is my understanding that the three states that joined the Union as independent nations -- Vermont, Texas, and California -- all have language in their respective treaties that allow a withdrawal based on mutual state-Federal consent. If such treaty language exists, is it legal?
This all isn't as frivolous as one might be tempted to think. Leopold Kohr, in his book The Breakdown of Nations, suggests that the reason the USA has been able to adhere as well as it has is due to the fact that no one state has the power to overwhelm the combined force of the other states. He uses Europe as a counter-example, where the Great Powers have long had the ability to stomp over smaller countries. Arguably, moves toward European union were advanced by the Cold War, because the old Great Powers were all equally inferior in power to the Superpowers.
The speculation to put on the table, then: Is it possible for any state to gain enough power to be a viable threat to the others? I suggest that Texas and California are possibilities, in the 50-75 year time frame. And if my belief about mutually agreed dissolution of the Union above is correct for those two states...