Can the union kick out a state!

[OC for ME]

The feds can violate contract law. All ya need to do is read Kelo (confiscating private property for private use - for tax revenue) decision, and Obamacare (taxing you for your mere existence in this country) decision.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I remember reading an analysis on this issue, from either secession on expulsion by or of a state, from a legal perspective not all that many years ago. I do not recall much of it beyond the concepts involved but I'll offer what I do recall.

The basic premise of the analysis is that each Union-State relationship post Constitution is essentially a contract between Union and state. The Territory asks to be admitted to the Union as a state, the Union agrees and a contractual Compact of Statehood is entered. The argument ran that secession or expulsion is not a constitutional issue but rather a legal issues, specifically a contract law issue. The way it would be invoked is through a suit for breach of contract. All of this was different for the original signatories of the constitution as they are bound differently being original signatories.

The way that would work (again, as I recall the argument) would be say Texas argues that the Union is breaching its duty to the state to protect its international border. So TX sues the US for material breach of contract and argues that the breach is so egregious as to void the terms of the contract and releasing TX from the terms thereof which means it is no longer subject to the terms of statehood and for all purposes is therefore no longer a member state of the Union. Expulsion would operate similarly but would also require an act of congress, IIRC, ratifying the undoing of what they voted to ratify in the first place.

I know that sounds convoluted and I wish I remembered it more clearly and/or recalled the entire statehood process to put it in better context. Perhaps someone else read this and has a better recall of both the analysis and statehood law to put more sense to the topic. I remember finding the entire thing fascinating at the time and I think it was written in response to a secession movement in Montana at the time but again, it is all a bit fuzzy.

That makes sense.
Pretty much what I was thinking too. So if a state refuses to have a republican form of government the other states can decide not to associate with it anymore for failing to uphold that provision in the federal constitution.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Citizen you seemed to be closest about the clause according to Kevin Gutzman. His opinion was it was written in response to Shea's Rebellion. Looks like due to time restraints he didn't get around to answering the kick them out question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-_tplfmbs around the 17 min mark here

http://jrlp.podbean.com/- around the 50 min mark here I think.


He does destroy the idea that the 14th amendment granted feds the authority to mess around with state law, and "incorporate" the BOR in this episode.

A few things I disagree with Gutzman on but this is a great episode many of the questions Johnny asked were ones I helped him develop. For an audience who may be very ignorant of the constitution, from schooling or media or state propaganda.

Disclosure Johnny Rocket and the crew are friends of mine, whom I thought not very libertarian, but it is fun watching him grow more and more libertarian to the point he went from a conservative to now a minarchist as he grows in knowledge. Also his show is just plain fun to listen too even if you don't agree, but you can't be sensitive about certain words or political correctness.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Kevin Gutzman. His opinion was it was written in response to Shea's Rebellion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-_tplfmbs around the 17 min mark here

http://jrlp.podbean.com/- around the 50 min mark here I think.

I wish he had mentioned a source where I could read more about it. I can't quite make the connection between the clause (guarantee a republican form of government) and helping a state with a revolt.

Article 4 says:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

So, helping a state during a revolt seems covered by the domestic violence clause.

I just can't make it out the way Gutzman says just on what he said. I don't see the connection. I'm not saying there isn't one; I'm saying I can't see it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wish he had mentioned a source where I could read more about it. I can't quite make the connection between the clause (guarantee a republican form of government) and helping a state with a revolt.

Article 4 says:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

So, helping a state during a revolt seems covered by the domestic violence clause.

I just can't make it out the way Gutzman says just on what he said. I don't see the connection. I'm not saying there isn't one; I'm saying I can't see it.

Good it wasn't just me. I don't doubt that may be his understanding but yea sources would be great.

 

[Citizen]

Good it wasn't just me. I don't doubt that may be his understanding but yea sources would be great.

I wish he had more time to go into Shea's Rebellion. He did add that the tax laws against which the western part of the state was rebelling were quite onerous, so that is something.

The short story is that during the revolution, patriotic people in MA bought state government debt (made loans to the government to prosecute the fight against the king.). But, the government issued so much debt, the value of the debt instruments (bonds and so forth) fell dramatically.

Then after the war, a number of people went around buying up these debt instruments at market value (well below face value). Then, successfully lobbied the state government to pay off the debt instruments at face value. Thus, the tax law Gutzman mentioned--the legislature voted to increase taxes to pay off the debt at face value to the speculators who had bought it at low market value.

Of course, the people were outraged at being burned twice: the first time when their loans to the government plummeted in value; and the second time when they were going to be taxed to pay it off at full value.

Gutzman mentioned the onerous tax law required tax payment in gold and silver. I can only imagine the point being that people couldn't pay the taxes with funny-money bank notes or some other vehicle that allowed them to cut their losses, but in real gold and silver--actual money, maybe in somewhat shortened supply after the inflation of the revolution. Wanta bet whether the speculators asked for and got written into their debt repayment law that they would be repaid in gold in silver? That is to say, the statute saying the state debt would be repaid in a form--gold and silver--that couldn't be inflated, such as notes printed at will by the government and discountable by the market (the people/public)?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wish he had more time to go into Shea's Rebellion. He did add that the tax laws against which the western part of the state was rebelling were quite onerous, so that is something.

The short story is that during the revolution, patriotic people in MA bought state government debt (made loans to the government to prosecute the fight against the king.). But, the government issued so much debt, the value of the debt instruments (bonds and so forth) fell dramatically.

Then after the war, a number of people went around buying up these debt instruments at market value (well below face value). Then, successfully lobbied the state government to pay off the debt instruments at face value. Thus, the tax law Gutzman mentioned--the legislature voted to increase taxes to pay off the debt at face value to the speculators who had bought it at low market value.

Of course, the people were outraged at being burned twice: the first time when their loans to the government plummeted in value; and the second time when they were going to be taxed to pay it off at full value.

Gutzman mentioned the onerous tax law required tax payment in gold and silver. I can only imagine the point being that people couldn't pay the taxes with funny-money bank notes or some other vehicle that allowed them to cut their losses, but in real gold and silver--actual money, maybe in somewhat shortened supply after the inflation of the revolution. Wanta bet whether the speculators asked for and got written into their debt repayment law that they would be repaid in gold in silver? That is to say, the statute saying the state debt would be repaid in a form--gold and silver--that couldn't be inflated, such as notes printed at will by the government and discountable by the market (the people/public)?

That makes sense. Makes perfect sense for the clause in the constitution against states "printing" money.

 

[KBCraig]

"The Union" created a state that didn't exist in violation of the Constitution, and still recognizes it. West Virginia, anyone?

 

[Citizen]

"The Union" created a state that didn't exist in violation of the Constitution, and still recognizes it. West Virginia, anyone?

Hey! Your're right! I hadn't thought about that!

Either VA legitimately seceded, and the Union was willing to admit WV as a splinter from VA, or VA was still a state and WV could not splinter without the approval of the VA legislature.

Lincoln and the rest can't have it both ways.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"The Union" created a state that didn't exist in violation of the Constitution, and still recognizes it. West Virginia, anyone?

Perfect case were the constitution has failed to hold in check those who take an oath to uphold it. The dictator like Lincoln creating a state out of perfect air.

I wonder if that was done on purpose as a precedent to try to prove that the feds are the principle not the agents, the exact opposite of the original union.