Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

24601

(4,142 posts)
15. Lincoln refrained from describing the rebels with the T-word, even after they took up arms against
Mon Apr 14, 2014, 09:02 PM
Apr 2014

the U.S.

My fuzzy recollection is that SCOTUS decided (with a post-civil war opinion) that unilateral succession is not constitutional, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

By extension, succession is hypothetically possible, but the process remains undefined. Likely, it would require essentially reversing the process for statehood and Congressional concurrence would be necessary.

Treason on the other hand is defined precisely in the Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

A vote, even one to declare war, falls far short of actually levying war. And in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War, there would be a shortage of enemies to aid & comfort.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Get the popcorn SummerSnow Apr 2014 #1
Got mine. AAO Apr 2014 #9
I love the smell of treason in the morning. roguevalley Apr 2014 #2
Lincoln refrained from describing the rebels with the T-word, even after they took up arms against 24601 Apr 2014 #15
legalistically, probably true. However, I feel treason sort of describes the contempt I feel for roguevalley Apr 2014 #16
So it's probably a good thing that the Constitution sets a high bar for treason. If it was left to 24601 Apr 2014 #17
is it now against the law to have feelings? roguevalley Apr 2014 #19
Not in the least. But translating those feelings into state action wouldn't be constitutional. 24601 Apr 2014 #20
Two Ideas for a Name chuckstevens Apr 2014 #3
Well, bless their hearts. Mr.Bill Apr 2014 #4
me too :) n/t jaysunb Apr 2014 #10
Some of the news these days reminds of the late 1850s agbdf Apr 2014 #5
FUCKING "SHERMANIZE" THE DOUCHEBAG TRAITORS!!! madinmaryland Apr 2014 #6
Such childish behavior Auggie Apr 2014 #7
duplicate muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #8
If Wisconsin is succesful in secession does this prevent Scott Walker from running Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #11
Go ahead and secede. Just don't look to us for help muntrv Apr 2014 #12
China kardonb Apr 2014 #13
Wisconsin will never actually secede, of course, but The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2014 #14
Wisconsin, we put the "fun" in dysfunctional. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #18
A theory on these rather eccentric GOP gyrations Ned Fenwick Apr 2014 #21
Locking. William769 Apr 2014 #22
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Wisconsin Republicans To ...»Reply #15