Is There a Right to Secession- A Look at the Constitution

Previous posts as to this topic are Regarding the Myth of the Right of State Secession , Is There a Right to Secession- Intro , and Is There a Right to Secession? A Look at the Union

Let us look at the document itself as to the question whether there is a legal mechanism of unilateral secession for States.

The short answer is there is not.The Constitution talks about how a new state would be admitted and even how new states formed out of old states would happen. But it is completely silent on any mechanism for a State to leave the Union in a unilateral fashion.

What does the Const say that might bear on any implied right of secession or lack thereof?


The Constitution guarantees to every state a republican form of government (Art. IV § 4),

prohibits states from entering into any compact with other states without Congressional
permission (Art. I § 10),

guarantees the privileges and immunities of citizens when they
travel interstate (Art. IV §2),

prohibits states from entering into any “Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation,” even with Congressional approval (Art. I § 10),

preserves every state’s right to two senators (Art. V),

is the supreme law of the land (Art. VI § 2),


and requires state officeholders to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (Art.
VI § 3).

The above seem to fly in the face of any implied right of unilateral secession. If the people of a state wish to leave the union, they may not do so unilaterally, but must obtain the agreement of their fellow citizens ,or they must rebel in a legitimate act of revolution.

Is the Tenth Amendment Amendment A Get Out of the Union Free Card? -

Well that seems to be theory that some advocate.Here is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"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."

I think it is a stretch to say the concept of unilateral secession is somewhere contained in those 28 words. I think
Charles Sumner's Resolution's on the Theory of Secession and Reconstruction (1862) sort of points out the problem with this theory

That duty directly cast upon Congress by the extinction of the States is reinforced by the positive prohibition of the Constitution that "no State shall enter into any confederation," or "without the consent of Congress keep troops or ships-of-war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another State," or "grant letters of marque and reprisal," or "coin money," or "emit bills of credit," or "without the consent of Congress lay any duties on imports or exports," all of which have been done by these pretended governments, and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution, addressed to the nation, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;" and that in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution;

In essence to say it contains such a right causes one to ignore the powers that the Federal Govt has and the Supremacy Clause.