Could a state be thrown out of the union?

[politicus]

Ive noticed that throwing Texas out of the US (or swapping it with Baja California) is a  fantasy of some American leftwingers. Of course that is unrealistic, but I was wondering if there is any procedure by which a state could be forced to leave the US? I know its not mentioned in the Constitution, but what would happen, if a vast majority of the other states wanted to force a state to leave the Union? Is there any legal procedure for this?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Ive noticed that throwing Texas out of the US (or swapping it with Baja California) is a  fantasy of some American leftwingers.

... you have?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.

The constitution has no mechanism for expulsion or separation.

From a strict constructionist POV annexation of new territory is not authorized by the Constitution, but was determined by Jefferson to be a necessary and proper power of the Federal government. If a state were to be expelled (or leave the Union voluntarily) then it would be possible for parts of it to be readmitted as a new state.  However since expulsion and then readmission of selected parts would be a way to get around the constitutional requirement that a state give its consent if a new state is formed from part of its territory, it can be inferred that expulsion is not merely not mentioned, but prohibited.

[Bacon King]

Ernest, what about the precedent of West Virginia? Wasn't that formed from an existing state (that had voluntarily attempted to leave the Union) without the state's consent?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, what about the precedent of West Virginia? Wasn't that formed from an existing state (that had voluntarily attempted to leave the Union) without the state's consent?

As far as the Union was concerned, consent was given by the government they recognized as that of Virginia, tho in actuality it represented only the Union held areas of Virginia, most of  which became West Virginia.  Yes, it was dodgy, but the split held because most of what became West Virgina had wanted to separate from Richmond even before the Civil War, and not because of slavery.  Altho, the relative lack of slaves in the area was one reason the region did not favor secession.

The approval of the Constitution itself was dodgy, since it said it would require the approval of nine states to go into effect yet the Articles called for all thirteen to approve any changes in the National government.

[WillK]

I know its not mentioned in the Constitution, but what would happen, if a vast majority of the other states wanted to force a state to leave the Union? Is there any legal procedure for this?

The end of Article V would seem to prohibit it:
"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know its not mentioned in the Constitution, but what would happen, if a vast majority of the other states wanted to force a state to leave the Union? Is there any legal procedure for this?

The end of Article V would seem to prohibit it:
"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Not really, since if it were thrown out of the union, it would no longer be a State.

[WillK]

The end of Article V would seem to prohibit it:
"no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Not really, since if it were thrown out of the union, it would no longer be a State.
[/quote]

I would argue that the throwing out is what violated Article V.   
You are assuming it is a done deal.

[WillK]

As far as the Union was concerned, consent was given by the government they recognized as that of Virginia, tho in actuality it represented only the Union held areas of Virginia, most of  which became West Virginia.  Yes, it was dodgy, but the split held because most of what became West Virgina had wanted to separate from Richmond even before the Civil War ....

It held because the only way to overturn it would be to challenge the decision by Congress to recognize the loyalist government of Virginia.  No one in a position of power seemed to see any reason or justification for doing that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really, since if it were thrown out of the union, it would no longer be a State.

I would argue that the throwing out is what violated Article V.   
You are assuming it is a done deal.
[/quote]

Article V deals with the amendment process.  The clause was included to ensure that the equal representation of each state in the Senate would not be changed to some other format.  If the U.S. had remained within its 1787 borders and grown much as it did in real life, then there would be few enough small states in the Union that an amendment changing the basis of Senate representation would be a realistic possibility.  It's not realistic now because over half the states would lose political clout if the Senate were apportioned on some other basis.

[SPC]

Isn't this essentially what (temporarily) happened to Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island on June 21, 1788, in that nine states ratified the Constitution, thus placing the Constitution into effect and effectively dissolving the Articles of Confederation to which the preceding four states were members?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yup.  Until Rhode Island joined the Constitution was an illegal usurpation of the Articles of Confederation which called for a permanent confederation in which all thirteen states (fourteen if Canada joined) were to have an equal vote.

Not that I think Canada would ever consider doing it, under Lincoln's theory of the Constitution being a continuation of the Articles, Canada would still be free to join the United States whenever it wished as our 51st State.

[CatoMinor]

Actually, since the secession of the 11(ish) states of the CSA was never officially acknowledged by the U.S., but after the war they still had to re-apply to become states again, was that not then somewhat a case of the states being thrown out?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes and no.  While they had to apply for readmission to Congress under a broad use of Congress' powers to guarantee a republican form of government, there was no thought given to unilaterally adjusting borders or any other permanent measures that would have been possible to accomplish if they were not States of the United States.

[J. J.]

In regard to Article V., "...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

A state could not be "kicked out" of the Senate, so bit would have to remain within the Union.  I am wondering that if a state and the Federal government as a whole could agree to let a state secede.

[Gary J]

This discussion is predicated on a state being expelled by the other parts of the United States. A more likely possibility, although it has not actually happened to the United States so far in its history, would be defeat in war leading to a part of the national territory having to be ceded to a victorious enemy. That might involvee the whole of one or more states.

I would have thought that the constitutional provision about treaties being the supreme law of the land, would be wide enough to cover an Alsace-Lorraine (after the Franco-Prussian War) type of scenario.

[pbrower2a]

In regard to Article V., "...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

A state could not be "kicked out" of the Senate, so bit would have to remain within the Union.  I am wondering that if a state and the Federal government as a whole could agree to let a state secede.

Such would include an involuntary reversion to territorial status, something unlikely to be popular. Territorial status implies some provisional quality to possession or at the least the final definition of the boundaries of a proposed state -- for example, "Michigan Territory" once encompassing all of not only Michigan, but also what would become Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota. Such would be a political behemoth with at least 36 electoral votes if the State of Michigan were so constituted and so remained.



Voluntary? Perhaps as part of a transfer from one State to another. The section of Arizona north of the Colorado would make more sense as part of Utah in part because it is difficult to get to from other parts of Arizona for law enforcement and highway maintenance. Example: a short section of Interstate 15 in Arizona was costly to build and is costly to maintain, and it would be more effectively serviced from St. George, Utah. 

Congressional districts and state legislative seats would have to be adjusted.