Can a state be expelled from the union?

Forums: Constitution, Civil War, History, Expel
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Prior to the southern secession movement culminating in the civil war, a number of northern states contemplated seceding to reconstitute a nation not associated with slavery. Could similar ends be achieved by expelling states from the union? While the question is today a fantasy, what I am interested in is whether in the Constitution or discussions prior to the civil war any text refers to expelling a state from the union for untoward behavior or any other cause. Or is the only recourse to bring the "unruly child" under control while keeping her in the family?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 4,174 • Replies: 26

I think Abe Lincoln gave a decisive answer to the secession question.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I think Abe Lincoln gave a decisive answer to the secession question.

And what does that have to do with expulsion?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

They cannot leave the union, no matter what.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

we don't expel them but we do send them to the principals office and make them do detention.

0 Replies

Considering that Lord Baltimore bought the land, that now is called Maryland (note the original two-word pejorative inference), so Catholics could live in the U.S., could the Pope decide to excommunicate the entire state? Or, at least the Catholics living in the state? Perhaps, Maryland needs to be officially converted to a Protestant state?

0 Replies

@everymanUS,

everymanUS wrote:

Could similar ends be achieved by expelling states from the union?

No they couldn't. Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government has only those powers that the US constitution explicitly grants it. No part of the Constitution grants the federal government a power of this kind.

0 Replies

The Calverts did not purchase Maryland, it was a charter grant from King Charles. It's English name was always Maryland. Miller/Foofie just makes this **** up as she goes along.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Calverts did not purchase Maryland, it was a charter grant from King Charles. It's English name was always Maryland. Miller/Foofie just makes this **** up as she goes along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland

It ain't necessarily so. [Sung to the tune by the same name.]

I thought that the Catholics fleeing persecution in England needed a special place to live, since Catholics were not welcome in many states? Plus, shouldn't Catholics be offended by the name? Israel is not called "Jewland"?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnal_number

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

What are you whining about now? Because i didn't call him King Charles I? What a complete weenie you are.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

On June 20, 1632 Charles I of England granted the original charter for Maryland, a proprietary colony of about twelve million acres (49,000 km²), to Cæcilius Calvert (Cecil), 2nd Baron Baltimore in the Peerage of Ireland. Some historians view this grant as a form of compensation for Calvert's father's having been stripped of his title of Secretary of State upon announcing his Roman Catholicism in 1625. The charter had originally been granted to Calvert's father, George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, but the 1st Baron Baltimore died before it could be executed, so it was granted to his son in his place.

From Jared Sparks, the biog of the Maryland colony.
verybody was granted land in place of cash by Charles. The PEnns and theCalverts fought over little slices of the BAy (when Delaware was part of PA.)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It's standard practice, avoids confusion. It's a bit hard telling you anything without you having a hissy fit.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Ah-hahahahahaha . . .

. . . irony is not dead, but Izzy the putz is trying to bury it.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

That's what I mean, insults abound whenever anything is pointed out. If you really want to be taken seriously as a historian you shouldn't be so sloppy. Now you can stamp your foot and throw out as many insults as you want, and even pretend you understand irony, but there's no escaping bad practice. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from BillRM.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Your expectations are a matter of indifference to me. It appears that your knowledge of the history of your own nation is so poor that you feel you need it explained to you which Charles Stuart was king in 1632. The younger Charles Stuart was all of two years old. Can you handle the math? There is irony galore, but the one who doesn't see it is you.

EDIT": I have never claimed to be an historian.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I get it, you have problems with standard practice, and prefer to insult others than ever admit you were sloppy. You were sloppy. Now try to be a grown up.

And, it's alright, you can have the last word. There's nothing more to say on the matter and I can't be bothered with your pettiness any more.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Yes, having made a petty, irrelevant attack, you've exhausted its paltry-at-the-beginning possibilities. What a silly, petty, always angry little man you are.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's standard practice, avoids confusion. It's a bit hard telling you anything without you having a hissy fit.

I guess only some people are allowed to give nuanced history. Shouldn't you know better than to question a scholar's authority?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Ah-hahahahahaha . . .

. . . irony is not dead, but Izzy the putz is trying to bury it.

Just because you were born in a NYC hospital, and your schmeckle was koshered (aka, circumcised) does not give you the right to use the word "putz." That right leaves when one leaves the metro area, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Can a state be expelled from the union?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know