Is it possible for Congress to expel States from the Union?

I was just wondering this, after reading a thread about (legal or extrajudicial) secession from the Federal Govt. Which brings another question: What if the Northern States expelled the South before they could secede? Is it legal in the Constitution to do this?
 
Yeah... you literally have nothing to gain by doing stuff like that, especially with so large a region. A large region filled with cash crops no less. It's not like letting go of a tiny, remote province that has nothing beside a couple of settlers or renegades or whatnot.
 
Yes. The Southern states did exist in an undefined, and probably unconstitutional, existence during Reconstruction. Since the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign states that wilfully entered into union then there is no particular reason that a majority may expel a minority.
 
Aw, ya boiled this down to a Civil war question. This would be a rather interesting discussion if it were just "Can states be expelled, period"; it'd be interesting to see if a state could become so crime ridden, corrupt, abrasive, a drain, or whatever the case may be, that the rest would just decide to kick it out onto its own. The legality of such a thing, I don't know. There's no precedent, save for the Civil war, where it was that states could not declare themselves the right to leave, and this matter would be others pushing them out.
 
I don't think they can absent some sort of Constitutional change. I still think the most likely way to get states out of the union is simply to dissolve it (via Constitutional Convention).
 
Aw, ya boiled this down to a Civil war question. This would be a rather interesting discussion if it were just "Can states be expelled, period"; it'd be interesting to see if a state could become so crime ridden, corrupt, abrasive, a drain, or whatever the case may be, that the rest would just decide to kick it out onto its own. The legality of such a thing, I don't know. There's no precedent, save for the Civil war, where it was that states could not declare themselves the right to leave, and this matter would be others pushing them out.

California won't be getting out that easy!:D
 
California won't be getting out that easy!:D

This country would fall apart in about fifteen minutes without California. All I'm sayin. Hahaha.

However, what if a state was actually being belligerent towards other states? Calling in the State Guard/Militia and putting them on the border or whatever? I imagine if that were the case, though, Congress would just deploy the military and reconquer it, rather than kicking it out.
 
Yes. The Southern states did exist in an undefined, and probably unconstitutional, existence during Reconstruction. Since the Constitution is an agreement between sovereign states that wilfully entered into union then there is no particular reason that a majority may expel a minority.

Okay, what was Alabama or Mississippi before it was a part of the Union? Fact is, joining the Union's irreversible - that's what the Civil War was about.
Furthermore, the South existed in a defined, constitutional status - that of military occupation while a properly republican government was constituted for the states (which had previously not been republican governments, as required under Article IV of the Constitution).

Answering the OP:
I think expelling a state would be unlikely. It's far more likely that pressure would be put on an unruly state, as happened with South Carolina in the 1820s, or with Arkansas in the 1950s; if the situation got to the point of a wildly corrupt, nonfunctional government, then Article IV would kick in and the US government would take over.

The only circumstance that seems plausible to me would be expulsion as part of a treaty, if we lost a war incredibly badly - a treaty that would have to be enacted, in part, by amendment. Imagine, say, that the Mexican War went horrifically bad for the US, and Mexico demanded the cession of Texas. How would the US enact the cession of Texas? By treaty alone? By treaty and federal law? By treaty and Constitutional amendment?
 
This country would fall apart in about fifteen minutes without California. All I'm sayin. Hahaha.

However, what if a state was actually being belligerent towards other states? Calling in the State Guard/Militia and putting them on the border or whatever? I imagine if that were the case, though, Congress would just deploy the military and reconquer it, rather than kicking it out.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18512_5-lesser-known-completely-ridiculous-american-civil-wars.html
 
It would be controversial, but their is'nt any part of the Constitution that specifically says they can't do so.
 
Imagine, say, that the Mexican War went horrifically bad for the US, and Mexico demanded the cession of Texas. How would the US enact the cession of Texas? By treaty alone? By treaty and federal law? By treaty and Constitutional amendment?

Probably easiest to do it by joint act of Congress which is how Texas was admitted into the Union to begin with.
 
I was just wondering this, after reading a thread about (legal or extrajudicial) secession from the Federal Govt. Which brings another question: What if the Northern States expelled the South before they could secede? Is it legal in the Constitution to do this?

Going to ignore the whys and buts that so many other posters get tripped up over: my guess is, if its okay with everyone to do this, I suppose the Congress could expel a state the same way it's their job to admit them. I'd also imagine there being a big constitutional crisis over this rather massively unprecedented action, with the lack of wording in the Constitution similar to how it didn't address whether a vice president became a president upon his predecessor's death or merely acting president.
 
It would be controversial, but their is'nt any part of the Constitution that specifically says they can't do so.

I think it would be fairly easy to read Article IV section IV as preventing it. (And Article V making it difficult at best to amend around any such issue.) The US may have fairly strong revanchism built in that hasn't been a problem only because we've never lost a state in a war.

On the other hand, if Article IV were properly enforced we'd have to get rid of West Virginia, so it may be a dead letter...
 
Well, in the Mexican War example, the US tried to protect against invasion, and failed. I think people could argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and agree to cede lost states in a war if that's the only way to avoid being crushed. To be fair, in the Mexican War case, we'd probably try to cede territories rather than states; then again, Mexico would probably demand the Texas issue be solved, one way or another.
 
I think that the prohibition of unilaterally altering a state's borders would blanket this area as well, since that's more or less what the federal government would be doing when it kicks out a state.
 
umm detroit? yea well we were talking to michigan and the other states really agree you have to get your act together. Heres your keys, we already packed for you. I hear Canada's nice this time of year!
 
umm detroit? yea well we were talking to michigan and the other states really agree you have to get your act together. Heres your keys, we already packed for you. I hear Canada's nice this time of year!
Not Canada! We'll be good, I swear!!! Kick out Ohio, nobody wants them!!! Canada would love Ohio!
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Congress can do anything, they can expel any state in the union while riding upon their great white horses over the top of the hill of liberty on their way to dictate their will to the insomniacs of the in-their-dream-land.

Seriously if they tried they'd probably no get re-elected.
 
Top