If you disagree, please provide a quote.

True, but there is nothing that forbids it either explicitly. And I could argue that from the History of the US, of how they were formed, and the Declaration of Independence, Secession is very much considered to be a cultural Right.

Even Lincoln said that:

> Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

This is further observed by foreign observers such as Tocqueville after the US were established:

> The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

And if you would read the Declaration of Independence you'd see that the "tyranny test" (such as one was ever conceived in American jurisprudence) is very strict indeed. Even from the first days of the American Revolutionary War we were claiming that the government deserved a great deal of "benefit of the doubt" and that it would take a very severe set of circumstances to cast off a government.

I'm pretty sure Lincoln would argue with you there.

EDIT: this is directly from the Declaration of Independence:

> whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government

Note the any form of government.

I think this is exactly what would happen in the modern day.

But what is not going to happen is that a state gets to take it's ball and go home just because the nation had the sheer audacity to vote for the wrong President.

Which one are we talking about? Frankly, all the ones I've had the misfortune of living through, blur together for me. It's not like any of them have had any different policies. How could they, possibly?

If any area secedes, it might be because of "The President", but it won't be due to any particular one.

I.e. not mere "wah wah the government raised my taxes" but actually despotic, as Jefferson explains in the rest of the Declaration of Independence.

the right to secede is, unfortunately, given or taken by force only. As US Revolution and Civil War, or Kosovo or Crimea among others show.

Most African decolonisation was also peaceful.

There's a reason the Declaration of Independence happened more than a year after the first spurts of military action (and was very controversial in the colonies even then).

No, the article is pretty clearly off track. Obama hardly said that all secession movements are illegitimate. He said that the secession vote in the Crimea was illegitimate.

"The available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. Many Western and Ukrainian commentators argued that both choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine."

Certainly, I'm not saying it's simple. I'm just saying that it should not be called illegitimate, because even if it's not feasible technically speaking, it would still be legitimate based on UN principles.

If you knew the history of this region (or at least last 20+ years) you'd not spent any effort typing the word "sham". Decorating the vote with all the bell and whistles that would supposedly make the vote "legitimate" (as if anything could make such a vote "legitimate" in the western eyes :) would change nothing in the vote's result, so Putin just didn't bother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Crimea (very democratic elections result of which was nixed by Ukrainian troops an year later :)

Don't get me wrong, i don't support the annexation. My point here is that trying to play the "sham" card leads nowhere in that situation because it is immaterial.

exactly. He plays for internal market. And internal audience eats him. 25 years ago, back in USSR, we laughed watching a criminal asking Arnold in Red Heat "Kakie vashi dokazatelstva?" (what are your evidences?) Western mentality is so logical, evidences-shmevidences :) Such an easy target for a showman in Russia performing for Russian audience...

"Yes, i want to be in Russia"

and

"No, i want to be in Russia"

and that point is that it doesn't matter. You come to the polls, you don't come to the polls - it wouldn't change anything, including the poll results to the 7th digit after the point :) (i'm not saying that this referendum results was cheating - it just happened that no need to cheat here, though Putin wouldn't have any issue with cheating if it was needed - again it just doesn't matter, 90% or whatever would be in any case) It just makes an overall gray routine just a little bit fun.

However, I do wish there were a US state separated from the federal government.

In fact the Constitution included many regulations and prohibitions regarding the power of individual states, so it can't be claimed that the Constitution wasn't the ultimate arbiter of power within the federal framework of government.

So with that in mind a unilateral decision by a single state to change the Constitutional government for all of the states can hardly have been legal. And even the parts of the Constitution talking about the territorial integrity of a single state all include the clause the Congress must approve the change in addition to the state itself.

If a state really wanted to secede it would have to have come up with some legal procedure at the national level from which to even make that change possible. Probably by using the Constitutional Amendment process (which is, after all, the built-in designed mechanism for altering the federal framework of government).

How it actually happens and whether or not different commenters find it "legal" will not matter. If I deny your jurisdiction and have the military force to defend myself, your laws do not apply to me.

Sure, this is how some sovereign states formed in the first place. But even these were made "legal" under international jurisprudence.

Don't confuse exercise of power with legal aspects though. It can certainly be against a nation's laws to secede, and secede anyways if you can prevent the state from effectively exercising power (e.g. Algeria in the 1950s). But that didn't make it "legal", either under domestic or international law.

Even in international law if you want to secede you have to form a separate state, have it exercise effective control over a territory, and do so long enough to have "enough" other nations recognize that control. If you can do that then it doesn't matter what your parent nation's domestic laws were, but until you can do that it's shaky legal ground indeed.

There is nothing in the Constitution about secession (including the Amendments).

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

This clause was made null and void by the Thirteenth Amendment that you've mentioned, which further makes me wonder...

Anyways, the word "slavery" was deliberately not used by the Framers, as even at that time the concept was morally distasteful, so the Framers talked around the issue by referring to "Service" and "Party" instead of "slave" and "master".

You also missed the part in the Constitution where importation of slaves could not be forbidden until 1808 (Art. I, §9).

When in the course of human affairs, it becomes necessary...

Source for this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/crimea-votes...

Over the Crimean situation.

No source there either, if so. And seems quite a leap if only based off the Crimean situation.