para bellum
Platinum Member
I think there are two reasons that secession language was left out of the Constitution. One is that it would have only made it more difficult to get States to ratify, and it was difficult enough as it was. The Framers did not consider the Constitution was perfect; they expected changes and included the mechanism for modification in Article V.
Second is that the Constitution is a Compact between the States to create a Federal Government. The document that came out of Philadelphia in 1789 had no teeth until it was ratified by the States. If they had included a provision that said ratification can never be undone, how many States would have ratified?
At it's core, the Constitution is not a coercive document. It may have been the general understanding that since a State can join by a vote of the Legislature, one can also leave by the same process?
Second is that the Constitution is a Compact between the States to create a Federal Government. The document that came out of Philadelphia in 1789 had no teeth until it was ratified by the States. If they had included a provision that said ratification can never be undone, how many States would have ratified?
At it's core, the Constitution is not a coercive document. It may have been the general understanding that since a State can join by a vote of the Legislature, one can also leave by the same process?