The Constitution does not describe such a method, and no one has ever tried to do so in the history of this imperfect union. Therefore, it cannot be prohibited. We know that during and immediately following the U.S. Civil War, some States attempted to secede from the U.S. to join the Confederate States of America. They were treated unconstitutionally for being denied the right to secede; they were still not allowed to be represented in Congress. They were demanded to end their insurrections, and a post-war government had to be approved by the Union forces in the Reconstruction era was in place. They were effectively stripped of all representation and treated themselves as slaves.
The Union States cleverly claimed that being denied Due Process of Law and stripped of representation in Congress, somehow using legal fiction, this was not on the theory that these areas had ceased to be States of the Union. The legal fiction used was based on the idea that there was a vacancy in the positions because these areas had not held elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now comes the 14th Amendment, which was, at best, not Constitutionally valid. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. It has been hailed as addressing citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for former slaves. However, it is punitive and a denial of Due Process in and of itself, for the defeated Confederacy bitterly contested the amendment. They were denied all representation in Congress and had been defeated militarily. They were given NO CHOICE and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. But if they were not represented, then how could they ratify the Amendment?
It was ratified by duress, and that is fraud under the law. Still, people sometimes sign contracts privately under duress or because of undue influence or coercion. These are all legal terms referring to questionable tactics, and they may invalidate a contract. This is my argument that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional, for the South was denied representation unless they ratified the Amendment.
They could elect no one and not appoint even a Senator. This is why they are now trying to apply this abuse of process to Trump, claiming anyone who participated in an “insurrection” can not hold office. That was retribution and punitive and stripped the rights of the people denying them to be fairly represented in Congress.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, this denial of U.S. government representation was viewed as a function of practical reality and the war powers of Congress, and perhaps the “invasion or insurrection” and “Republican government” clauses of the U.S. Constitution. There was absolutely no constitutional validity to the actions taken by the Union. It cannot be a free government of the people when the people are not free to elect whomever they desire.
There is precedent for the expulsion of a Member of Congress. The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2) provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” There is a legal maxim known as:
“Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.“
It is the legal concept that any action can be taken unless a law is against it. It is also known in some situations as the “general power of competence,” whereby the body or person being regulated is acknowledged to have a competent judgment of their scope of action. Suppose we apply this to expelling the State of California from the United States. In that case, NO law stands in the way, and the precedent from the Civil War is bogus and unconstitutional, which was railroaded by military force.
Therefore, we can EXPEL California – there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents that nor for a State to secede.
