So says DiogenesLamp, but that's not what any of our Founders said, ever.
The Declaration's key words are "necessary" and "necessity", it's key argument is a list of dozens of major breaches of contract by the King, offenses which make separation necessary.
So there is no sense, anywhere, in any Founder's writings that disunion "at pleasure" is "A-OK" by them.
DiogenesLamp: "Apply your ideas to individual people.
Do you think someone has to provide a reason for why they no longer wish to be with someone?
That they can't break off a relationship unless they have a reason that meets the approval of the person with whom they are breaking up?"
Yes, "no fault" divorce laws in many states are not what they used to be, way back when.
But certainly in our Founders' time, contract law & divorce required "mutual consent" or some major breach of contract, such as infidelity.
They also required a legal process in court.
DiogenesLamp: "The exercise of a natural right is not contingent upon what a majority of delegates wrote, nor what a majority of legislature's passed.
These are acts of man.
They hold no weight against natural rights."
But DiogenesLamp's declaration of some unnatural right as "natural" does not make it so.
You are simply mistaken in asserting our Founders' Declaration, Constitution, Original Intent or other writings somehow authorized an unlimited "right of separation".
They don't, and your words have no effect on that.
DiogenesLamp: "The US constitution is no more binding on the states than was English law (which forbade separation) binding on the colonies."
But English law was binding on the colonies, until the Brits themselves broke, abrogated and breached their own contract-laws.
Our Founders never asserted an unlimited "right of separation", only the "necessity" when under extreme conditions.
So tell us why you can't grasp such simple facts.
I guess it has been a while since you have read President Lincoln's First Innaugural Address. He uses the analogy of a divorcing couple to the "separating" of the Union. But he takes it much further than you and makes a much better opposing argument out it.