Replies

...so you’re citing a clause in the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution superseded and replaced in order to justify qualifying the latter’s concept of ‘union’ as perpetual?

That is highly dubious reasoning.

The Philadelphia Convention met to draft amendments to the Articles, and they drafted one big amendment.

The Constitution did not supersede the Articles - it amended them. Yes it completely gutted the political arrangements of the Articles, which were working so poorly. No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn't have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.

>No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn’t have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.

The Constitution created a Federal government called the United States, correct?
The Constitution sets up the structure of that government, correct?
The Constitution also delineates specific powers & responsibilities to that government, correct?
The Constitution makes no mention of secession, correct?
The Constitution also says, in the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” correct?
Therefore, if secession [or using force to prevent it] is not specifically mentioned [delegated] to the United States by the Constitution then it must be reserved to the States or the People, correct?