I'm telling you what the document says. I am fully aware that you will chose to believe what you wish to believe.
But if they give them all up then how can you call them "effectively a nation by our modern usage of the term"?
I see no difficulty in having a nation that requires the consent of the governed. When they lose that consent, it becomes more the relationship between master and slave.
I would think we are all against that in principle.
Nobody challenges some of your crazier quite public assertions either. Doesn't make them right.
When I become a State, I will consider the lack of challenge to be agreement.
You've got nothing but a busted flush.
I guess this is your way of saying you can't find a single document from around 1787 that supports your claim that the constitution forbids independence. Yeah, Madison said such stuff years later, but I am unaware of anyone who said it while the constitution was being ratified. Would have probably torpedoed the whole effort.
Perhaps you can find some sort of statement forbidding independence in the Federalist papers? You should get to looking. :)
Of course you are.
I see no difficulty in having a nation that requires the consent of the governed. When they lose that consent, it becomes more the relationship between master and slave.
We're talking about the states being nations by the modern sense of the term. Nations, as we define them today, can do dozens of things that make them sovereign nations which are denied to the states.
I guess this is your way of saying you can't find a single document from around 1787 that supports your claim that the constitution forbids independence.
I never said the Constitution forbids independence. What I'm saying that just because some states made assumptions in their ratification documents doesn't make those assumptions legal under the Constitution.