From what I've read of the constitutional convention there wasn't even talk of creating such a process.
And if there is no process spelled out in the constitution, than the President, or congress, has no power to make/recognize that a state is outside the Union? As Lincoln said in his first inaugural;
"The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor."
So if there is no process for states to leave the union it is not legal under the constitution. It is outside the law, i.e. rebellion.
The procedure they put forth in the Declaration of Independence didn't say everything needing to be said on the topic?
Why reiterate the exact same thing over again? The Constitution was written only 11 years after the Declaration. Nobody had forgotten what it said in only 11 years.
So if there is no process for states to leave the union it is not legal under the constitution. It is outside the law, i.e. rebellion.
All powers not enumerated are reserved to the states.
The Declaration was a separate and preceding document that had already enumerated this power.
They explained the process of secession in the Declaration of Independence. Madison also explained in the Federalist Papers how the states can secede if the tyrants at the federal level won't let them go:
"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger." [James Madison, Federalist Paper 41, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.219]
That was true in Madison's days; but by the time the tyrant Lincoln came along, there were too many entrenched federal (mostly Union) politicians who were more concerned with political patronage than the Constitution. Politicians are far more entrenched today. If you desire to become filty rich, but lack an appropriate skill set, consider running for Congress.
Mr. Kalamata