“The Constitution does not supersede the natural law right of Independence.”
Now, that is rich. The 13 colonies signed a document of Perpetual Union, and that was the basis of the Constitution that later came.
You can’t be independent from your vow and responsibilities. If you made a contract and a vow, it’s permanently in effect.
Now, if that legal basis allows an out, then you can use it, but abandonment does not break the vow, or its repercussions.
Your great argument is also held by fathers and mothers who walk put on their kids to get permanently lost in the drug culture, so at least you have company for your views.
As I said in a message subsequent to the one to which you are responding, this would be a great argument if the framers had adhered to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation. Because they did not, all are released from those requirements.
You can’t be independent from your vow and responsibilities. If you made a contract and a vow, it’s permanently in effect.
Descendants. You are saying that the descendants of people must be constrained by deals made by their ancestors? Why? They were not asked for their consent. Why should they feel any requirement to adhere to something which they see as unfavorable to them?
My father makes a bad deal, so *I* have to honor it? One of the first things to be tossed out of American law is "Corruption of Blood", meaning the children being held responsible for something the father did.
Now, if that legal basis allows an out,...
I ask you if you have read Virginia's ratification statement in which they conditionally ratify the US Constitution?
It says they have an "out", in the manner of the legal terminology you seem to be insisting on.