[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, I meant that they go back to being a State outside of the Constitution,but I think I meant to imply that if one state leaves the Union, that dissolves the Union for all.

When the 13 colonies left the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom or "Union" (Union of the Crowns of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) remained intact.

Since that time, Canada and Australia have also left the Union, yet the Union remains.

That's what Madison meant by the right to secede is also the right of the many to oust. One state leaving breaks the Union for all.

And this is where I tell you that the US Congress had to threaten Rhode Island to force it to join the Union. It kept rejecting ratification and the Congress finally said they would blockade trade with it if it didn't ratify the Constitution.

Do you believe coercing people into a Union is right and proper? So did the Soviet "Union."

[Political Junkie Too]

...United Kingdom or "Union" (Union of the Crowns of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) remained intact. ince that time, Canada and Australia have also left the Union, yet the Union remains.

We fought a war to reject the laws of England. I wouldn't use United Kingdom examples to explain United States situations. But if we must, isn't it true that the provinces of Canada broke away as one nation, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that unilateral secession in Canada was unconstitutional, but a deliberated secession was possible? Should the United States ratify an amendment laying out a deliberated mechanism for a state to appeal for secession, to be approved or rejected by Congress or the states, but reject the idea of unilateral secession as Canada did?

And this is where I tell you that the US Congress had to threaten Rhode Island to force it to join the Union. It kept rejecting ratification and the Congress finally said they would blockade trade with it if it didn't ratify the Constitution. Do you believe coercing people into a Union is right and proper?

I think this is a gross misstatement of what happened.

First, this is a false statement: "US Congress had to threaten Rhode Island to force it to join the Union". Rhode Island was the first colony to separate from England. I think you are conflating Independence with ratification of the Constitution (which was NOT "joining the Union," but forming "a more perfect Union").

Second, "It kept rejecting ratification" because it was Rhode Island that demanded a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be included in the Constitution. To paraphrase your words, Do you believe holding out for the Bill of Rights was right and proper?

-PJ