LOL - That wasn't the point of that post, and you know it. At that point in time I was only proving your lie to be what it was, a lie. You said the framers understood the union to be "permanent", and I provided quotes from the ratification documents stating otherwise. They would not have deliberately included statements that they could reassume those powers if they thought the union "permanent". You lied. Again. I proved it. Again.
As to "keeping with United States law", to deny them the right of "resumption of complete state sovereignty" would be to void the union as a fraudulent agreement because that agreement was made with that right as a stated condition.
The assumption at all the ratification conventions was that the Constitution was both binding and perpetual except for intolerable abuse.
"binding and perpetual except..." - LOL. Now you're backing up and inserting conditions that contradict your earlier statements. Apparently you need a dictionary so you can look up words like "permanent" and "perpetual". As to "intolerable abuse", that is not the condition stated in the declarations. For example, New York merely said the powers could be reassumed "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness". That condition was accepted by the framers.
What the rebs and neo-rebs both want is some nirvana not based in human experience.
LOL - What the neo-unionist hatemongers want is some nirvana based on revisionist lies.
"binding and perpetual except..." - LOL. Now you're backing up and inserting conditions that contradict your earlier statements.
I'm paraphrasing Madison.
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
- James Madison
You don't know the history.
Walt
Neo-Union?
The Union has been extant unbroken since at least 1774.
Walt