You said the Constitution makes it clear that secession is forbidden. I pointed out, as you now appear to agree, that there is not "a single place where secession, unilateral or otherwise, is actually addressed." You make take it that I mean that that a document that does not address secession does not make it clear that it is forbidden.
The 10th Amendment means something and states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But it is clear that the Constitution does not give the states free reign in all areas.
The Constitution did not "give" the States anything.
Article 7 of the Constitution states: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
The people, organized by state, created the Constitution. They delegated some powers to the Federal government and retained all others.
In its ratification document, the people of Virginia stated: "...that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."
In their ratification document, the people of New York and those or Rhode Island said: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness...."
And the people of Rhode Island said: "That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them."
Yet you believe that Congressional approval would be needed in all changes of status of a state, except one.
I said no such thing, nor does the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution say that Congressional approval is necessary for the change of status of a state. The Constitution enumerates specific acts which need approval. The Constitution is silent on all acts not enumerated.
And you believe that Congressional approval is required for other actions where the interests of other states may be negatively impacted, except for secession.
The Constitution enumerates specific acts which need approval. The Constitution is silent on all acts not enumerated.
So you imply rights which are not explicitly stated and which must be implied. And you criticize me?
I imply that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The language of the Constitution says that the Federal government has no inherent powers beyond those that were delegated to it.