Depends on which gospel you look at. And so far as I know Jesus was silent on the subject of secession.
Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?
Can we keep to the 19th century please? Unless you have launched another civil war that I somehow missed.
Care to provide another gospel wherein he proscribes something different?
Um, we're talking about compacts, of which marriage is the 'prototype' -- you've already agreed that the Constitution is a compact -- therefore, dissolution of the first is applicable to dissolution of the second.
>> Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?
>
> Can we keep to the 19th century please? Unless you have launched another civil war that I somehow missed.
Why? My goal is to show that not only has there been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," but violations of the compact that is the Constitution which make your assertion that "none can leave" laughable.
To put it another way, at what point would you be willing to concede that the thing that is the Federal Government looks so unlike the thing described in the Constitution that the people/states cannot be compelled to obey it?