[dangus]

>> Would it surprise you that if secession was already illegal and unconstitutional congress would never need to pass anti-secession legislation? <<

Ever hear of a clarification? Check out the arguments against passage of the Bill of Rights. No-one objected to them, but there were concerns that they were unneeded, since they already existed under the Constitution, and that the enumeration of certain rights would enable people to argue that the unenumerated rights did not exist. This criticism was satisfied by the ninth and tenth amendment.

Other examples of clarifications:

1. The proposed "Freedom of religion" amendment.
2. Recognizing the citizenship of people born in the Panama Canal service, like John McCain.
3. The proposed "Right to Life" amendment.
4. The tenth amendment.
5. Any of literally thousands of clauses in the federal code which begin, "Nothing in the section shall be construed as..."

So, was this law a clarification, or not?

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

[central_va]

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

The only thing clear is that congress tried to outlaw secession, your denials of that fact clarifies your inanity too.

[Bigun]

Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no state has the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to point out EXACTLY where that is codified in U.S. law.