Actually, I do hate having to point out that another person posting here is a "liar" (as I did in your case). I prefer rational debate - something you have been unable to provide. Instead, you offer vague, unsubstantiated generalities, and claim that they are somehow "proof" that your claims are valid. In reality, you offer nothing but hogwash..
And all you continue to do is deny the fact that you have already been given a direct answer as to how the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession as a state right.
Which "direct answer" was that? Quote the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that prohibited State secession in 1860-61. Can't do it? No surprise there...
You want to put all of your focus on the second criteria for state rights in the Tenth Amendment and to continually deny that the first criteria must be met as well.
"Second criteria?" "First criteria?" What on earth are you talking about? (And by the way, it should be 'first criterion' and 'second criterion,' if you are going to use those terms... ;>)
The Tenth [Amendment] specifically excludes powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The States then had no right to unilaterally usurp the power of Commander-in-Chief or any other power delegated to the United States.
As noted previously the Constitution declares:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
The president's power in relation to the federal "Army and Navy" is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of State secession, as was his power in relation to "Militia of the several States," which had NOT been "called into the actual Service of the United States" at the time the first State seceded in 1860. One might just as well argue that the president's role as "Commander in Chief" allows him to dictate the results of elections. Your argument is completely specious.
;>)
You can continue to try and distort the Tenth Amendment by ignoring the fact that has been continually pointed out to you and continue to prove that you are nothing more than a hack.
Actually, I am well aware of the meaning of the Tenth Amendment: it means precisely what it says. You are the "hack" who turns the amendment on it's head, in your vain attempt to support your idiotic theories.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
Again you just prove that you are a hack. You want to ignore the entire first line of the Tenth Amendment and just start it at the second line. You want to hack the Constitution to fit your agenda.
“Powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution” can not be usurped by confederate hacks. Does that help make it any clearer for you?
You continually try to make this line of the Constitution meaningless by claiming secession to be a state right by ignoring the first line and pretending that the states can usurp these powers simply because of the second line.
Yet the two lines are not an either/or but are two distinct criteria for the balance of rights between the states and the union. You can not ignore either of the lines.
How much of a hack you are is evident by the fact that you claim the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ power delegated to the United State in the Constitution is irrelevant.
But since you think that secession is a right then that explains it all. You are a hack who thinks that the anypart of the Constitution you decide to be is irrelevant. You could care less about the Constitution unless you get to ignore what you want and then distort the rest.