The term Original Intent defines US Constitutional conservatives.
What did Founders mean at the time by what they wrote?
In the case of disunion or secession, their words are clear and consistent -- "at pleasure" secession is not constitutionally valid, while disunion by "mutual consent" (i.e., 1788) or "necessity" from oppression or usurpations (i.e., 1776), those are valid.
Of course, Jeffersondem, if you are not a strict constructionist who values Original Intent, if you believe the US Constitution is a "living document" which can mean whatever-the-h*ll you want it to mean... then you are not a real conservative and may belong with other Democrats on more "progressive" sites.
BJK, read the text below and see if you can identify the words that do not belong:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, provided it is really, really, REALLY necessary, - and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, provided it is done with the mutual consent of all parties.”
Your statement here reminds me of a supposed ingroup member attempting to establish an "outgroup" stereotype.