[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " 'The powers not delegated to the Unted States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people' ...except that the powers reserved for the people can not be exercised at pleasure or without the mutual consent of the federal government.

Isn’t this what you really believe?"

No, because "power" to break the law is not a "power", it's a crime, period.
The Constitution is a legally binding document, created from both necessity and mutual consent, which provides within itself multiple methods for addressing & redressing grievances.
It does not specifically address disunion, but our Founders' examples on that should be more than adequate: disunion from mutual consent or necessity, those are legit.
Disunion "at pleasure" is not.

And just so we're clear on this, my opinion is precisely that of Founders like James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") and such 1860 leaders as Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President-elect Lincoln, along with former living presidents Van Buren (Democrat), Fillmore (Whig) and Pierce (Democrat).
All believed in 1860 that Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession were not constitutional or lawful.
They also believed, to a man, the Federal government could use no force to stop secessions, unless secessionists started war, which, of course, they soon did.

So all you Lost Causers wish to debate the legitimacy of secession, but the fact is there was no debate in 1860, since everyone understood it was unlawful, but could not be stopped unless secessionists themselves started war.

Which is exactly what President Lincoln said in his First Inaugural:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' "

That's it, in a nutshell.

[jeffersondem]

“No, because “power” to break the law is not a “power”, it's a crime, period.”

BUT YOU SAID disunion is not a crime if it is not done at pleasure, or if it was by mutual consent.

When Lincoln's justification for killing 600,000 Americans is juxtaposed with the words of the founders (either the DOI or the Constitution) even you reject it.

Your pretzel has reached snappage.

[jeffersondem]

“They also believed, to a man, the Federal government could use no force to stop secessions, unless secessionists started war, which, of course, they soon did.”

If secession was not legal, as you and Lincoln say, then the actions of the South should have been put down as an insurrection.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, because "power" to break the law is not a "power", it's a crime, period.

And breaking the "Laws of nature, and of Nature's God" is the worst crime. Man made laws have no moral standing against laws of Nature and of God.

Those that put man made laws above those of God, are false prophets, liars and deceivers.