[You, wriggling] So your position is that it's impossible for a rebellion to occur in the United States?
Answering a question with a question isn't kosher and you know it. I asked first. Answer my question -- against whom would the People "rebel"?
And of course it's possible to have a rebellion -- but a "rebellion" by the whole People of a State is not a "rebellion" but a sovereign act of the People, if the People as a whole concur with it.
The People have the right and power to kick over the table and shoot out the lights, if they think their dealer is a crook, a card mechanic, or playing with a marked deck.
Then why does the Constitution tell how to suppress them? Clearly the Founding Fathers thought them possible.
Sure. Correct. Right. But you're trying to answer a question with other questions which are off-topic.
[You quoting me again] They were within their rights to terminate by force the exercise of alien power on their soil.
[You] So if the Cubans started shelling Guantanamo, you'd accept that as within their rights?
Depends on whether they abrogated the treaty first. If they did, we'd have a problem staying there.
They didn't start shooting first.
Lincoln made warlike moves that would be understood in every capital of Europe and Asia. He attempted to reinforce fortifications whose rightful ownership was in dispute.
Yankees complain that Southerners didn't offer to discuss taking part of the federal debt (in fact they did, but Lincoln wouldn't receive the Southern commissioners), but they never complain about the fact that Lincoln asserted powers he no longer rightfully had in territory he no longer rightfully administered, and in so doing despised publicly the right of the People to change their government.
If the United States Congress voted unanimously to turn Maine into a parking lot and send its people to Alaska just to get them out of the way, I'd expect Maine to leave the Union -- because in those circumstances, they ought to.
It's a fixture, and a weak one, of Unionist argument, that no State can ever leave the Union without the permission of the other States that are determined to abuse her. That's like the old saw about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But you try to brazen it out every time.
Absolute lie.
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that a state must beg for permission to leave the union. 3 of the 4 justices holding that a state could 'withdraw HERSELF' from the union ( Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, (1795)
Justice Patterson (a delegate at the convention) wrote, '... If she [New Hampshire] would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself ...' (3 Dall. 54, 82).
Justice Iredell wrote, 'no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation' (Ibid at 95).
Justice Blair (another delegate at the convention) wrote 'if she [New Hampshire] had such a right, there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself' (Ibid at 113).
Of course, the Lincolnites will aver that the justices meant something else (aka 'who are you going to believe - us, or your lying eyes?')