[wideawake]

The Constitution is not a contract.

It does not describe itself as a contract and it does not take the form of a contract.

Analogizing it to a contract consequently puts us off track. It is an inherently self-contradictory notion - all laws governing contracts in the United States derive from the US Constitution: the Constitution is not subordinate to itself. It is, as I have pointed out, the supreme law of the land and not a contract governed by a law inferior to itself.

Again, by ratifying the Constitution, each state acknowledged the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

You say that "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution. This leads to a manner of thinking which says: "If I can use a word that is not actually used in the Constitution, then I can evade the Constitution."

Can you tell us what secession is?

I have mentioned it several times now: secession is a state's claim of jurisdictional supremacy over its land.

Secession has no other purpose - it has no meaning at all - unless it means to assert jurisdictional supremacy.

The Constitution plainly says that it is the law of the land. Whether one wants to assign the name of "secession" or "sovereign separation" or "doingourownthingism" or "Fred" to the act of claiming a jurisdictional supremacy which is contrary to the Constitution, it is still unconstitutional.

[Polybius]

The Constitution is not a contract.

Do you notice the pattern?

You will nit-pick about the fact that I used the word "contract" but you avoid, at all costs, the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment.

You don't want analogies between the U.S. Constitution and contracts?

Fine. Let's make an analogy between Constitutions and Constitutions.

Is secession mentioned in the European Union Constitution?

Yes. It is specifically addressed in Article I-60. The European Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution in 1860, is NOT SILENT about the issue of secession.

Can you tell us what secession is?,

It is, among other things, a "Power". No matter how much you tap-dance around the motives or intent or justifications or yadda, yadda, yadda, secession is a "Power".

In regards to "Powers", either you have them or you don't.

Does the U.S. Constitution specifically mention "Powers"?

Yes, it does.

Is secession a Power that is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or was forbidden by Federal law in 1861?

No.

What does the U.S. Constitution specifically say about Powers not mentioned in the Constitution or forbidden to the States by Federal law?

I have mentioned it several times now: secession is a state's claim of jurisdictional supremacy over its land. Secession has no other purpose - it has no meaning at all - unless it means to assert jurisdictional supremacy. The Constitution plainly says that it is the law of the land. Whether one wants to assign the name of "secession" or "sovereign separation" or "doingourownthingism" or "Fred" to the act of claiming a jurisdictional supremacy which is contrary to the Constitution, it is still unconstitutional.

By your convoluted sophistry, it is impossible for the European Union to now have any jurisdiction over its member States while, at the same time, have the Power of secession specifically reserved as a Power of each member State.

Your sophistry does not meet the test of the Real World.

The fact remains that you can build word castles until the cows come home but you cannot deny that the U.S. Constitution WAS SILENT on the subject of secession in 1860, you cannot deny that no Federal law mentioned secession in 1860 and you cannot deny that the Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

As the pattern of these Civil War threads goes, you will simply re-post your same argument in different words but you will not be able to deny that the U.S. Constitution WAS SILENT on the subject of secession in 1860, you cannot deny that no Federal law mentioned secession in 1860 and you cannot deny that the Tenth Amendment reads as follows: