The question of whether secession is allowed or not isn't the issue. I agree that the Constitution does not prohibit it so there is no reason why it should not be allowed. The question is how secession is to take place. You take the position that only the leaving states had any rights that needed to be respected or any say in the matter. Madison disagrees. He clearly states in his letters that secession requires the consent of all the parties affected. His view that all states are equal parties to the Constitution seems contrary to your Orwellian view that some states are more equal than others. And I'll accept Madison's interpretation over your's, for the obvious reasons.
Now, if you have other documents from the period that seem to specifically support the concept of unilateral secession then by all means, trot them out.
You disagree - which (IMHO) ranks you with the 'Roe v. Wade' types and their mysterious 'right of privacy,' and every other extreme liberal who seeks to 'amend' the Constitution via 'interpretation.'
Your not-so-humble opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, you would be incorrect.
Allow me to quote (once again) the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [of the States].
In reality, 'the question of whether secession is allowed or not' is the only issue. That right is nowhere prohibited to the States, nor is the power to prevent it delegated to the federal government. The question of 'how secession is to take place' is irrelevant at the federal level - the Constitution does not prohibit the action to the States, or empower the federal government to oppose such action.
You take the position that only the leaving states had any rights that needed to be respected or any say in the matter. Madison disagrees. He clearly states in his [private] letters that secession requires the consent of all the parties affected.
Obviously, the States were unaware of Mr. Madison's private opinions, voiced decades after he 'sold' the new Constitution to the people of the States, in part based on his public assurances that the States could decide for themselves whether federal actions were unconstitutional, and resort even to the use of military force to oppose such actions.
As for "the consent of all the parties affected:" are you suggesting that State sales taxes, or State speed limits, for example, are 'unconstitutional' because they 'affect all of the States as parties to the Constitution?'
His view that all states are equal parties to the Constitution seems contrary to your Orwellian view that some states are more equal than others.
Actually, I suggest (as did Mr. Jefferson, in his own words):
...that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
And I'll accept Madison's interpretation over your's, for the obvious reasons.
Have at it - my view is completely consistent with Mr. Madison's public writings, published during the period when the Constitution was actually ratified (and immediately thereafter)...
;>)
Now, if you have other documents from the period that seem to specifically support the concept of unilateral secession then by all means, trot them out.
I've posted them before (and you ignored them, as always). But because I'm feeling generous, here's a sample:
"The powers not delegated, to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"...
All the powers of the federal government being either expressly enumerated, or necessary and proper to the execution of some enumerated power; and it being one of the rules of construction which sound reason has adopted; that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it, in cases not enumerated; it follows, as a regular consequence... every power which has been carved out of the states, who, at the time of entering into the confederacy, were in full possession of all the rights of sovereignty, is, in like manner to be construed strictly, wherever a different construction might derogate from the rights and powers, which by the latter of these articles; are expressly acknowledged to be reserved to them respectively.
I've quoted this source before (as has the U.S. Supreme Court, more recently ;>), so I will assume you are familiar with it.
Your not-so-humble opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, you would be incorrect.
It's happened many times before (although never with regard to debates here, regarding the issue at hand ;>)...