If anyone who considers the secession of the Southern States to have been been unconstitutional wants to be historically (and legally) accurate, maybe they should read the United States Constitution (as it then existed) instead...
Why not just read the Constitution as it is and was. There is no right to secession in it. Within the sphere of federal powers, federal laws are supreme.
Some will argue that a "right to secede" is reserved by the states under the 10th Amendment. That's stupid. You can't claim to have implicitly reserved a right under the Consitution to exempt yourself from the working of the Constitution.
What's annoying here is how you guys cobble together your theory and then present it as the real or original interpretation. The Founders and most 19th century Americans didn't accept the theory of unilateral secession. Yours isn't not the original or authoritative interpretation of the Consitution.
Frankly, sir, you reveal yourself to be just another member of the 'lunatic fringe.' There is no such thing as "the Constitution as it is and was." The United States Constitution is written law, which has been specifically modified from time to time by amendment. Care to refer to 'the Constitution as it refers to alcohol consumption as it is and was?' Of course not - the Constitution has been repeatedly amended in that regard. In other words, you're a bull sh!t artist.
There is no right to secession in it. Within the sphere of federal powers, federal laws are supreme.
"Within the sphere of federal powers?" Tell us, sport, how those "powers" are defined, if not by the specific written terms of the Constitution. And where within those specific written terms State secession is prohibited. Please be specific.
Some will argue that a "right to secede" is reserved by the states under the 10th Amendment. That's stupid. You can't claim to have implicitly reserved a right under the Constitution to exempt yourself from the working of the Constitution.
And what specific clause do you see as the "working of the Constitution," that prohibited secession? Hmmm? Once again, please be specific.
What's annoying here is how you guys cobble together your theory and then present it as the real or original interpretation.
LOL! Why don't you quote for us the address of Senator Toombs of Georgia, upon his resignation from the Senate, on the occasion of the secession of the State of Georgia from the constitutional union. It's obviously news to you, but he cited the Tenth Amendment as reserving the right of secession to the individual States. That is historical fact, not any 'cobbled together theory presented as the real or original interpretation.'
Historical fact, sport.
Something you're obviously short on.
The Founders and most 19th century Americans didn't accept the theory of unilateral secession. Yours isn't not the original or authoritative interpretation of the Constitution.
Obviously, you have never read the ratification documents of the States of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Nor have you read Thomas Jefferson's 'Kentucky Resolutions,' or his 'Declaration' of 1825. Nor are you familiar with James Madison's 'Virginia Resolutions,' or his 'Report on the Virginia Resolutions.' Nor have you read Tucker's 'Blackstones' of 1803 (still cited by the U.S. Supreme Court). In other words, as I have previously observed, you're nothing but a bull sh!t artist.
When you can 'cobble together' a rational argument with legal and historical citations, get back to us. Frankly, I won't hold my breath waiting...