Well given your way of thinking, I would think you could just get all the voices in your head.
Excellent! So all I have to do is invoke the magic words "Self-Evident Natural Law" and the United States has to either accept that I and my neighbors are now a different country or be in rebellion against themselves! It's brilliant!
Your reply simply tells me you have no intention of discussing this topic like an actual adult. The foundation for those "Natural law" ideas were laid out by numerous writers of natural law, such as Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Puffendorf, Vattel, Rutherford and Grotius.
I suspect you just don't have the mental acuity necessary to follow their process of reasoning, but thankfully the founders did. If you think you otherwise, you can start here with "Lex Rex".
Then what's wrong with my notion, since it complies to the criteria you've laid out of defined area and majority of voters?
Your reply simply tells me you have no intention of discussing this topic like an actual adult. The foundation for those "Natural law" ideas were laid out by numerous writers of natural law, such as Locke, Wolfe, Burlamaqui, Puffendorf, Vattel, Rutherford and Grotius.
Your ability to spout names still doesn't tell me why some rebellions can be put down and some can't, and what the criteria for doing so are. After all, the Constitution makes mentions suspending habeas in case of rebellion and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection. Were they hypocrites from the start? Do insurrectionists and rebels need only control a defined area, win a majority of voters (and who decides who can vote?), and invoke "self-evident natural law" in order to make it illegal and immoral to suppress them?
That you refuse to actually address these questions, preferring to simply spout "that's ridiculous" tells me that you really aren't prepared to answer them. That or you don't like where the answers take you.