Replies

Conditioned upon an existential threat.

You claim it is conditional. What language in the Declaration of Independence identifies any conditions?

Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law.

The approval by a State legislature of the US Constitution doesn't carry the force of law? Then from what source does the "force of law" emerge?

7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave.

Gee, now why do ya spose that is?

Because a mere 11 years after the Declaration of Independence was written and ratified, the idea is bone headed stupid. The constitution clearly did not include a ban on leaving, because in 1776, the nation made the right to independence the foundation of it's own legitimacy.

This "states cannot leave" nonsense was crap people asserted many decades subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution. If you claim otherwise, show me some 1789 contemporary proof that anyone believed otherwise.

I've got statements from the collective authorities of states saying they can. What primary source of official knowledge do you have that says they cannot?

DiogenesLamp to rockrr: "You claim it is conditional.
What language in the Declaration of Independence identifies any conditions?"

All of this has been pointed out to DiogenesLamp innumerable times, but he utterly refuses to read & comprehend.
Regardless, conditions set by the Declaration begin with its very first word: "When..."

"When...it becomes necessary…"
"Whenever it becomes destructive of these ends…"
"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."
"...such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
"We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies..."

"When...it becomes necessary" are the Declaration's opening words and there is never a hint of at pleasure reasons or actions afterwards.

rockrr on VA ratification statement: "Irrelevant - doesn't carry the force of law."

DiogenesLamp: "The approval by a State legislature of the US Constitution doesn't carry the force of law?
Then from what source does the 'force of law' emerge?"

Legally speaking, signing statements never carry the "force of law", but only act as statements of intent, should the matter ever be adjudicated.
Courts may, but also may not, treat such signing statements with respect in reaching their decisions.

But even if we do treat Virginia's signing statement with respect, it still does not authorized what Fire Eaters did in late 1860 -- declare secession at pleasure.
Virginia's statement's key words are:

"...powers granted... may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

No such "perverted" existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "The constitution clearly did not include a ban on leaving, because in 1776, the nation made the right to independence the foundation of it's own legitimacy. "

No Founder ever asserted an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All supported "secession" by necessity as in 1776 and by mutual consent as in 1788.
But neither necessity nor mutual consent existed in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "This "states cannot leave" nonsense was crap people asserted many decades subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution.
If you claim otherwise, show me some 1789 contemporary proof that anyone believed otherwise."

The proof is this: all the quotes which you tell us authorize a "right of secession" in fact restrict such right to conditions of necessity or mutual consent.
There is no quote from any Founder ever implying support for an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.