> If it [state secession] is not prohibited by the Constitution then there is no reason why it is not permissible. <
That is a very good argument, especially if the 10th Amendment is considered as well. But as I noted earlier, it would have been nice had the Founders removed all doubt.
By the way, is anyone aware of anything the Founders might have written on this issue? Anything in their private papers, etc.?
William Rawles had such a view of the Constitution, if that counts.
As John Marshall pointed out in the McCullough v. Maryland decision: "A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind...Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation."
By the way, is anyone aware of anything the Founders might have written on this issue? Anything in their private papers, etc.?
There are a several letters from James Madison written in the 1820's where he said a proper secession requires the consent of the other states.
James Madison wrote during the nullification crisis that secession was not allowed. I’m not at home right now but when I get there I’ll post his letter.
If they had included a no out clause then no states would have ratified it(USC).