And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state...
Since you have already admitted (months ago, maybe a year or so) that there was no explict federal law against secession, and you have also admitted that there is no explicit Constitutional prohibition against the act, you don't really have an arguement, unless you are stating that the president has dictatorial powers to twist and distort the meanings of words. But then again, being a big supporter of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore, I'm sure you have no problem with that.
And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state...
Since you have already admitted (months ago, maybe a year or so) that there was no explict federal law against secession, and you have also admitted that there is no explicit Constitutional prohibition against the act, you don't really have an arguement, unless you are stating that the president has dictatorial powers to twist and distort the meanings of words. But then again, being a big supporter of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore, I'm sure you have no problem with that.
I'm just guessing there were laws on the books regarding the collection of tarrifs that were not being carried out.
In any case, section 3 leaves it to the president's judgement.
Walt