[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Any "right to secession" meant that the Constitution was meaningless... Any belief to the contrary must throw logic out the window since it is tantamount to denying that the document is the Law of the Land.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states are not explicitly forbidden to secede, ergo they possess the right to secede. The tenth amendment cannot possibly be more clear than this.

To his credit, Walter Williams has written forcefully about this question [here or here, for starters]: Absent a right to secede, the states, and, more importantly, the people, are powerless to flee the federal tyranny.

Any "right to secession" meant that the Constitution was meaningless. That specific argument was specifically refuted during the ratification by no less than Madison who stated that the states joining the Union were forever part of the Union. Unless a constitutional amendment allowing separation was ratified.

This line of argument, and the tyrants [like yourself] who argue it, was precisely what Hamilton feared: Once one gets into the business of enumerating rights, the tyrants [like yourself] will argue that unless a right is specifically enumerated, it does not exist in the first place.

[bvw]

precisely what Hamilton feared

Hamilton was for limited, enumerated powers and yet the full POWER to see tham through. The Preample is CLEAR: "To form a more perfect Union". That means divorce -- secession -- is a impossibility, except by amendment to the Constitution itself.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton did not believe in any "right" to secede. (This was one of the reasons he was so anti-Burr)

Madison did not believe in any "right" to secede. (He explicitly stated in a letter to Hamilton that once a state joined the Union it was in it forever.)

Washington did not believe in any "right" to secede. (Most of his Farewell Address is pointed at the scroundrels, crooks and mountebanks who considered such a course.)

Jackson did not believe in any "right" to secede. (He was ready to hand the Fools in South Carolina edging in that direction.)

Lincoln did not believe in any "right" to secede. (He saved the Union when the RAT Insurrection was attempted in 1861.)

Even Jefferson did not believe in any "right" to secede. (His inaugural address in 1801 held its advocates up to ridicule and scorn.)

I will happily join such "tyrants" as these in opposition to the honor graduates of Clown College who are incapable of understanding (or unwilling to admit) that the constitution would be meaningless with such a "right."

US Congress "We hearby declare War on China."
Massachusetts "We don't want to fight China, we SECEDE." Oh, yeah this is clearly a "right."

While Texas may be a special case due to its joining the Union as a seperate country none of the other states have any such rights. The Union was formed by the American PEOPLE not the states which is the misunderstanding underlying all these bogus arguments about a "right" to secede.

It is a logical impossiblity. Even the Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was perpetual thus, the goal of the Constitution "To form a more perfect Union" would not have been met by allowing the reformed Union (Union 2.0) to be weaker than the earlier version (Union 1.0).

BTW you can shove the namecalling UYA. :^)

[hirn_man]

"The states are not explicitly forbidden to secede, ergo they possess the right to secede. The tenth amendment cannot possibly be more clear than this."

Maybe to you who uses the 10th amendmant like a rorshchach test to see what you want to see.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The powers delegated to the United States are done so by the Constititution. It does not say that the powers delegated to the United States by the individual states. Therefore the states did not have the power to take back something that was granted by something else. If an individual state wants to take back powers granted to the Feds by the constitution, they need a constitutional amendmant.

The supremacy clause states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the laws or constitution of the states nowithstanding.

What the supreme law of the land has granted inferior law can not take away. And whether you like it or not, state law is inferior to Constitutional law. Whether it is by the legislature, converntion, diving chicken entrails or whatever.

I no more believe in the concept of secession at will than I do the divine right of kings.