[GOPcapitalist]

Thanks for your offerings. I suggest you think in terms of legitimate (constitutional) processes.

Already have, and those of the founding era recognized secession as legitimate. See Tucker's Commentaries, Rawle's View on the Constitution, and book I of Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Tucker was in the founding generation and was a contributor to several of the major activities in the nation's founding. Tocqueville and Rawle were in the generation immediately after them. All three provided strong legal and philosophical arguments for secession. Also, seeing as your previous posts contain little more than redundant inanities, I find little value that may be derived from either reading over them again or responding to them a second time.

[unspun]

Those are two political philosophers. They are trumped by the provisions of the Constitution, itself. Either a political act is an act within the provisions of the Constitution or it is outside the scope of the Constitution. And to save you time debating with me... Amendment 10 speaks to the actions of the States and People under the conditions that the People have de facto, formed a nation to constitutionally support, not to have a majority which say "nope, not interested anymore, I'm taking my parchments and quill and going home, I refuse to play."

Now, that's where the Declaration comes in. But that is only where "good reason" comes in. And protection of the Southern slave-based economy is utterly insufficient reason (against the rights provided in nature and by nature's God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in that order of priority).

There would be much greater grounds to invoke the Declaration to seceed based upon our present violation of the Right to Life, for instance. But not in order to maintain the Right to Own Life.

I'm done on this thread. Thank you.