I don't want to hijack the thread completely from people who want to discuss other things, but the Constitution does declare that it is the supreme authority in the land.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
Consequently if you want to "secede" or sever your connection to the rest of the country you have to do so at the federal level, by changing the federal laws or the Constitition. That's pretty clear, isn't it? If it isn't -- if there's disagreement -- that's all the more reason to make sure that all concerned parties are in agreement, rather than strike off on your own.
Under a tyranny, you may have the right to rebel and get out however you can, but if you live in a constitutional republic with free and democratic institutions, you work within them for change. It's an old debate that won't be resolved tonight.
Of course they can. Though it would take a majority of states today in order to dissolve the contract. Back then the Citizen was the citizen of the state first and foremost. (which was recently tested by I think 13 states just a few years ago, They where going to dissolve the constitution if the Federal government didn’t stop it’s mad spending (they needed more states and it failed.))
John Fielding argument is weak at best. Prior to the 14th amendment the Citizen was Citizen of the State secondary to the country.
Your argument that right makes right is true. That is what I was saying earlier. Lincoln chose to kill off 5% of the population of the US during his use of might in order to make his right.
Did you ever nominate whom you think is the worst president ever? Just curious.