Then source them, please
-----
So long as it is done with the approval of at least a majority of the impacted parties, as demonstrated through a vote in Congress.
Your opinion. Please source any substantiation you may have.
-----
This is not a case where the action was legal when committed, and then later made illegal.
Joseph Story was explicit in his Commentaries. Something that is legally a non issue cannot be made 'illegal' after the fact.
-----
And something is not unconstitutional merely because you claim it is.
Nor do your claims that it is Constitutional make it so.
I've sourced almost every contention, and your opinions have been substantiated by (crickets)
You continue to say something isn't so when I've posted multiple legal authorities that say differently.
Enjoy your delusions, sir, and when the constantly-expanding federal authority manages to infringe on your rights yet again, thank Lincoln.
The U.S. Constitution.
Your opinion. Please source any substantiation you may have.
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." -- Chief Justice Chase, Texas v. White, 1869
Joseph Story was explicit in his Commentaries. Something that is legally a non issue cannot be made 'illegal' after the fact.
Something is not 'legally a non-issue' just because you say it is. Produce a court decision prior to 1869 that said unilateral secession was constitutional and you win your case. Otherwise it was certainly a legal issue for the court to decide in 1869. And their decision went against you.
Nor do your claims that it is Constitutional make it so.
Quite true. Which is why I believe that unilateral secession was illegal because the Supreme Court said it was, not because I say it was. They have jurisdiction in such matters, not you and not I.
You continue to say something isn't so when I've posted multiple legal authorities that say differently.
Post a court decision where they said unilateral secession was a right reserved to the states by the Constituiton then you win the arguement. Until then all the opinions in the world do not override the opinions of the 5 justices that said unilateral secession was not.
Enjoy your delusions, sir, and when the constantly-expanding federal authority manages to infringe on your rights yet again, thank Lincoln.
I'm enjoying your delusions too much to do that.