No, the power is to admit, not control.
Controlling a State after its point of admission is against Article 4 Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I've already posted Rawle, who specifically says a state could leave.
§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
Tell me NS, if an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
-----
Chief Justice Marshall, 1819
Marshall was speaking about whether or not a national bank was constitutional. Of course it was. The federal government was instituted with the monies from the several states, they had to have some way to deal with it.
Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word bank, or incorporation, we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are entrusted to its government. It can never be pretended that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior.
Marshall also said:
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional
He says to stay within the Constitution. The same thing I've been saying all along.
On the contrary. Article IV, Section 3: "...no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." Article I, Section 10: No state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state..." Also in Article I, Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation..." So given those restrictions states cannot split, combine, add to their territory by acquiring land form foreign countries, or shift their borders a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress.
Now, shall we discuss all the other controls Article I, Section 10 and Article IV place on the states?
I've already posted Rawle, who specifically says a state could leave.
Great, and I've posted Madison, who specifically says a state may not leave unilaterally.
But speaking of Rawle, he writes: "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents." So Rawle seems to be saying that none of the states in 1829 had the authority to secede as part of their Constitutions. So what changed? What clause was added that suddenly granted the state legislatures the power Rawle himself said that they lacked?
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Wonderful. Now show me Joseph Story, majority opinion in a Supreme Court decision that says the same thing.
Tell me NS, if an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
As analogies go this one is pretty thin. How about my earlier analogy? If you enter into agreement with another party, does that party automatically have the right to walk away from the partnership, repudiate a share of the debt, and take whatever joint property he might get his hands on without any compensation to you?
Marshall was speaking about whether or not a national bank was constitutional. Of course it was. The federal government was instituted with the monies from the several states, they had to have some way to deal with it.
But where does the Consitution explicitly state that such a bank was legal?
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended.
Something I completely agree with.
He says to stay within the Constitution. The same thing I've been saying all along.
Where does Chief Justice Marshall state that actions are outside the Constitution because you say they are?