Yes. Then it is well within your rights to return a petition to him stating you wish to be compensated for the loss you incurred.
If he gives you no satisfaction to the petition, then you either ask for a summary judgment or he has to meet you in court.
Its the way the law works.
-----
Now please answer my question:
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?
-----
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.
That's right. Because to do so would affect another State, and therefore falls under the authority of the general government.
What does that have to do with telling a State what it can or cannot do within its own borders or whether it can voluntarily leave a contract that it had voluntarily entered provided it followed the laws of notification?
Absolute nonsense. What you are saying is that a partnership protects only the party choosing to abuse it, and provides no protection for the abused.
If he gives you no satisfaction to the petition, then you either ask for a summary judgment or he has to meet you in court.
And what court was the U.S. supposed to meet the confederacy in? The U.S. Supreme Court? The rebel states considered themselves a separate country, not bound by the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. courts. The confederate supreme court? Such an institution didn't exist. In your world the southern states walked away from obligations, took what they wanted, and didn't give a damn for the consequences.
Its the way the law works.
I would be amazed if you could find a lawyer who agreed that theft was a contractual right.
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?
If he is trying to leave with his pockets filled with my property then yes, I can detain him and call the police.
That's right. Because to do so would affect another State, and therefore falls under the authority of the general government.
And when a state walks out of the union, repudiating debt and leaving that obligation to the remaining states, taking property jointly owned by all states, putting themselves in a position where they can cut off access to the sea at whim for some of the remaining states and cripple them economically, then wouldn't you say that those actions affect other states? Shouldn't those states have something to protect them? Don't they have any Constitutional rights in the matter?