No, because no Constitutional convention was in progress.
Once the people of the States agreed to abide by the rules of the Constitution they were united forever as a common people.
I am waiting for you to explain the issuance of the Declaration of Independence as being an exercise of the rule of law as opposed to an act of revolution against the established order of British government. If the revolution was lost, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and a lot of their friends would have been hanged if they survived the loss. I am glad they won but puhleeze refrain from the manifestly ridiculous suggestion that the Declaration had anything whatsoever to do with the "rule of law."
Well, you need to actually go and read some history.
The American's cause was defended by the many in English Parilament (Son of Liberty) as being in defense of English liberties, and thus, they held that the Crown had violated the rights of the Americans and was in itself in violation of the 'rule of law'.
Thus, the Declaration was a document stating that one a nation's rulers stop ruling according the rule of law, the people are free to change their rulers and their form of Government.
So, the Declaration was in accordance of the rule of law, the law of God.
What is your CONSTITUTIONAL reference for the fantasy that a state, having joined these United States had exhausted its ability to withdraw? If I belong to an otherwise respectable club of gentlemen and it decides subsequently that members must present their teenagers to be sexually used by the members, I am withdrawing whether the club by-laws allow me to withdraw or not.
Read what Madison said on the subject.
He called secession a heresy.
Even Robert E. Lee didn't believe that the State could secede from the Union!
Four Confederate states were among the original thirteen. When they joined these United States, there was no Tenth Amendment to limit exercises of central government power. Shortly after they were admitted, the Bill of Rights was enacted (insofar as anything could be enacted) and the Tenth restrained central government powers to those SPECIFICALLY granted by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution EVER empowered the central government to wage war against those states choosing to leave simply for leaving. That was left to "the states and the people respectively." Lincoln and company were acting as federal officials and acting illegally when they invaded and conquered the Confederacy and still more so when the ratification of the Civil War amendments was achieved at gunpoint on the pretense that on the one hand the 11 states could not leave and OTOH they would not be "re-admitted" without ratification of XIII, XIV and XV. If Ron Paul agrees, that is nice to know but no reason to vote for him. If you disagree, with me and paleoPaulie on this, why should you be taken seriously on anything when the text of the constitution means nothing to you and you purport to speak for the "constitutionalist."
The 10th Amendment gives no right to secession.
It only allows the states to maintain what the Federal government did not assume, not the right to secede when they felt like it.
The President has a responsibility to uphold the laws of the land, and when you attack the federal government, you are in an act of rebellion.
No less then what Washington put down in the Whiskey Rebellion.
I conceded that we all make spelling errors here but the substitution of "facist" for "fascist" by you and several other paleoPaulie love slaves here is as much of a habit as your hero wanting to instantly surrender to our nation;'s enemies ASAP whenever possible.
No, sometimes a simple spelling error is a simple error, just as many of your posts show.
Actually I have a Bachelor's in History, magna cum laude, with a concentration in American History and several theses in Civil War History and a law degree thereafter. I am still waiting for your specific constitutional citation as to prohibition of secession. What this one or that one theorized is not the text of the constitution. What Lincoln or Billy Sherman imagined when committing their crimes is not the test of the constitution. We could also get into the violation of international law at the time which was represented by the "Union's" naval blockade of what it claimed was its own territory when blockades were legal only against foreign powers.
So you don't think that the basis for our nation was success in armed rebellion? Burke was admirable as a friend of the revolution but that did not make it anything other than a revolution. The Brits hanged Nathan Hale quite legally. If Cornwallis had succeeded, they would have hanged Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton (! they should have caught him early on instead of Nathan Hale) and a lot of their friends just as legally. I'll bet that Madison was speaking of the potential Federalist secession of New England represented by the efferts at the Hartford convention.
Oh, and was John Brown a grisly mass murderer and megalomaniac (Potowatomie Creek and Harper's Ferry) or do you justify him because he was allegedly upholding the "rights of man" by machete murders of farmers in Kansas and his planned arming of a slave rebellion in Virginia??? Personally, I think that Bobby Lee and J.E.B. Stuart in charge of U.S. Marines at Harper's Ferry did justice and carried out the rule of law by hanging the SOB. Do you regard him as a martyr?