In the case of individual contracts, a dispute of obligations is usually taken before a judge, who will determine whether the disputed provision is unconscionable. To be unconscionable, a provision must be “Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair” a judge will strike it out of the contract, as if it were never there.
Note that the concept pivots on conscience and an uncodified sense of unfairness. Though typically, case law provides some guidance, because, as you imply, not all consciences produce the same results.
So then, what is this appeal to conscience, if not a subterfuge for natural law? If so, then we do have a basis within our own law for rejecting as unlawful the imposition of a tyrannical relationship between individuals, and, by extension, larger associations.
Now, if you get a judge that thinks its OK to force you to continue attending the local country club, and puts a positive injunction in place to force you to attend once a week, what should you do? If you decided to ignore the injunction, further sanctions could be invoked, fines, incarceration, or worse, making you play golf at gunpoint!
My question to you is, at what point in the above, admittedly fantastic scenario, would you say, enough is enough, you cannot force me to do this? Because the answer to that question is precisely the point at which you must do what is technically illegal in order to do what is right.
And since the law abhors to undercut its own moral authority, it is at that very point at which most judges would likely find a contract provision, such as our unquitable country club, unconscionable.
Now, you state that one man’s tyranny is another man’s government. Also technically true. What do you think of Nuremburg? Yes, I know, I am deliberately going to an extreme, but bear with me, because the point is worth making. It was legal to commit genocide in the Weimar Republic. But it was wrong, and the court there held the SS and collaborators to a law NOT legislated as voiding a law that WAS legislated, even though the tyrannized party lost the physical conflict. How can that be? Unless of course, there is a natural law, and it really is relatively universal in its ability to govern the human conscience.
Therefore, inasmuch as conscience is the true court of last resort, I hold with Augustine, that bad law is no law at all. It has no true force. So that, if a tyranny can be shown, no decision, either of the legislature, or of the Supreme Court (or any careless words of one of its justices), can serve to make tyranny legal, or provide any meaningful legal justification for remaining under it.
However, you have yet to demonstrate there is any proto-constitutional provision that specifically enforces perpetual, involuntary union among the states. I am not aware of such. I may have missed it. Please enlighten me.
So you would agree that it is not the right of one side of the issue alone to declare the circumstances intolerable and the agreement null and void? At the very least it would take the word of both parties or that of a third party empowered to decide the issue? Which goes back to my belief that secession cannot be done unilaterally, not legally.
My question to you is, at what point in the above, admittedly fantastic scenario, would you say, enough is enough, you cannot force me to do this? Because the answer to that question is precisely the point at which you must do what is technically illegal in order to do what is right.
It is an invalid analogy. The Constitution is not a counry club. It is an agreement binding on all members. It protects the rights of all members, imposes the same limits and ensures the same powers to all. And under those circumstances how can a single party make a decision and take actions that impacts the interest of the other parties without those parties having a say in the matter? Clearly it cannot. To do so makes some parties more equal than others, and says that the Constitution protects some states more than other states.
With protections come obligations. If it is clear that a state or states want out of the Union then it is incumbant upon the other members to agree. All parties are bound to negotiate in good faith and to reach a fair and equitable settlement on issues of disagreement, and once reached the states should be left to go in peace.
Any other decision outside of this is outside of the Constitution. I won't argue justified or unjustified, but rebellion is a inherent right for all people. If that is the path a state chooses then so be it, it is their decision. But don't pretend its legal, and the state should expect to be opposed.
Who decides it's bad law? Forget extremes like the Holocaust, that's a simplistic example of a bad law. Who decides today what is a bad law? Abortion? Many say it is, many others say it is not. Here in Kansas we had a man decide that it was a bad law and shoot an abortionist to death. He was tried and convicted of murder. Should people advocate rebellion or secession over it? Would they be justified in declaring the pact to be broken because abortion is legal? Why are they right and the other side wrong? It is not a matter of saying "It's a bad law and you don't have to obey it" without also saying who gets to decide good law from bad?
However, you have yet to demonstrate there is any proto-constitutional provision that specifically enforces perpetual, involuntary union among the states. I am not aware of such. I may have missed it. Please enlighten me.
Nor have you been able to demonstrate what gives some states more protections under the Constitution than others. But let me clarify by saying I do not believe that the Union has to be forever or that states cannot leave. I say that it has to be a mutual decision between those leaving and those staying.