[Bigun]

If s state cannot join without permission and once in cannot combine with another state without permission or split without permission or change its borders by a fraction of an inch without permission, then it's not hard to conclude that it needs permission to leave as well.

Then why didn't those learned souls who wrote the document simply say that it is prohibited? Do you suppose that they were incapable of doing so? Or is it possible, as I believe it to be, that they specifically chose not to include it in their list of items prohibited to the states because they wanted those free and independent states who comprised the union to have a final and complete check on the government they were creating?

[Non-Sequitur]

Then why didn't those learned souls who wrote the document simply say that it is prohibited? Do you suppose that they were incapable of doing so? Or is it possible, as I believe it to be, that they specifically chose not to include it in their list of items prohibited to the states because they wanted those free and independent states who comprised the union to have a final and complete check on the government they were creating?

I think it's more ridiculous to believe that the Founders would go to lenghts to ensure that states could not take steps that might harm other states, and then leave permission for the ultimate negative act assumed. But that's just me. I'm not blessed with your...creative imagination.