Since the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government, this leads to the absurdity of asking an oppressive government to explicitly find itself at fault in order to be free to leave it.
But what none agree to is unilateral declarations of secession, in Madison's term, "at pleasure" -- meaning without any constitutionally justifying reasons.
I read it. Madison was simply wrong.
The Founders' logic is simple: they considered their Constitution a legally binding contract, or "compact", similar to, let's say, a marriage which is only to be broken for the most serious of reasons, and even then preferably by mutual consent.
The thing about contracts is that you can't use one to somehow involuntarily bind a person or entity that was not a party/signatory to the contract. My next door neighbor and I can't sign a contract requiring *you* to give us both something, or obey our instructions, or whatever. Citizens born today into a country founded two hundred years ago have never had an opportunity to ratify such a contract. Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality.
“But what none agree to is unilateral declarations of secession, in Madison’s term, “at pleasure” — meaning without any constitutionally justifying reasons.”
That really is a bizarre statement. I mean, we know with absolute certainty that at least 11 states believe exactly that.
So you are saying the only people bound by law are those alive when the law was enacted, and everyone born after that date is free to violate those laws?
Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality.
You are only bound by those laws as long as you reside in this country. But there is no law forcing you to stay here.
You forget that in 1860, the Supreme Court was under firm control from the Southern Slave Power.
We see that most clearly in the 1857 7-2 Dred Scott decision, all but making slavery legal in every state.
One or two more decisions like that would have made abolitionism illegal everywhere.
So the Supreme Court was Slave-Power friendly, and would have produced whatever results wanted, so long as they were even remotely Constitutional.
Sloth: "I read it. Madison was simply wrong."
Not nearly as wrong as you are, FRiend. ;-)
The US Constitution is a contract, or "compact" in their words, the foundation for Union, and all our laws.
What it says, and what they meant by it are the basis for our entire political system.
Without it, we are nothing, literally.
And Madison, more than any single individual defined what the Founders intended at that time, including on the subject of "disunion", later called "secession".
Here's the point to remember: there is no record of any Founder disagreeing with Madison that unilateral secession (meaning not by mutual consent) "at pleasure" (meaning without some material breech of compact) was unconstitutional.
Sloth: "The thing about contracts is that you can't use one to somehow involuntarily bind a person or entity that was not a party/signatory to the contract."
Founders used the word "compact" instead of "contract", possibly to separate it from such issues as you raise here.
Sloth: "Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality."
I seriously doubt if you've thought through what you posted here, since it implies the US Constitution is not legally binding on anyone who did not vote for the original document, which means all laws based on the Constitution are illegal and there are no laws, etc., etc.
That is not a logically sustainable position.
But if it's any consolation to you, you might remember that all officials of the Federal government (and probably states, but I don't know that for certain), including the military, take a solemn oath to:
This oath is also taken by every new naturalized citizen.
In addition, school children plus many others routinely
There is also the matter of usage, meaning, if you and I agree to something, even if not fully spelled out, and then act as if the agreement is binding, then legally, we have acknowledged that agreement is legally binding on us.
This is, for example, how much business can be done based on "a handshake" of trust that each understands the rules and agrees to follow them.
Nothing spelled out, nothing signed, but still that agreement is legally binding.
So the Constitution's powers to define the United States does not necessarily fade away just because its Founding Generation has long since left the scene.