I'm saying that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed (whether they were around at ratification or not) can withdraw their consent at which time the government no longer has any just powers over those people.
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.
Obstructing secession absolutely constitutes a law forcing me to stay here.
No, it obstructs you from claiming that the place where you are is now someplace else.
But Sloth, the question here is: what constitutes lawful secession?
I'm pretty sure that even you agree: a bunch of buddies sitting around a camp-fire somewhere drinking, singing songs and loudly declaring their "secession" does not constitute anything legally determinative, right?
Well, our Founders spelled out what they thought constitutes lawful secession: mutual consent and/or a serious breech of contract.
Neither condition existed in November 1860, when South Carolina's secessionists began organizing to declare their disunion.
Sloth: "Obstructing secession absolutely constitutes a law forcing me to stay here."
But there was no "obstructing secession" in 1860 or 1861 -- zero, zip, nada, none.
No Federal force prevented secessionists from holding their conventions and making their declarations -- none, zero.
No Federal actions stopped secessionists from forming their own Confederate government, or raising their own army -- zip, nada.
No Federal responses impeded the Confederate Congress from passing whatsoever laws it wished -- none.
But the Confederacy was just not content to form their own government.
No, what they wanted was to provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States, then send Confederate forces to invade every Union state and territory they could reach.
So, it wasn't secession which caused Civil War, rather it was the Confederacy's starting and declaring war which did.