They tried that 141 years ago and their illegal actions led to four years of civil war. Are you that anxious to go through that again?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and rule on what violates it and what does not. The Supreme Court has that duty, not the states or their legislatures or their agitators. The states knew that when they ratified it in the first place or petitioned for admission as states. The rules haven't changed so there is no reason for them to be surprised. There are no provisions for secession nor are there any provisions for rescinding their ratification other than those provided for amending the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the way it is and the way it will be until a future amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes things.
Actually, the actions of the secessionists did not lead to war, the refusal of the Federal government to recognize these popular acts led to war.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and rule on what violates it and what does not. The Supreme Court has that duty, not the states or their legislatures or their agitators. The states knew that when they ratified it in the first place or petitioned for admission as states. The rules haven't changed so there is no reason for them to be surprised. There are no provisions for secession nor are there any provisions for rescinding their ratification other than those provided for amending the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the way it is and the way it will be until a future amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes things.
Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States. This was the understanding of the real Founding Fathers, the States Conventions. In each State Convention whose proceedings were recorded and handed down to us (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, North Carolina), the Anti-Federalists warned that unspecified powers would be usurped by the Federal government. Federalists countered by stating over and over (I can give references if you like) that this was preposterous. No undelegated powers could possibly be assumed by the Federal government, since all Federal powers were specified in the grant. No Federal powers existed that were not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Indeed, Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights would not only be unnecessary, but extremely dangerous. Future centralizers would point to the specified rights in the Bill of Rights and say that the list of specified rights in the BoR was all-inclusive and there were not other rights retained by the people, since they were not specified in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights ran the risk of being seen as restrictive, not merely as precaution. The drafters of the Bill of Rights avoided this pitfall with the wording of the IX and X Amendments.
Respectfully,
D J White