[Ditto]

Do you really think that they just spent years fighting for their right of self-determination and explaining consent of the governed to the world just to deny it to their own descendants? I think not.

And how does unilateral secession lead to anything but anarchy, which is what those men were trying to prevent with the Constitution. It provided all the framework for self-determination and to assure that the 'governed" had the final say.

[Arkinsaw]

And how does unilateral secession lead to anything but anarchy, which is what those men were trying to prevent with the Constitution. It provided all the framework for self-determination and to assure that the 'governed" had the final say.

Secession leads to anarchy? Well, if they said "we are seceding and have decided to have no government whatsoever" then it might lead to anarchy in the seceding State. But actually the seceding State is most likely to say that "we are seceding in order to be governed by a government that has our consent". Which of course, depending on the government they form might or might not be anarchy.

But in either case, it would not lead to anarchy in States that did not secede and remained where they were.

The anarchy argument is not a serious one.