I never said me and me alone. Secession or rebellion occurs whenever a significant segment of the population doesn't like the way things are going. In the case of the present discussion, many people don't like the present unconstitutional course of the federal government.
Never mind my opinion on the subject...
We sure as hell never hear your opinion on the subject, since you're stuck between your usual Scylla and Charibdes. You can't assert that the present activities of the federal government are constitutional because that would expose you as a leftist. Nor can you say they're unconstitutional because that would blow your entire argument that we have to obey the Constitution when it comes to secession out of the water. So you simply duck the issue, and condescendingly lecture people for wanting to secede.
....what makes you right and those that say the government did NOT violate the Constitution wrong? For you it is all one sided. You're right, everyone else is wrong, the Constitution is voided, and that gives you the authority to secede or whatever. Well that hardly the case, because for every clause of the Constitution you say has been violated, every single illegal act you care to mention, there will be someone somewhere who disagees with you and will tell you that you're wrong and exactly why you're wrong. So why are they right and you wrong, or why are you right and they're wrong?
Because in case you haven't noticed, we're in a post-Constitutional era in which sociological jurisprudence has supplanted the rule of law, and in which leftist concepts of "social justice" are routinely substituted for the clear language of both statutes and the Constitution.
If you're going to seriously contend that there's a legitimate constitutional case to be made for Roe vs. Wade, or for the impending same-sex "marriage" fiat, give it your best shot. Are you really going to tell us that the pro-Roe or pro-same sex "marriage" constitutional arguments have any legitimate basis in reality whatsoever? That a reasonable and honest person can read the Constitution and conclude that there's a right to abortion and same-sex "marriage"?
You know as well as anyone here that those rulings are deliberate perversions of the Constitution.
Or better yet, give sanctuary cities your best shot. Or the federal government's clear refusal to enforce immigration law. Justify Nancy Pelosi's recent assertion that immigration raids must end.
Or just tell us all that Obama, Pelosi, and company love the Constitution just as much as we do, and any discrepancy between what they're doing and what we desire is just an honest disagreement. They honestly love the Constitution and are trying their damndest to bring it to life and abide by it, but they just happen to honestly interpret it differently. Nancy Pelosi honestly believes that the border is a fiction and that the law prohibiting people from illegally squatting here doesn't exist.
That's why the Founders never meant for secession to be unilateral. To do so guarantees acrimony and conflict, the kind of bloody conflict the South launched 148 years ago last Sunday. Both sides must agree that the compact is broken, or have a third party rule on the question. Both sides must agree to the partition in order to guarantee that all interest are protected.
A third party? The UN maybe?
We're only one weak Supreme Court justice away from losing nearly all of our constitutional liberties. Do you really think a court composed of five or six Souter clones will respect the Constitution one bit? The constitution guarantees religious liberty, but what will happen to that liberty when the federal government passes the "gay rights" law they're sure to pass soon? Want me to post the link again to the examples of religious freedom already being crushed in deference to homosexuality?
I'd like to imagine there would be some point when you conclude that the federal government has gone beyond the scope of its constitutional authority and has broken its compact with the people, and so the people who recognize this breach may wish, as Gov. Perry suggested, to leave the union. But as I said earlier, I don't think that would happen unless a right-wing cabal took over the government. As long as it's leftists trashing the Constitution and building a massive federal leviathan, you'll always find wiggle room to excuse their power grabs.
A better phrasing would be: “You can't assert that these lawless activities of the federal government are unconstitutional....”
We thankfully aren't at the point yet where the government is fully operating outside its constitutional scope.