[Non-Sequitur]

Despite their rhetoric about the permanence and indestructibility of the Union, both Lincoln in his First Inaugural, and the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.

As did James Madison. I think that the implication is that a state may leave by the same manner as states join - a simple majority vote in both Houses of Congress. No super majority, no amendment, just a vote.

[allmendream]

So not only does a State have to have the Congressional majority votes of other States to secede, they have to have their OWN Congressional delegation VOTE THEMSELVES OUT OF A JOB!

Hard to be the U.S. Senator from Texas is Texas has left the U.S.A.

My dad used to support secession because the Constitution was a contract that was freely entered into. I argued that ALL contracts are freely entered into, but they are still binding until a remedy is exercised within that contract.

The “remedy” within the “contract” of the U.S. Constitution would be a vote by Congress passed by the President (or overriding of his veto).

Great point.