United States Constitution, Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
If the public act violates the Constitution then it's null and void.
What would be wrong with "complete surrender" to the terms of a state that decides that a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, and that it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security?
What if the rest of the states say that you're nuts and that there hasn't been a long train of abuse and usurpations?
Just as either member of a marriage should be able to leave that arrangement at will, even if the other objects, any one state should be able to leave the union at will.
You don't leave a marrige at will. You get a divorce and go through a legal proceeding that ends the marriage in a manner that protects the interests of both sides. What you're talking about is abandonment.
The Founding Fathers clearly considered such a course to be a fundamental right and duty, as indicated by their public declaration of that belief during the period from July 4 to August 2 of 1776.
But nothing in their writings indicates a belief that the partition could be done unilaterally.
I am not advocating secession, but I cannot imagine anyone who believes in freedom or in the Constitution itself claiming that it is not an implied right of any voluntary union and a stated right in the 10th Amendment.
It's not a voluntary union in the way you mean. Territories don't declare themselves states and send congressmen to Washington. They are admitted, and only with the permission of the other states and only when that permission is given. If permission is needed to join then why shouldn't permission be needed to leave? And as for the 10th Amendment, the power to admit a state and to approve changes of status once they've been allowed to join is clearly a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
That's our fundamental disagreement. There is no specific ban on secession in the Constitution, so by the Tenth Amendment, the states have that right (and only the force of arms can override that basic human right, in the same way as unlawful force can override any other human right). Living Constitution believers think there ought to have been such a ban, so they think that there is an implied ban. I disagree.
What if the rest of the states say that you're nuts and that there hasn't been a long train of abuse and usurpations?
What if in a divorce your soon-to-be-former spouse says you're nuts and he/she only abuses you when you deserve it, and besides, it's good for you so it's not abuse? You can still get a divorce even if the other partner doesn't like it. Due process is required, but the process is unilateral and the other party has no say in your decision - legal approval is essentially assured if one party makes that choice.
But nothing in their writings indicates a belief that the partition could be done unilaterally.
Um ... Read the Declaration of Independence, especially the signatures. I don't find King George III's signature anywhere on there, not even his governors' signatures. It was unilateral. George decided to make it a war, and that war was ended bilaterally, but the secession was unilateral and could have settled the question peacefully.
But nothing in their writings indicates a belief that the partition could be done unilaterally ... the power to admit a state and to approve changes of status once they've been allowed to join is clearly a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
Nope. Admitting states is an enumerated power, but forcing them to remain against the will of the people of that state is not enumerated, so it's not a federal power. It is quite clear from history that the Founding Fathers would not have intended to include that as a federal power, and it is quite clear from the Constitution that they never specifically listed that as a federal power.
I don't think secession is a good decision at this point for any state, but that is not my decision except for my own state, nor is it your decision or Obama's decision, except for your own state or for Obama's adopted state. Freedom means something, or it should, and that decision is a basic right of free people.