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.
But plenty of evidence that secession without the consent of the other states is illegal.
Living Constitution believers think there ought to have been such a ban, so they think that there is an implied ban.
You would put James Madison in that category? He wrote on several occasions that secession required the consent of the states.
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.
Yeah, by going to court and getting someone else to say your divorced. You cannot walk out and call the marriage over. If you continue to use the marriage analogy then unilateral secession is like one spouse walking out and abandoning the other. The marriage continues regardless.
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.
That was a revolution, a rebellion. There was nothing legal in the colonist's actions and they didn't pretend that they were. If you want to equate the South's rebellion with the Founder's revolution then I have no problems with that, and would say it's a better comparison than your marriage analogy. But don't forget the major difference - the Founder's won their rebellion. Make sure you win your's.
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.
Admitting the states and approving changes of status - splitting, combining with other states, any change in their border at all - are all powers reserved to the Congress. Likewise the power to approve a whole host of actions that, if taken, would impact the interests of the other states. Why should walking out of the Union be any different? It's a change in status. It definitely impacts the interests of the remaining states. Why shouldn't they be protected as well?