1. I believe a "super majority" would be necessary for a State, based on the CONSENT of the governed of that State to withdraw from the compact.
2. Those who oppose the consent of the super-majority have a few choices.
A. Stay and put up with the governance of the new sovereign State
B. Leave
C. Work politically to overturn the existing power.
D. Attempt to secede themselves and break apart.
E. Take up arms against the new sovereign State.
So, there you have it, 5 options for any individual to take. I personally would have no problem with Texas breaking into 300 little sovereign city-states sharing a common defense pact (something the duchy's in Italy didn't do to well when Spain came a knocking). So little "r" republicanism offers an UNBELIEVABLE number of options for self-governance and the free-market to EXPLODE. The Founders understood this clearly.
Now, I understand the Founders (and other historical figures all the way back to Plato) have fallen on hard times these days with big-government progressives AND conservatives. And this has led to very heated power struggles for generations and most have come to put most of their hope in getting "their guy" into office. Never realizing that they're just pawns in a BIG-GOVERNMENT chess game between the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation! ( in jest I'm sure you understand)
Be that as it may, the issue of secession has emerged again, mainly by modern day Jeffersonians and as expected, the legacy of Lincoln emerges as well. And the debate rages on between the two camps yet only 1 can lay claim to the 10,000 year understanding of Inalienable Rights. Hint - it ain't ole' honest Abe. It simply cannot be disputed, Lincoln's anti-constitutional actions in the 1860's fertilized the ground from which a HUGE oppressive national government emerged. And perhaps people should read a little more into Lincoln's law practice before they Knight him. He's not quite as white as the driven snow as we've been taught by the big-government propaganda machine.
You might want to reconsider your claim to Plato as a precursor of the idea of human rights.
Plato was a strong proponent of an utterly totalitarian government with hereditary philosopher-kings as absolute rulers.
He trotted off to Sicily and spent some time trying to be the power behind the throne of a powerful tyrant.
He was, in fact, the forerunner of all the intellectuals since who have been in love with the idea that if only they were given absolute power they could solve all man’s problems.
Your idea that “unalienable rights” has a 10,000 year history is ludicrous. You can search all the classical authors, and through Chinese and India history, and wherever you look you will find not a trace of the idea that “all men are created equal.”
Its germ is found in the Hebrew prophets, was expanded in the NT, and didn’t really begin to develop fully until the Reformation, when people began to realize that we are all equal because we are all equally children of God.
It’s not only not an old idea, it is utterly unique to western civilization.
That’s quite the recipe for chaos you have there.
Too true.
Yet they're refuse to acknowledge the fact the South tried to extract herself for the simple purpose of self-preservation. To them, preventing the annihilation of an entire economy isn't a 'good enough' reason.
Nor can they ever seem to verbalize just how much IS 'enough'. They are so blinded by the immorality of slavery, they can't see the underlying issue - property.
So now that 'they won', our money has no value, our property confiscated without due process, our children can be arbitrarily taken by the State, we don't own our real estate [even after it's paid for], we have to have governments permission to drive, to work, to improve our own homes...... the list of unconstitutional actions is endless.
All because they unleashed the beast from its Constitutional cage.
One has to wonder if the concept of ENOUGH even exists to them, or are they merely the contemporary lap dogs of our perverted government.