> there is nothing in it about secession, at all <
Well, yes. That’s what I said: There is no legal mechanism in the U.S. Constitution that allows for secession. That’s a fact.
I suppose one could argue that since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit succession, it must somehow be doable. That’s shaky reasoning
This was an oversight by the Founders, IMO. It would have been nice if they would have put in a mechanism for a state to secede. The process should be lengthy - very lengthy - but it should be possible.
A Constitutional amendment addressing that might have been possible in, say, the year 1800. As you know, back then folks were very attached to their states, and they were very attuned to states right. Now...not nearly as much. Everyone wants that federal money.
Clearly you do not know how the USC works. Every law or action passed by a state is considered constitutional until proven otherwise by a party or parties with standing. Just as long as the state law doesn't usurp enumerated federal power in the USC its a good law. Again there is nothing in the USC about secession because if the founders had put that in there then it would have never been ratified.