[arrogantsob]

There was two sovereignties involved here. There was no conditional ratification, no right to revoke and no right to seize federal property. This was settled in a letter from Madison to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention. NY was holding out for the right to leave and Madison held that it was unacceptable. What would be sufficient grounds to leave, just about anything?

The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the “more perfect union” of the federation.

Texas had no special rights when it joined the union, that, like most of these issues have long been settled and hardly worth the time to discuss them when so much more important things are in play.

[Svartalfiar]

There was two sovereignties involved here. There was no conditional ratification, no right to revoke and no right to seize federal property. This was settled in a letter from Madison to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention. NY was holding out for the right to leave and Madison held that it was unacceptable. What would be sufficient grounds to leave, just about anything?

Oh right. A random letter from one person to another tells us exactly how the Constitution says no secession. Because correspondence between citizens has force of supreme law. And yes, anything is sufficient grounds. Per the DoI, all political power is inherent in the people. If a state's populace want to leave the Union simply because, they have every right to do so. And no right to revoke? There are plenty of treaties that are broken or not adhered to. Why would a treaty of annexation be automatically permanent, yet no other treaty is?

The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the “more perfect union” of the federation.

Oh, were they now. Those same Articles of Confederation that didn't 'allow' for secession either? How did the states get out of these? Oh - they simply said that they no longer apply.