But the Tenth Amendment puts the burden of proof upon you, my friend – remember, the Constitution itself declares that all “powers not delegated...nor prohibited...are reserved to the States” and their people.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, though, unilateral secession is not a right protected by the Constitution and their opinion is the only one which carries any real weight.
Allow me to ask you a few questions, courtesy of John Taylor (1823):
The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring "that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." Did it mean to create two supremacies, one in the court, and another in the constitution? Are they colateral, or is one superior to the other? Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court? Are "the judges in every state" to obey the articles of the union, or the construction of these articles by the supreme federal court?
The project for a national government [proposed in convention by Hamilton, Randolph, and others], gave a supremacy over the articles of the constitution...to the legislative, judiciary, and executive, and did not propose that the constitution should be supreme over these departments, because it would have involved a contradiction. As they were to have had a supreme power of construing its articles, these articles could not possess a supreme power over their constructions. But a federal system required that the articles of union should be invested with supremacy, over the instruments created to obey and execute them. Hence they are declared to be so in reference to all these instruments, without excepting the federal court. And hence the right of altering these articles is retained by [the States as] these parties.”
What say you: “Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?” As Mr. Taylor observed nearly two centuries ago, the constitutional convention considered several plans that would have established a national government with supremacy over the Constitution itself – that is, with the ability to determine the meaning of the compact. All such plans were rejected. Rather, the Constitution established “a federal system,” which “required that the articles of union should be invested with supremacy” over the federal government. In short, “the opinion of the Supreme Court” is itself irrelevant, whenever it contradicts the Constitution. (Speaking of which, shall we discuss the Alien & Sedition Acts? ;>)
And if the motive is irrelevant to the constitutionality then why is it so hard for southterners to admit that by far the single, most important reason for their rebellion was defense of the institution of slavery.
One might just as well ask why it is “so hard” for Republicans to debate policy issues only in terms of their supposed impact on “the children”...
;>)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article IV requires congressional approval before a state can enter the Union, and it requires congressional approval for any change in a state. Any alteration of borders of a state requires congressional approval. If a state wants to split in two or more parts it requires congressional approval. If a state wants to join with another state it requires congressional approval. Clearly the power for a state to unilaterally change its makeup is a power denied them by the Constitution. And that should include the ultimate change of status, leaving the union.
Two questions then. Who decides if the opinion of the Supreme Court contradicts the Constitution? And what do the Alien and Sedition Acts have to do with the Supreme Court?