[Frumious Bandersnatch]

However they worded it, as long as the People acted to take their State out of the Union, it was still legal.....now matter how they wrote the enabling legislation afterward. Even if they didn't get the explanations right.

Where, in the Constitution does it even imply that the people have the power to secede?  Don't look to the 9th amendment, because it only talks of the rights of the people - the supremacy clause and enumerated powers still take precedence over any act passed by the people (Your argument does not make any sense for a republic).  BTW, if such a case does occur, the people are acting as the state...

[lentulusgracchus]

Well, I have got to hand it to you, you have your Lincolnian catechism of subordination down pat.

Just remember to say "sir" a lot, slave.

Oh, and you're still wrong. Since I've exposed my position repeatedly, and laid out my arguments which you've contradicted merely by saying that the People are now the property of the State -- and asserting the Supremacy Clause as the owner's manual -- then you obviously don't believe in the People, nor democracy, nor for that matter a Republic. For if the People are nothing more than what your state ministers may snap their fingers at, and sic a magistrate on, to make them Go Away in any dispute, then why bother with "representing" them either, but just do as you please instead, as Machiavelli counseled princes to do?

You're what America needs more of: an apologist for despotism. Since we're going to get more and more of it, plusgood duckspeakers will be in demand. Have you considered a career in public affairs?