[x]

Since this character believes rights have to be recognized by the constitution to be "rights" ...

There are rights explictly guaranteed by the Constitution and those that exist without regard to explicit provisions. But when we talk about government entities we are more likely talking about "powers" than "rights." It's folly to think that the Constitution contains an implicit right to break the Constitution. Something so important would have been dealt with explicitly, and not left up to interpretation.

History shows that there was no consensus about this matter at the time. It's necessary to proceed cautiously and prudentially where constitutional questions are concerned. The rebels didn't, and there's little point in whitewashing their rashness and radicalism today.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> It's folly to think that the Constitution contains an implicit right to break the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 8, and Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution enumerates specific powers and prohibitions for the general government and the states. It provides NO specific power to the general government to prevent secession, nor does it specifically prohibit the states from seceding. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, that power rests with the states.