[Who is John Galt?]

Good to hear from you again (although, as always, we find ourselves in disagreement ;>)!

Thomas's was the dissenting opinion, so his view doesn't have the status of law.

Congratulations! I have been citing the subject opinion to judicial cultists for years, and have even gone so far as to provide a link to the opinion on my homepage, and you are the first person to note that it was a minority opinion. You might have mentioned, however, that Mr. Justice Thomas was joined in dissent by the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia. In other words, the entire conservative side of the court. And the fact that “his view doesn't have the status of law” in no way alters the simple fact that Mr. Justice Thomas was absolutely correct in his assertions - but does indeed say something about the sorry state of 'constitutional law' in America.

…there most assuredly are other "mechanisms" or institutions of self-government on the national level: Congress, the Electoral College, the Presidency. Justice Thomas's argument does not affect the legitimacy of these institutions or elevate "state's rights" above them.

As Mr. Justice Thomas noted, “[W]here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.” Quite obviously, the Constitution is not “silent” regarding “Congress, the Electoral College, [and] the Presidency” (although mere mention in the Constitution does not magically endow federal institutions with unlimited powers). It is equally obvious that the Constitution is “silent” with regard to secession.

The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes unilateral secession an impossibility.

I wonder if anyone who cites “the supremacy clause” as a bar to secession has ever bothered to read it. Allow me to quote the language in question:

”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

“The supremacy clause” can be said to make “unilateral secession an impossibility” only if some other clause of “this Constitution” prohibits State secession; or if a federal law “made in Pursuance” of some other clause of “this Constitution” prohibits State secession; or if a “Treaty” prohibits State secession. The language is quite clear - those are the only possibilities. Please explain to us precisely which other clause prohibits secession; or which specific federal law prohibited secession in 1860 (quoting the constitutional clause it was “made in pursuance” of ;>); or which “treaty” banned secession. If you can refrain from circular reasoning (the standard “secession is unconstitutional – therefore secession is equivalent to rebellion – therefore secession is unconstitutional” argument ;>) you will save time.

By virtue of calling a national convention and having its resolutions ratified by popular conventions in 3/4 of the states, the process has become a national one, and reflects a national consensus.

“A national consensus?” The 38 least-populous States have only about 40% of the nation’s population, and yet they can amend the Constitution at will. In fact, it is possible that the legislatures of ¾ of the States could amend the Constitution, without the people of the States being involved in any way (other than by means of having previously elected their State legislators). The States amend the Constitution – if a “consensus” is required, it is clearly a “consensus” of the States.

The founders did not simply allow states to opt out of the union.

Really? Perhaps you could quote “the founders”…

Nor did they allow state legislatures the option of dissolving the confederation on their own.

Citation please…

They required that Constitutional changes reflect something approaching a national consensus.

And which specific clause of the Constitution would ‘require’ a ‘change’ in order to permit State secession? Which clause prohibits it?

;>)

[x]

Your arguments don't convince me. The Supremacy clause clearly indicates to me that no state can by its own act void federal laws or exempt itself from their applicability. It's not common practice for agreements to contain an implied right to break with the agreement whenever one sees fit. Something that important would have been explicitly written into the agreement, not simply assumed to be implicit in it. Nor is the idea of the 10th Amendment as a charter of state supremacy and secession beyond question.

I suppose I haven't convinced you either. Dispute on these matters has been going on for over a century and won't end anytime soon. Much of the argument is not so much over what the Constitution says, but over the conceptual background that is presumed to be valid on issues where the Constitution is silent, or over how presumed conflicts between clauses are to be resolved. The very fact that such argument goes on and on with no sign of abatement is an indication that more caution was required in 1860 than the secessionists displayed.