Post removed

[HopeAgain]

26. At a certain level, law becomes nothing more than a social compact

The very act of succession is a denial by the governed of the federal right to govern them. There is no longer government by the consent of the people.

That philosophical point aside, the Constitution is silent on a state's right to succeed, nor is there any mechanism on how to do so. On the other hand, the federalist form of government was highly controversial from the outset. The Constitution only provides for three powers for the federal government: tax/spend, regulate interstate commerce and provide for the common defense. Thomas Jefferson would have been appalled by the modern federal government.

But the less than perfect "more perfect union" was probably doomed from the day the Constitution was signed because the compromise between federalist and states righters was to simply not resolve the respective rights. Eventually, fueled by a great "wedge issue" (the immoral institution of slavery) an ugly split was inevitable.

The law generally abhors anything that is irrevocably set into perpetuity and doesn't continued governance of a State, vested with what are supposed to be plenary powers, subjected, perhaps into perpetuity, to governance without their consent fly in the face of the concepts liberty and autonomy? Doesn't on the other hand, a compact wit no termination imply an intention to create a permanent government?

So the Constitution had to basically be suspended while the issue could be decided in the court of the battlegrounds. That outcome, as well as the Texas v. White decision (made by the victors) decided in the favor of the union. NOW the law is settled, there can be no sucession. The imposition of the 14th and 15th Amendments implies a constitutional authority for the Federal government to protect EVERY citizen as a citizen of the United States, regardless of the wishes of the State.

Then again, I'm not a constitutional authority...