again, the trampling of the Consititution is an asserion without reference ... where doe sit say states can cut and run as they see fit.
Lousiana .... in the Union, doing pretty good, lots a folks with a different language, lost of seafood, a big great river, all sort of trade opportunities, and feeling pretty safe ... so LA says on a Monday of whimsy "we're out, its been fun, but we are out" (never mind debts associated with LA even being there) .... ooops, now here come the Spanish outfitted with all sorts of guns and stuff ... hey guys, can ya help ... "sorry, you left, you are on your own," ouch, ok I'm back in, .... whew we defeated the Spanish, then another 5 years .... well folks, I think I'm going to cut loose again, its been fun.
csl, Nations have never been established on the principles you seem to claim are Constitutionally embedded.
Getting married takes half a bottle of cheap whiskey and a night in Vegas .... getting divorced is always messy.
Now, whether Slavery was a state's right or not is entirely separate from this notion that the Constitution has embedded a divorce on demand clause.
There is not a lot to read on that from the Founder's, cause, IMO, those folks wre rather considered and knew from the get-go that the whole notion was untenable.
A treaty would require 50 treaties (knowing that on a bad monday, VA could just walk) and so on.
This notion of Constitutional enshrinement of the "its been fun, but I want out" clause is pure fabrication. It is not and has not and will never be in terms for the formation of a Nation state (IMO).
Should LA leave today, do they owe the other 49 for the dikes, are they still part of NATO? This notion doesn't hold. That is why the escape clause ain't there.
| 