[Maelstrom]

Moreover, what is clear is that the U.S. Constitution never included a secession provision. If the people of the Southern states really wanted to preserve a Constitutional right to secession, they were foolish for not demanding a Constitutional provision on the issue. Any half decent partnership agreement, for example, contains a dissolution clause which sets forth the procedures for winding up the partnership should one or more of the partners choose to go their separate way which specifies how the assets and liabilities will be distributed. The absence of such a provision in the U.S. Constitution strongly suggests that peaceful secession was never seriously considered by any state entering into the Union.

This can only be true, if, and only if, the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless. If they are meaningless, the situation begs the question, why are they there?

So, now answer: Why do you believe the 9th and 10th Amendments exist given your above stated belief?

[ravinson]

I stated: "The absence of [a dissolution clause] in the U.S. Constitution strongly suggests that peaceful secession was never seriously considered by any state entering into the Union", to which you replied:

This can only be true, if, and only if, the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless. If they are meaningless, the situation begs the question, why are they there? So, now answer: Why do you believe the 9th and 10th Amendments exist given your above stated belief?

The 9th and 10th Amendments are not dissolution clauses. They say nothing about states seceding or how assets or debts will be distributed in the event of dissolution. The 9th and 10th were obviously weak, ambiguous attempts to check federal authority, but claiming that the 9th and 10th amendments were intended to make it easier for states to preserve slavery only weakens their moral authority. Clearly, no state has/had a moral "right" to preserve slavery.