[ought-six]

The right to secede was understood by the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution would not have been ratified if secession were precluded. Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states, subject to the whim of whatever agenda floats the boat of that government or those states. No state would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and no state would seek membership into a confederacy that had the power to imprison that state or hold it hostage. For an analogy, consider the compact of marriage. Is divorce an ultimate option? Of course it is. A state has the same option should circumstances get to the point where differences become irreconcilable, or basic safety and security is at risk.

[Thermalseeker]

Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states....

Precisely. A state being "held prisoner by the Federal gubmint" sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? It also sounds a lot like the strangle hold the Department of (re)Education has on gubmint skools, the Department of Energy has on the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Federally induced water shortages in the Central Valley of California, and the list goes on and on and on.....

[arrogantsob]

Glad you mentioned divorce.

Divorce is NOT one party walking away and saying s/he is no longer married. At least in non-moslem countries.

Divorce is a LEGAL process accomplished through the courts.

Amendment of the constitution is ALSO a legal process.

[Non-Sequitur]

Is divorce an ultimate option? Of course it is. A state has the same option should circumstances get to the point where differences become irreconcilable, or basic safety and security is at risk.

In a divorce there is a third party making sure that the interests and rights of both sides of the divorce are protected. What third party would do that in your secession scenario?