I have. But I'm not following your thinking.
Let me ask the question like this: Who would determine that California does, or does not, have a moral justification for secession?
If it is hostile secession, which it almost always is, the DofI is probably the best written rationale for the justification for secession. It shows that valid secession
1) should not be “for light or transient causes”
2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable”
3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally
4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.” These are not constitutional dictates, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
Study the DofI. It is probably the most elegant and well reasoned justification for secession maybe in the history of the world. In this case, it would center around “a long line” of unconstitutional acts of the federal government against CA.
If it is not hostile secession and the feds via Congress actually give CA permission to leave, then by the will of the people through the CA legislature there may be nothing keeping it from happening. But I personally would be against it.