Many perspectives met, and they compromised. The voice of a single member has no legal force if different from the actual document. As for the Supremes, that's the same Court that says prayer at high school football games is wrong, but prayer at a high school graduation is okay? Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your source, even if they find something in Kenyan law that says you're right.
In your analogy only one party is declaring the marriage over. What's to stop the other side from declaring it isn't? What makes one right and the other wrong?
Either party can unilaterally end a relationship. When a dating relationship or a marriage ends, refusing to comply with the other person's wishes to separate is stalking, and it's wrong because individual rights do not extend to power over others. With a union of states, the same is true. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. When the people of a state decide through their elected representatives, through public referendum, or through other due process that they no longer consent to being governed by the federal government, that government loses any just powers over those people. From that point on, any attempt to exercise federal power over the citizens of that state is immoral, an attempt at tyranny. When it comes to a conflict between a tyrant and free people, I already know which side I'll back.
"Granted, Obama could turn it into a civil war, but that would be his choice..." The war would lie in your hands.
No. The war would be the fault of the thug in our White House, if that socialist turns out to be a traditional national socialist who uses our military against civilians. Our Community-Organizer-in-Chief is by nature evil, and he's admitted that he has no problem killing unborn babies or unwanted newborn babies, but I am hoping that his evil is the cowardly form, and that he doesn't have the backbone to stand up to adults who can defend themselves. My impression is that advocating the murder of people under one week old is as big a risk as he can stomach. I don't think it will come to war, even if one or more states secede.
OK, then how about quoting from voices saying that unilateral secession was legal?
Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your source, even if they find something in Kenyan law that says you're right.
Even if I found something in Kenyan law, at least I would be quoting law. You spout nothing more substantial than your own opinion and expect us to take it as gospel. Hardly impressive, to say the least.
Either party can unilaterally end a relationship.
Not in the eyes of the law.
When a dating relationship or a marriage ends, refusing to comply with the other person's wishes to separate is stalking, and it's wrong because individual rights do not extend to power over others.
Walking out on a marriage unilaterally is abandonment and does not automatically end the legal partnership.
When the people of a state decide through their elected representatives, through public referendum, or through other due process that they no longer consent to being governed by the federal government, that government loses any just powers over those people.
"The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." - James Madison
In your view, the compact is a one sided deal. Good only for when you say it's good, and dissolved when you decide it's dissolved. So then when Madison asked, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them," then how can he be wrong?