Under any reading of the tenth amdndment where the states retain a right to rend the union, the people retain the right to maintain it. That is what they have done.
Secondly, the Congress is empowered to provide for the common defence and general welfare. No state may leave the union if it diminishes the general welfare. And the Congress is empowered by the necessary and proper clause to act if the general welfare is threatened. This too, is exactly what happened.
Thirdly, the supremacy clause of the Constitution prohibits secession.
If a state could unilaterally withdraw from the Union, then supremacy would rest with each state, respectively - not with the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it. As the Constituion expressly declares the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the land, any act that denies this supremacy (e.g., unilateral withdrawl) must be unconstitutional.
Walt
"Of course I don't know the thought processes of the NINE justices who ruled that the actions of the so-called seceded states were in fact rebellion against the lawful government. But they may have included something like this:
If a state could unilaterally withdraw from the Union, then supremacy would rest with each state, respectively - not with the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it. As the Constituion expressly declares the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the land, any act that denies this supremacy (e.g., unilateral withdrawl) must be unconstitutional."
Walt
Well, Walt, at least you are recycling your garbage.
Actually what it means is that any law - federal or state - that is contradictory to the Constitution is null and void. Which leaves you again looking at amendments 9 & 10.
"If a state could unilaterally withdraw from the Union, then supremacy would rest with each state, respectively - not with the Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it. As the Constituion expressly declares the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the land, any act that denies this supremacy (e.g., unilateral withdrawl) must be unconstitutional."
Gee Wally Walt, are you a supreme court justice now too?
"...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
US Constitution, Article V.
Nothing in there about forcing a state to be represented - in fact it states exactly the opposite. A state, if it so desires, can divest itself of representation. And the obverse is true, a state can't be forced to participate.
"[I]t is especially refreshing after bashing through the crap that appears on these confederate apolgist [sic] threads."
And you're the one spreading the manure.