Not so. (I'm going to imitate you for a while.)
Nowhere does the Constitution give them that right [Emphasis added.]
Wrong proof. Wrong word. Show me where the Constitution takes that right! Tenth Amendment, remember? Delegated powers, remember? Sovereign People, remember?
.....or the right to act unilaterally when the interests of another state may be affected.
Big words yourself. And all those weaselly conditions -- "unilaterally", "interests of another state". Gee, did Massachusetts ratify the Constitution unilaterally, or did they have to consult with North Carolina first? And where does the Constitution refer to "the interests of another state"? Oh, you mean Connecticut trying to muscle Rhode Island into ratifying -- that what you mean? Oh, wait, bad example.
All you have given is your opionin that that right exists.
Bzzzzzzztt!! Not so. 4Conservative Justices and I proved it, by disproving your claims about what the Constitution permits and what it doesn't. You are guilty of slothful induction and bad faith.
Which I, along with the Supreme Court, disagree.
Appeal to force, disguised as appeal to the authority of a corrupt decision.
You can continue to parrot soverign states and states rights all you want. It does not change the fact that all you are spouting are your opinions on the existence of such rights.
Not at all: 4CJ and I have backed them up with quotations and discussion of relevant passages from the Constitutional Convention debates, the ratification debates, and books about both. Low blow.
The states were soverign so long as their actions did not violate the provisions of the Constitution.
Says you. Sovereign means sovereign -- words mean something! And sovereign means what it means. The States shared their sovereignty, which alone is self-sourcing in the Revolution, and that which was reserved, they continued to enjoy. YOU JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO BE -- that is the problem in a nutshell!
They themselves agreed that laws made under the Constitution overruled laws made under their state Constitutions.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Secession isn't a law. It's a sovereign act that only God Himself can overrule.
And the Supreme Court has ruled that the articles of secession which they passed in 1861 violated the Constitution and were therefore illegal.
Corrupt, political decision. Like Plessey, like Roe vs. Wade, like Bakke. No way they were going to confirm the States in their rights. Which, by the way, SCOTUS had no right to review, beyond denying the federal government's claims.
You about done on this subject? You were confuted, refuted, and done like a Christmas turkey quite a while ago.