The "broad scope" seems to be limited to your...
The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights.
Yes, the States did agree that the U.S. Constitution was to be the supreme 'law of the land' governing the government's activities, functions, design, etc. as well as "our basic individual inalienable rights". I don't see an agreement in 20. I see no contention either. You need to to back up to 18 and look at that again. I merely corrected what I thought was a misperception.
Your reply to my #19 speaks for itself:
"--- A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did. sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?
20 posted on 02/04/2003 2:55 PM PST by philman_36 ---"
Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.
Where do you find me in contention with this? I agree with the basic principles of the Constitution. I disagree with what some says it does and doesn't allow/say. Just because it doesn't say that a State can't secede doesn't mean, to me, that a State can't do so if it chooses to do so. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union! As an example...I can't force someone to stay in a club they no longer wish to have any part of even though they were a charter member of that club.
As I've tried to explain, secession makes our constitutional union meaningess.
-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
Proposed amendments regarding what?
Beats me! You want the states to have the power to secede, not me. Tell me why.
Under your scenario a simple amendment process wouldn't work. A whole new Constitutional Convention would be necessary citing specifically that secession was disallowed as well as numerous other things.
My 'scenario'? Where?