If you want to interpret the tenth amendment as a license for states to secede, I can't stop you.
If you want to interpret ________________________ as a license to prohibit secession, I can't stop you.
Oh wait, you have nothing. Nothing more than your own personal vision of tyranny that you would inflict upon an entire nation if given the chance.
Here's you:
"States can't secede unless they have a very good reason that I approve of."Nothing personal, but I will take the Constitution of the United States of America over that any day of the week.
Do really think the fed. gov. would grant territories, the other 37 states, statehood if they knew that any time those new states could legally secede? They would never have done so.
But they did do so.
Why do you think the FFs ditched the Articles of Confederation for the union?
Why do you think the Founding Fathers ditched the "perpetuity" clause when drafting the Constitution?
If they had thought individual states were "sovereign" and had the right to secede whenever, they would have EXPLICITLY!! put it in the constitution.
By that same line of reasoning, if they had thought that individuals has the right to vote, they would have explicitly put that in the Constitution. But they didn't.
You also won't find anything in the Constitution explicitly granting you free speech rights either. So according to you, the Founding Fathers didn't want you to have it.
If you look at it the whole idea of any state thinking themselves to be sovereign is ridiculous.
Strawman. No one is making that argument.
See:
Logical fallacies - Straw manYou're trying to do that typical backwards justification for secession through a tortured interpretation of the tenth amendment.
Compare that to you offering an interpretation of _______________________. Oh wait, you haven't offered up a damn thing other than your personal view of how the world should be and how you think that view should be imposed upon others at the point of a gun. When faced with that choice, I will choose the Constitution of the United States of America every time.
btw, did you catch that part where it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution"? Amazing. The Founding Fathers made allowance for things that were not explicitly enumerated. Imagine that. Yet you willfully choose to ignore that, relying instead on your own personal view of how things should be.
As to the issue of citizens being justified in rebelling against tyranny, tell me how the South was being tyrannized.
Well for starters, there were the good citizens of Manassas waking up to the sound of Union cannon fire on the morning of July 21, 1861.
The tariff issue had been discussed, but that certainly wasn't the reason why the Southern states rebelled as the Ordinances of Secession plainly stated.
The reason doesn't matter. It was Virginia's decision - not yours. You do not get to be the arbiter of whether their reason was good enough or not.
Yet the open gap in your world view is noted. Since you believe yourself to be the arbiter of who gets to secede and who does not, you open the door for the possibility of secession, which effectively trashes your earlier claims about explicitly stated Constitutional rights.
Trying to have it both ways will always make you look foolish.