Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[thanatos144]

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.

Republicans not progressives. Progressives still enslave people only now they use welfare instead of chains

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Good...when will Texas be seceding? Soon, I hope.

Let's start building the wall now ... don't want those Texans slipping across the border ...

But you do want thier taxes to pay for your broke progressive utopian states like California and new York right?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Good...when will Texas be seceding? Soon, I hope.

You want them to leave ?

Interesting.

 

[there4eyeM]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.

A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.

Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.

Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?

The more perfect Perpetual Union established therein certainly is.

The Constitution established the "more perfect union." The one the Articles of Confederation established ended in 1787.

Link?

 

[kaz]

What? You guys are still here?!?

Look, I proved Madison and Jefferson both said nullification and secession were unconstitutional. And it just doesn't get more "expert opinion" than that, folks.

You secession tards have been stomped. By the guys who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Sorry to make your asses hurt.

Why is this topic still going?

Jefferson: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”

Madison was certainly against secession, but I didn't see in his writings it was "unconstitutional." You got that quote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

Oh...you're such a tough guy.

And when you fighting errupts, the American people will hold you accountable.

Or haven't your figured out just how the vaunted press works....yet.

The nonsense would get worse and if there were many body bags, you might find yourself as the ex-president real fast.

If Texas seceded:

Texas residents receive about 350 million a year in SS payments. Those would be stopped.

Texas residents receive about 3.3 billion a year in Medicare benefits. Those would be stopped.

Texas has almost 200,000 residents employed in either active duty or civilian military jobs. Those jobs would disappear,

not to mention the jobs that would disappear upon the termination of all defense contracts with Texas industry.

All legal trade with Texas would end. All businesses in Texas relying on exporting to the other states would lose that business. A blockade of the Gulf Coast would end Texas's foreign trade.

Need I go on?

 

[Skylar]

Whether secession is "legal" or not is a foolish question. Did the signers of the declaration of independence ask King George if secession from Britain was "legal" ?

If a state or states decide to secede they are, by that act, ignoring US laws and statutes and declaring that they are no longer part of the USA.

If they renounce the USA then "legality" is not pertinent.

The question is whether there would be a war over secession. The USSR broke up, the USA could also. I sincerely hope that never happens, but its foolish to ask if it would be "legal".

The cool thing about secession and nullification which makes this whole discussion academic is that no permission is needed. It's just done. I personally hope Texas will be the first to secede and immediately seize the 11 military bases it has. All the federal spending in Red states that the Left loves to crow about is actually military spending, not entitlements....a critical fact that they omit.

Kinda. Most legal systems (including ours) is ultimately backed by violence. A legal solution is generally one that doesn't require that threshold be crossed. Or if it is, its on as small a scale as possible. Nullification has been argued and its not legal. Ask Wallace how that worked out for him.

When the founders broke away from Britain, it was an extra-legal act. It was completely illegal within the framework of law that the founders lived under. The resultant war determined if it was legitimate or illegitimate. If the founders had lost, they almost certainly would have been executed as insurgent leaders. That they won means that they are revered as the founders of a nation.

The 'academic' distinction you're referring to is literally the difference between peace and war. With legal solutions generally not requiring that the threshold of violence be crossed. And extra-legal ones mandating that they do. The differences in body count tend to be a rather dramatic distinction.

 

[Skylar]

.
... dodge city


don't live - is not the same as being a Citizen of the United States, just look at your passport ....

.

My passport says I'm a citizen of the United States. That's all it says.

And your state cannot secede and arbitrarily revoke any or all of your rights and privileges as a US citizen.

If my state seceded, none of my rights and priveleges as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. I would simply have to go to the United States to exercise them.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating my rights. You'd be removing that protection from me.

Additionally, the decision to secede isn't unilateral. As the State and Federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over the territory. Upon joining the union a state is no longer a lone sovereign. But a concurrent sovereign with the federal government. Any territorial decisions would have to be made by both sovereigns.

Not merely one or the other.

The only exception to this would be territorial disputes between states. In which case the federal government would arbitrate.

Incorrect. In fact states such as New York and Virginia expressly established their right to secede before ratifying the Constitution. The very fact that the states created the Constitution and the states can come together and change or even dissolve it should prove conclusively to anyone but a raging moron (you) that in the states lies the original power, inviolable, irrevocable, and absolute. If 38 states wanted to do away with the all too ubiquitous 14th Amendment, the unbridled Supreme Court, or both, they could do that.

Obvious nonsense. There's no provision for a 'conditional' ratification of the constitution. Not in the document, nor in constitutional congress. Either you ratify it as written, or you don't. NY ratified it. Thus, the constitution as written is what applies to them. With the riders that they included being unenforceable and irrelevant. There are no provisions for one state to have powers that the others do not. All states retain the same powers. Making 'special powers' for NY or any other state invalid and irrelevant.

If NY is part of the US, its subject to the constitution as written. And per NY, they've become part of the US.

Some states negotiated for a Bill of Rights as part of their joining. And this Bill of Rights was realized as part of the constitution. No 'right to secession' ever was.

Further, once a state joins the US it ceases to be the sole sovereign of its territory. The territory is concurrently ruled by both the State and the Federal government. Both governments have jurisdiction within that territory. Any territorial disputes must involve the consent of both sovereigns. Not just one or other. Making any unilateral decision by other party invalid. Both would have to agree for that action to be legally valid.

 

[Skylar]

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.

You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.

Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.

We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.

Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.

The 'right to secede' argument is an interesting intellectual exercise. But within the frame of a 'legal argument', its already been settled. The USSC already ruled on this issue and found that no such power existed. As the USSC is the body tasked with adjudicating issues that arise under the constitution, their ruling is legally authoritative.

We can argue if they were right or wrong. But the fact remains that is authoritative. And as such has already resolved the legal issues involved. Legally, no such right to secede exists.

Brit can ignore the USSC ruling. But his dismissal has no relevance to the authority of their ruling or resolution of the issue. Its settled caselaw.

"Legally authoritative?" Horseshit.

That you disagree doesn't change the fact that it is indeed legally authoritative. Arbittrary dismissal isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

Their decision has the force of law. That's all. No one is disputing that claim.

As the question is that of a legal argument, the USSC ruling settles it. You can discuss it academically. But all legal questions have already been answered.

What is under discussion here is whether their decision has any basis in reality. It doesn't. It's nothing more than a rubber stamp on Lincoln's war mongering by a gang of hacks hand picked by Lincoln to apply it.

Again, you're offering us arbitrary dismissal as your basis of argument. The ruling of the Supreme Court isn't based on your personal agreement. The authority to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance are delegated to the Supreme Court by the constitution itself. And the authority to interpret the constitution was the intent for the Supreme Court per the Federalist Papers.

The justices who ruled on that case were nominated and confirmed in accordance with the constitution. They acted In their constitutional role as arbiters of the constitution. And their ruling is authoritative.

That you don't like who nominated them is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling. Or to the legal aspects of this issue having been long resolved in our system of law.

 

[Redfish]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

 

[Redfish]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Skylar]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

 

[Redfish]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

 

[Skylar]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

 

[Redfish]

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

 

[Skylar]

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

 

[there4eyeM]

Declaring secession is simply that, a declaration, and does not mean separation from the Perpetual Union. To truly separate, the other members of the Perpetual Union would have to agree, at least in majority. A state that engages in a separatist movement is in the Union and insurgent. If sufficiently bellicose, it would attract the legal authorities' attention and be put down. History has demonstrated this in the unfortunate period between 1861 and 1865.

 

[Redfish]

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

 

[Skylar]

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.