It doesn't kill the inherent argument it just confuses the issue. You don't have to go that route, but if you do, there is no power delegated to the general government for abolishing or creating states. That power resides with the people of that state, as most if not all state constitutions include that. There is no power delegated to keep states in the Union by force, who don't want to remain in the union. There is power for the general government to admonish states who want to remain in the union and not follow the supremacy clause. So you can use either argument. As I have said, there are many different ways a state could go about seceding. To act like a state can't secede is absurd because there are quite a few different ways to go about it.
http://founders.archives.gov/?q=%20Author%3A%22Madison%2C%20James%22%20Period%3A%22Confederation%20Period%22%20Recipient%3A%22Hamilton%2C%20Alexander%22%20Dates-From%3A1788-01-01%20Dates-To%3A1789-01-01&s=1111311111&r=18 How does this play into Madison's view on secession? He does seem to leave the bread crumb that Congress may decide on something later, but that it was beyond the purview of this argument. But the "in toto and for ever" statement seems to at least give a glimpse to what he really believed. He was a staunch Federalist, along with Alexander and others. Later, Andrew Jackson was against secession, and, more direct to his Presidency, nullification. It seems pretty clear, since Congress gave Jackson the right to use force against South Carolina, that sovereignty was lost to the State. Yes, the People always have sovereignty, and are welcome to revolution. But the State governments are no longer sovereign under the Constitution. As an aside, I do want to say that debates like this, even if they get heated, are what keep me coming to this board. It is full of a wide range of people, with most of the people here quite intelligent and able to articulate their thoughts. And these debates lessen my ignorance of subjects when it makes me read things that I normally would not read.
This should be interesting. Liberal cities like Chicago, Boston, LA, etc are coming out and stating they will not work with the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws. Ironically, immigration or naturalization is one of the few powers granted to the general government.
