Yes, but an individual receives protection from the Constitution for those individual rights and is guaranteed by someone greater than the landlord.
This would seed to imply that it be impossible for states to break apart into smaller states. Something we know is allowed based on the Virginias.
The states do have power here, too. They just have to band together and create the necessary redrawing of parameters for possible secession within the Constitution and the federal government must then abide by them. That contingency has been accounted for, too.
It's not difficult to imagine the difference between a member state and a non-member state, IMO. Member state = you get all of the (many) benefits of membership, but also bear all of the responsibility to abide by the authority of the federal government, and in all matters. Non-member state = you get no benefits of membership, you bear neither obligation nor responsibility to its federal government. I can't fathom a state seeking to secede, this more about the inability to even attempt to do so, legally, and outside of armed conflict.
Well, yes, that could lead to, say, a Commonwealth situation like former British colonies, but those are disparate entities scattered throughout the world. I don't see why any state wanting to throw off those connections would want those association, nor the central state desiring or allowing anything less than member status.
Sort of thinking about it now - The States most certainly gave up power, perhaps even the power to seceded. For the sake of this lets just assume that they did give up this power by joining the Union. I don't believe, however, that the people gave up that power. In fact, it seems that the Constitution supports this view. So the Amendment process is the best avenue for secession. But there is no such Amendment currently. And here is where I see a little catch-22 or something: The rules of what counts as the "will of the people" are left to the States to decide. There is nothing in the Constitution about voting except for a blurb about qualification in Congressional races, and then the Amendment for direct election of Senators (which, again, is the power of the States to determine qualifications outside the federally prohibited reasons). So - the process of determining what the people want is a process largely, really almost exclusively, left to the States. Would the argument that counteracts that be something like: the union recognizes "the People" as something akin to the necessary numbers for Constitutional Amendment or for victory in the Electoral College . . .? I mean if the Tennessee government makes rules to determine the will of the people in the State on whether they wish to form a new country, is that not "the People" for purposes of the Constituion?
Because of the free-flow of peoples and property between states, wouldn't the Federal Government also be, perhaps, required to defend the rights of the citizenry from secession? Let me explain. My sons grow up and move to Georgia. Georgia secedes from the Union, perhaps alienating me from my children, something they and I do not wish or desire. Also, I own property in Georgia, but now that ownership is in limbo or even dissolved by the new Georgian government. What about Federal property (military/scientific/etc)? Ft. Sumter stayed in Federal ownership throughout the war, if I am not mistaken.
Absolutely correct on both counts in a ideal world, but not the reality. We are concerned over many things individually, but the Federal Gov't will concern itself with it's interests first in mind.
The forming of new States* is always a bloody affair. Find me an example in the history of civilization of peaceable secessions. I'm being serious. I'd love to know. *As in nations
While it wasn't a "new" state, the transition in South Africa was not as bloody as one would have expected. But your point is solid.
I am not sure the division of a country into two new entities is the same as part of one seceding from it.
I actually don't think this question is particularly interesting. Feds argue CS doesn't allow states to secede because it doesn't provide for it. Feds win 9-0. I really don't know what the state would argue. It's like arguing that Fellatio Fridays in the workplace is a constitutionally protected right. It's just not there.
