Secession is justified (morally)

Final RebuttalsRule by the minority "Any state who wishes to secede is not claiming rule over the athority from which it seceded, but wishing to control themselves. "What my opponent conveniently ignores throughout his entire argument is the sheer fact that the state does not have complete sovereignty over itself. I spent 8,000 characters proving the point (which my opponent glossed over) that the ratification of the constitution was an instant deconstruction of all individual sovereignty to merge into one larger sovereign. If the United States were a mere association of 50 sovereigns, then my opponent's case would hold. However, the United States is a singular sovereign divided into political subgovernments. Secession in this regard would not be a reclamation of individual sovereignty, as such ceased to exist upon the ratification and formation of a singular country, but rather it would be a THEFT OF SOVEREIGNTY from the body which claims it. "By ratifying the Constitution, the people transferred certainlimited sovereign powers to the federal government from their states" (1) Only decisions made by the majority can affect the whole entity. Secession is a decision made by a minority that affects the entire entity, therefore it CANNOT be allowed. A state that leaves the union would have the following effects on the country as a whole:1. Revenue depletion (tax source cut off)2. Army capability reduction (citizens cut off in spontaneous mass exodus induced by a government under term "secession") 3. Natural homeland resource reduction (land cut off from U.S jurisdiction) 4. Geographical claims of jurisdiction deduction (power, authority and size cut off) To name a few. Secession is a decision that can only be made by the MAJORITY of the entire entity. The minority cannot hold power to make decisions affecting the entirety. THIS is why secession is rule by the minority. Again, the states ratified the Constitution, and that terminated their individual sovereignty. When a state secedes, it is not reclaiming some lost soveriegnty, because the sovereignty was consensually destroyed. It is, rather imposing and reducing the sovereignty of the larger state to which it belongs. This is what my opponent purports to be moral. " This point by my opponent is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or situation, the rule of the majority or the minority. What about co-existence? Surely my opponent does not believe that Great Britain is actively ruling over th United States because they choose to retain their sovereignty over themselves?" It is indeed rule of the majority or the minority because the states form a whole, not the appearance of a whole. A decision affecting the entirety cannot be made by the minority. Destruction of Authority"In this point, my opponnt takes his entire argument out of a misrepresentation of what authority actually is. He substitutes authority for tyrrany. For isn't that what one is excercising when they do not permit free choice?"Authority: "The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge" (2)Tyranny: "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power" (3)My opponent accuses me of mistaking the two terms when it is he who has them confused. Abolition of secession is not an act of absolute power, so how can it be tyranny? Abolition of secession maintains the authority of the federal government, whereas states cannot simply "RUN AWAY" when they dislike the decisions of the federal government, much like they attempted prior to the Civil War. How can an authority exact command or obedience if the entities receiving such always have the power to disregard and annul it? Again, the authority has no authority. The question which went cold dropped was the central idea of secession equating to anarchy. I extend that ignored contention. If states can secede, then counties can secede, then towns can secede, then homes can secede and whenever they do not like the decision of authority, they have the ability to throw it away. Anyone can rule themselves at a moment's notice. Perpetual Unity"My opponent claims that this is not a legal argument, but a moral argument. This argment is clearly of a legal nature." This assertion either originates from a misunderstanding of my argument, or a deliberate distortion thereof. The fact that I refer to legal documents does not instantaneously render the argument a legal one. The point in my doing so was to PROVE a consensus on submission of individual sovereignty. Whereas, if the state submitted and destroyed its individual sovereignty to form A LARGER SOVEREIGN, then it cannot claim it back.If 50 people got together with 50 small pieces of their own personal cloth, and then sewed it all together to form a blanket for a homeless person, one of them cannot just decide to rip out his piece and be on his merry way. He gave up that piece, it no longer belonged to him, it was a part of the completed blanket, and he relinquished ownership of it. Liken each piece of cloth to sovereignty. THAT is just merely one of the numerous logical methods that renders secession unjustified. " P1: In order for contracts to be legally and morally binding, explicit consent must be rendered by those of which it directly concerns.P2: The U.S. Constitution did not obtain such consent from those of which the contract directly affected.C1: Secession was not a violation of any morally or legally binding contract."The ratification of the Constitution in and of itself was the explicit consent because the Constitution was a document in expanse of the perpetual union already set forth by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. I already explained and elaborated on this. This syllogism contains a primary premise to which has alrewady been addressed, it is therefore not a supported or legitimate negation. "By ratifying the Constitution, the people transferred certainlimited sovereign powers to the federal government from their states" (1)"The claim that a contract is binding over an entire geographical area, can only be valid if it respects the property rights of those affected by the contract. This is supported by the very concept of contract and property. I cannot form a contract with Bob to take possesssion of your house. The owner of the house must consent for this transaction to occur. So, it follows that drafting a document, for it to be binding, must have the consent of those it seeks to govern."PROPERTY =/= SOVEREIGNTY My opponent claims that a contract over an entire geographical area can only be valid if it respects property rights. However, this is nothing more than a red herring, as property rights are not in question, SOVEREIGNTY is. An area can be privately owned, but still under the jurisdiction of an authority, FOR THE AUTHORITY MUST HAVE AUTHORITY TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPERTY AS PRIVATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Conclusion Regrettably, Pro's rebuttals came mostly from a misunderstanding of my argument, and he insufficiently addressed my secession - anarchy contention. Furthermore, he does not provide any reason to his stance, but rather inaccurately attempts to disprove my own. This does not meet his burden of proof. Keep in mind that secession is rule by the minority, gateway to anarchy, and an attempt to take back that which is no longer yours. Neither one of these traits in view with the rights of people. Therefore, VOTE CON. Thank you. Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...