A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

My reply to con's third rebuttle will be a part of refutation 2. 1. Given that you have accepted that my framework is under the moral right to secede, I do also accept that if you can prove a legal right to secede, then the debate is yours.* HOWEVER, as I said, the legality of the subject has been inconclusively debated for over a century. I would like for the reading audience to fully understand the hard facts and evidence Con must procure, should he attempt to prove a legal right to secession:1. He must find in the Constitution, and the Constitution ONLY, where the act of secession is, LEGALLY sanctioned. - He cannot use the provisions in the ratification documents in different states, because those where never definitively accepted by the Philedelphia Convention. - Furthermore, the Constitution is the highest document of law in the nation. The Declaration of Independence cannot be used as evidence, if Con is to prove a LEGAL right. 2. Furthermore, the excerpt, should my opponent manage to find one, must EXPLICITLY declare secession legal, under the definition I provided earlier. 3. Moreover, con cannot make the argument that the Constitution mentions nothing about secession, so he is therefore still correct, because in legal matters, the absence of the declaration of a LEGAL right does infact mean that the LEGAL right does not exist. 4. In the event that Con cannot find, in the Constitution, where secession is legally sanctioned, he has failed to prove that the states have a legal right to secession. With that said, con can still debate to prove any other right to secession. 2. Con agreed that there was a physical and definitional difference between the state and the people, but stated that there was no difference between the rights held by both bodies. This leads us to a separate debate all on its own. * The state is a governmental appendage. By the reasoning Con provided, he is simply playing on the fact that senators and representatives are elected by the state to the federal government. The U.S's use of the states as a national conduit does not imply that "the state" and "the people" are one. Furthermore, by your reasoning, the national government and the people of the U.S would ALSO be one, as the president and Congress are elected BY the people, JUST LIKE ANY STATE. * The state, being the VOICE of the people, does not MAKE the state "the people." Therefore the rights contained by the people cannot be used interchangeably with the rights of the state.- The state is a part of the government, an EXTENTION of the government to suit the needs of specific geographical, social, and political regions of the nation. The states, by territory and jurisdiction, are the property of the federal government, and do not have the right to leave. For the states that ENTERED the union, entrance ceded their rights to do such. This is not a club, or a close association. Unionship is the welding of a state to FORM a larger soverign, not submit to one. - The people are NOT the property of the federal government, and should they be unhappy with the government, have the undeniable and uncompromisable right to petition, amass and protest, join the government, sue, or simply leave. All these actions are done by THE PEOPLE independent of THE STATE. The states were not created so it would be easier for the citizens of the country to depart. They where created as a tool to PREVENT departure through greater self government. Once again, the state is only a conduit to the federal government: A conduit created BY the federal gov't FOR the people not given TO the people. The state is land, land that forms a large unified entity. This land does not belong to anyone who wishes to form a new country, the land belongs to the federal government of the United States. Those people who want a new nation must FIGHT the United States to take the land. Hence a state has no moral right to PEACEABLY secede.