A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

Provision 2:I agree that there is a definitional difference between the people and the state, as well as a biological one. The people also look much better, sorry States, but y'all have some unattractive shapes. However, there is no difference under the sexy beast that we call natural law:1. States serve as a proxy for individuals. Insofar as natural law applies to individuals it is the responsibility of the State to replicate the provisions of natural law.2. The USA is a democracy, if the people have a right they can democratically express it through the State. The State's actions are defined by the people, thus if the people express a right the State also expresses it.3. A. States are organizations: The Merriam-Webster (1) defines a state as "the political organization of such a body of people."B. Organizations are moral agents. Wilmot (2) explains,"[W]e can find cognitive attributes such as perception, reasoning, co-ordination and implementation; and moral elements such as rationality and respect in many organisations; and that organisations on that basis [can] be treated as moral actors with moral dispositions."Thus, states are moral actors and can have natural rights.4. Natural law applies universally to all actors, regardless of biological or definitional status.Provision 1:Extend my analysis of the definition of right that goes unrefuted in the round; "law, tradition and nature all serve as sufficient but unnecessary criteria for satisfying a right. That being said, it is only the burden of the con to prove the existence of a right in any sense of the word, not in every one." Even if my opponent decides to defend a natural law framework, I can still win under legality as it serves as an independent reason to negate.1. Under Legality: i. Extend all of my responses to my opponent's case that go cold-dropped. Using a natural law approach is non-responsive as legal rights will still allow me to win the debate.ii. Pay particular attention to the turn placed on contention 3. My opponent states himself "the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do allude to the peoples right to form a revolution and create a new government, should they be unsatisfied with the current administration." My opponent concedes that a legal right exists for States to secede. Even if certain circumstances must be met, the right exists nonetheless.2. Under Natural Law:i. There is no warrant as to why thievery is not morally sanctioned.ii. Extend my entire first contention. Aside from provision 2, which was responded to, there are no arguments against this contention.iii. I am the only one with offense under natural law which provides an independent reason to vote for the Con as I prove a right and my opponent fails to disprove one.Provision 3:1. The method of joining the Union is not a limit on state action. Kauper (3),"[S]ubject only to the restraints derived from the constitution of the United States or from the state’s own constitution, the government established by the state’s constitution enjoys all the general powers of government."Thus, my arguments still apply.2. Semantics: The affirmative is arguing that "A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America." My opponent never specifies which state. Even if you accept my opponent's argument that I can only argue for states that joined the Union under his interpretation, you still negate. There is no argument as to why any of these states may not secede, and the burden of the Con is to only prove that "A state" has some kind of right to secede, so all of my arguments still apply to these states.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) Corporate Moral Responsibility: What Can We Infer from Our Understanding of Organisations? Stephen Wilmot. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Mar., 2001), pp. 161-169http://www.jstor.org...(3) Paul G. Kauper. The State Constitution: It's Nature and Purpose.