A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

"Let's look back to my turn on his 3rd contention. This is cleanly extended in round 2 as Provision 1 subpoint 1 ii: " 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."1. My oppponent is arguing in circles. I have made it a point through the course of the debate to outline the difference between THE PEOPLE and THE STATE. Yet, ignoring that very important debateable subtopic, he has quoted A statement I made earlier addressed to THE PEOPLE, to support his argument for THE STATE. He has yet to prove what makes the state and the people one, and instead has only stated the assertion that they are one, in many forms. " My opponent's arguments simply make the claim that my own points are false without addressing the warrants of states serving as a proxy for individuals. Also extend subpoint 2 that "The State's actions are defined by the people, thus if the people express a right the State also expresses it."2. On the contrary, what you outlined from the 3rd round DOES address the warrants of your argument. * Your argument was that the state becomes the people, hence "proxy", and that it therefore holds the rights of the people. - I addressed this matter through answering why con may believe that the state is a proxy for people. I said, the reason why con would possibly believe that the state is a proxy is because the people elect senators and representatives THROUGH the state. I presumed that it is this fact that makes con assert that the state is a proxy (since he has yet to provide his own reason why), and so I showed that the federal government has positions also voted on by the people, and by con's logic, the federal government would ALSO be a proxy. Since, I think we can all conclude, the federal government is certainly not a proxy for the people, the state, TOO, has no sound justification for being looked at as a proxy.The state, once again, is an EXTENTION of the government, but my opponent is arguing that the state is a proxy for the people, when factually it is not. 1. Hence, if the state is not a proxy to the people, then the state cannot hold the same rights as the people. 2. If the states do not hold the same rights as the people, then the "peoples right to revolution" cannot be justly asserted for the state, as the state is not the people3. Therefore, the argument that natural law gives a state the moral right to secession is moot. 3. Now, I will proceed to disprove any legal right to secession, since my opponent insists on that angle as well.Article 4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution (1):"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" It is the implication and subtext of this excerpt that the territory occupied by the United States belongs to the country as a whole ("the country as a whole" being represented by the federal government), and no particular state individually. The limited jurisdiction of the states over the political map does not imply ownership of the land thereof. 1. THEREFORE, the land of the states by geography are subject to regulation and authority by the federal government through CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE. 2. Secession would lift this authority3. Lifting of said authority is illegal4. Secession is Illegal. (1) http://www.archives.gov...