A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

"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."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."My opponent has some new defense on legality in point 1 of his 3rds speech, so let's address this:"the legality of the subject has been inconclusively debated for over a century."No warrant.Group the subpoints 1-4:Cross-apply the turn that was dropped in this round. He said it himself, the Constitution allows for secession. It is not the burden of the Con to prove the Pro's statements true. You can apply this argument to his assertion that the legality of the subject is inconclusive.Down to point 2 of speech 3 on the affirmative side.This argument applies to subpoints 1 and 2 of my response to provision 2 (I'm going out on a limb and making the link for my opponent as the labeling is not present in his rebuttals). Let's take his argument in 2 parts:1. "The U.S's use of the states as a national conduit does not imply that 'the state' and 'the people' are one."2. "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."These don't address the warrants of my argument. Extend subpoint 1 that it is "the responsibility of the State to replicate the provisions of natural law." 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."Moving down to his argument labeled "The State"Extend both of my responses to Provision 3 that go unrefuted in this round. Both of these take out his argument. Subpoint 1's Kauper evidence explains that the method of joining the Union does not limit rights. The semantics argument in subpoint 2 explains that I only need to prove a right with one state, so if only the states originally ratified the constitution can secede, then that's more than 1 and more than enough to negate.Add a response to his argument: States can voluntarily leave the union. Dorf (1),"[T]he Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union."Onto his argument labeled "The People"Cross-apply my arguments that the states serve as a proxy for the people, they are not independent of one another. This is dropped in the round. There is also no warrant as to why states were created to prevent departure.Furthermore under natural law extend the cold-dropped subpoints 3 and 4 of my response to provision 2 that both independently prove that natural law applies to states. I have defense on his arguments as well as 2 unrefuted arguments in my favor through a natural law framework. The strength of link will always be on my side that natural law applies. Extend the dropped contention of my case that morality grants autonomy.At the bottom of his speech:1. Cross-apply Kauper. The Constitution does not limit the use of land by States, thereby it is in their jurisdiction to use it as they please.2. Even if it would be impossible to peaceably secede, that does not mean a right does not exist to do so.(1) http://writ.news.findlaw.com...