Secession is a valid option for a state in these United States

Thank you Bull_Diesel for accepting the challenge. This is my first debate, so if my style is a bit rough please let me know (constructively) in the comments. I will not contest the definition of valid. Legality: "Firstly, secession cannot be a valid option for any state because, by definition, validity is legality, justifiability, and logically correct." In the Declaration of Independence, a document that is included in the US canon of law before the Constitution, the Founders declare: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" Clearly, the writers of the Declaration considered the right to secede a valid one. If they did not, there would have been no American Revolution. "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." According to the law of the land, when the burden of government becomes too onerous, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and construct a new one. With all due respect to Prof. Cohen and Justice Scalia, their opinion of secession is obviously flawed, as is shown by the very first document in the United States legal code. The authors of the Constitution made themselves very clear in regards to secession. I"ve shown that A: secession is a legal option (as shown by the US legal code), therefore valid Economic viability: The argument that loss of funding from the federal government invalidates the option of secession is patently flawed. First off, it ignores the fact that in order to give a state money, the federal government must first take money from that state, as the federal government has no resources of it"s own. In effect, the federal government is giving the states back their own money. In addition, if the citizens of a state fear a steeper decline in their standard of living because of the federal government, it becomes economically viable to secede. With the debt approaching $17 trillion dollars[1], unfunded liabilities to the tune of $86.8 trillion (or 550% the annual GDP of the US)[2], rampant inflation[3], and a budget that has included yearly deficits for the better part of a century[4], it is far more economically viable for a state to distance itself from the likely economic collapse and create a fiscally responsible government. Inflationary collapse (using 2011 figures, the latest full dataset on file) [5] Peter Schiff (who predicted both the tech bubble burst in the late 90s and the more recent housing bubble burst )[6] I have shown that my opponent"s federal funding argument is fallacious. I have shown that secession is far more economically viable than remaining attached to a Union which is in economic decline. When we examine these conclusions, it becomes obvious that secession is a valid option. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://www.google.com... [6] http://www.google.com...