A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

Before I continue with my argument, I would like to address three matters in which my opponent and I do not agree. 1. "For the purposes of this debate I will be claiming a right to secession that is derived from natural law." "That being said, my arguments against the affirmative will be using his legal framework, proving why I win under either framework." My framework does not lean towards the question of a legal right to secession, as that continues to be a very difficult debate to this day. Rather I am arguing for the position that a state, under natural law, does not have a moral right to secede. My first contention is an example. I stated that secession was thievery, which is not morally sanctioned, hence not a moral right. So, I would like for us to agree that I am arguing for the position that secession is not a moral right. 2. Furthermore, con's supporting examples are addressed towards "THE PEOPLE" not "THE STATE". Hence I would like for us to agree that there IS a difference between "the people," and "the state". What that difference may be, can be debated, but I would like us to agree that a difference exists. Therefore, if con agrees that a difference exists, he cannot use examples addressed towards the rights of "the people" to support his argument for the rights of "the state".3. " Federalism is the system of shared powers between the state and federal governments. My opponent is arguing under a misconception. States do not give up their sovereignty when joining the Union, but rather submit to a greater sovereign. This does not imply the slavery of states" This particular argument is highly dependent on the word "join." While I do agree with con's definition of federalism, and that the U.S is a federation, I still hold that the implications and abilities as members of a federation differ between the bodies that JOINED said federation, and the ones that were already a part of it. In the case of the United States, the only states that literally JOINED the union are the 13 original colonies, Texas, and Hawaii, the other states were purchased or won in war, hence ,making them the property of the federal government. Since con's argument applies only to the states that JOINED the union, henceforth, the debate is geared towards why that minority of states that actually joined the union does or does not have the moral right to leave. So, I would like us to agree that the states that were conquered and purchased territories are the property of the federal government and should they choose to secede, will be STEALING from the federal government, and agree that you, as con, can only argue for the states that JOINED the union. That being said, I have a separate set of reasons that I touched on in round 1, why the minority of states that joined the union STILL do not have a moral right to secede. However I see no point in stating them until I have an answer on the previous provisions from con. Should con disagree with any or all of the above provisions, they will become subject to debate, alongside the parent issue of secession. Where:For Provision 1:Con bears the burden of proving how my framework was geared towards secession legality,For provision 2: Con bears the burden of proving why "the people" and "the state" are synonymous,For provision 3:Con bears the burden of proving why a state that joined the union is no different from one that was bought/won and carved out by the federal government. (1) http://lsm.crt.state.la.us...(2) http://www.sonofthesouth.net...