What she doesn’t deal with, of course, is (1) that the Constitution, in Article IV, Section 3, has detailed procedures and conditions for the ADMISSION of states but is silent on any state leaving, particularly without the consent of the federal government and/or the other states. (Emphasis added. CW)Well, duh. If it is silent on the subject, of course there are no particulars. How can there be particulars in a statement that doesn't exist? Duh. Also, admission is irrelevant to departure. Sheesh.
If we’re putting our hat on the specific controls the general, that’s a strong indication that the Constitution did not allow secession.Not really. It implies that admission to the US involved the feds and the other states, but leaving it did not.
(2) James Madison was quite explicit there was no constitutional right to seceded. This not only can be found in his publicized letters during the Nullification Crisis but also his earlier plans to use military force if the Hartford Convention ended with one or more of the New England state attempting to secede.James Madison was a brilliant man and the Father of the Constitution. But his opinions are not the Constitution and do not have its authority. If he had wanted there to be no constitutional right to secede, he should have included a specific prohibition in the list of powers prohibited to the states, or the power to prohibit it should have been explicitly delegated to the feds.
and (3) the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.The Supremacy Clause establishes the authority of a document that does not prohibit secession....