The idea was if a state could opt in then it could also opt out. A simple concept that while logical couldn't be allowed. Statehood couldn't be a revolving  door, so to speak.

The "idea" came from where.  I cannot find it in the Constitution and Virginia's argument seems tobe a bit far fetched--unless of course it was an unwritten, but understood concept.  What say you?

This from WikipediaJustifications for secessionSome theories of secession emphasize a general right of secession for any reason (?Choice Theory") while others emphasize that secession should be considered only to rectify grave injustices (?Just Cause Theory?).[6] Some theories do both. A list of justifications may be presented supporting the right to secede, as described by Allen Buchanan, Robert McGee, Anthony Birch,[7] Walter Williams,[8] Jane Jacobs,[9] Frances Kendall and Leon Louw,[10] Leopold Kohr,[11] Kirkpatrick Sale,[12] and various authors in David Gordon?s ?Secession, State and Liberty,? includes:United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." United States President Thomas Jefferson: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " The right to liberty, free association and private property Consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized Making it easier for states to join with others in an experimental union Dissolving such union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area Self-determination of peoples Preserving culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group Furthering diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity Rectifying past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power Escaping ?discriminatory redistribution,? i.e., tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, etc. that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently Preserving ?liberal purity? (or ?conservative purity?) by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede Providing superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession Keeping political entities small and human scale through right to secession While largely unwritten at the time much, as you can see, has been written since. Most likely the child of the old Fed v AntiFed debate. The Constitution is silent on this because it was written to unify and hence wouldn't write out the directions to disunify. This certainly makes me happy the Anti's got us a Bill of Rights... in writing. Just hope folks read it as written... not through their cultural filters, eh?That is another lesson, for another day, perhaps.

Only minimal research involved… just to find support for the position I took (taught) for many years; the Framers were interested in getting the Federal System in place even as many were concerned that the States would have less right to control their own progress. The mention of the BofR is the clue… Feds didn't think it necessary because we all knew what we fought the AmRev over. Anti's (correctly) countered that in 200 or 500 years no one alive would bear witness and without something in writing only speculation of what was meant would remain.The questions I've pondered (asked my students, with some surprising answers) are:1) Would it have been better if the BofR was included in the original document?2) Does it look funny that the BofR is tacked on at the end? ...oh, by the way....3) Is it a stronger statement of our Rights to have the BofR added as extra emphasis? And always remember....My personal takes:1) Other than the Preamble, what if anything, does the average person remember of the Constitution? No one would remember we had these rights.2) This was likely the sop offered by the Feds to git 'er done. Sort of a "yeah, whatever it takes"... approach.3) My personal preference, based on the "no on will be left to remember" idea.

We pay taxes and produce an unacceptable quotient of students that are illiterate, coarse, maleducated and irresponsible and then let them vote!

Devils advocate here... Those are the very people (the ones who dont understand the Consititution) that the Constitution gives rights to. A Catch-22 in the whole system.

Agreed, but tell that to the the semi-moron who has no idea really about what he is voting for but has people in organizations (like the ACLU) who tell them regardless the Constitution gives them the right to vote and therefore he goes out and instead goes out and votes by the seat of his pants.Personally, I think some sort of yearly exam should be administered to determine those who are qualified to vote. But you fall into who administers it, and then the Cath-22 that the Constitution grants the right to all citizens, regardless of your intelligence.So we can only hope that people will educate themselves on the issues, political positions of those running, and of our own individual conscious. Alas, you will get exactly what we have now. A by the seat of your pants government. By a LEGAL by the seat of your pants government.