Silly me…. :-[

Perhaps--but consider this.  As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.

Voting isn't the right; the opportunity to vote is the right. The act itself is a civic responsibility (we are not compelled by law to vote)... the only condition is that we follow the laws (and have not abrogated our opportunity by breacking the law) and are insured the equality of our position to other legitimate voters (old enough, resident of district, correctly registered etc.)

Word games perhaps? Limiting the rights of certain individuals is one method of assuring the rights of the majority. Dead people in Chicago voting in a Presidential election compromises the weight of my one and eqaul vote. As far as life, liberty and happiness... it is l, l and the pursuit of happiness... but all within societal norms... no guarantees

In a word, no. One of the duties of a citizen is to follow the laws; break the law and you abrogate the right.Earlier I had a rather involved comment on this extension of the thread and lost it... this will have to do, as my patience is wearing thin. At some point I will reconstruct the lesson that I used for this topic and pass it along.

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.

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.

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.