One thing though - there is nothing in the laws of this country that says that they don't have the right to secede.
While I recognize that there is always a certain room for tension with regard to which choices are left to the states, I think it can be argued that representatives of those states historically locked them in. At the least, secession implies some rationale by which reducing the size of the Union may be explained as not contrary to being under the Union in the first place. Once you're under it, without an explicit justification, how do you legally declare yourself exempt from your own agreements? I think that logically, there would have to be some kind of positive, very compelling exception. Of course, in the Civil War people did take exception -- but they could not market it in a way that avoided conflict and the North's policies could be logically based upon the Constitution.http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
(Adding emphases.)Preamble to the Constitution
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union
, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Article VI.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land
; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Just from this, I would say there is actually a tendency here against secession unless that breakup is found to serve some greater good of the Union by most or all parties concerned.