ORIGINAL: Reiryc
RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799
The line you have in bold I find very interesting and seems to relate to the problem. As one of the framers of the Constitution, it clearly indicates what, at least he intended. While I don't see it referring to secession one way or another (it is after all, one sentence), it seems to me to authorized states to nullify Federal laws, taxes and the like, if they are deemed as unauthorized. This I interpret as any law or tariff that seems to single out a specific section or group of people unfairly.
The problem is South Carolina tried to nullify some tariffs they felt fell in the unauthorized category in 1833 and Andrew Jackson was prepared to use the military to enforce the tariffs. A negotiated settlement resulted, but the crisis indicated the Federal Government was willing to use force to support their position.
In 1860, when South Carolina felt the Federal Government was going to overstep their limits and found in 1833 nullification wasn't going to work, secession was felt to be the only option.
The problem is, over time, we lose the intent and only have the written text to refer to. It may be that secession was intended to be allowed. Logic dictates that a nation formed by what was effectively secession, would be hypocritical to outlaw such actions. At least from the statement you have, the first step should be to nullify offensive acts, which as pointed out South Carolina previously tried and failed. Jefferson's intent, in that single sentence, doesn't seem to consider failure as a possibility. Also, over time, we focus more in the literal and not the intent. That is how courts seem to be today. Intent seemed to carry more weight a long time ago.
In the end, this legality argument seems to pit intent against literal. I admit I tend to fall on the literal side because I program computers. Intent doesn't matter because if my program doesn't literally spell out each step, it will fail. None the less, I understand that intent is very important. Without intent, the desired result can never be achieved.
)
