I don't disagree that a right to secession seems implied. I think it's a matter of how. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits it, neither does a process for secession. There is a process to join, however.
This is why these absolutist arguments don't make sense to me, and they don't reflect credit on those who make them. This is far from a settled question philosophically, though it is settled in practice now.
It must be rewarding to always be so certain about your arguments. I think you would have more credibility, however, to occasionally discover a subject that wasn't certain, obvious, and only opposed by statists.
Do you have a problem with all absolutist arguments or just these specific ones?