I skipped it last time because it was -obviously- not relevant. I guess you need me to explain why.And yet you cut it out of my post rather than respond to it. I wonder why?
Here for your reading pleasure....
n. the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government
You provided the defintion of sedition. So what?
That doesnt in any way show that secession and insurrection are the same, and does nothing to address the argument I presented.
The part you seem to miss is that once the states seceed, its impossible for them to enter into an insurrection with the Union because they are no longer part of the Union -- and so, for nything related to insurrection - including sedition - to apply in any way, you have to show that the states could not seceed, and thus remained part of the union.
Given that, there's no way to argue that the power to suppress insurrections is a constituionl prohibition against secessiion (as if the faulty logic alone doesnt illustrate the absurdity of the idea).
Can Canada openly rebel against the United States?
No. Neither can the CSA, for the same reason.