State's have a Right to Secede

The primary role of the US Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution. [1] "God save the United States and this Honorable Court," chants the Marshal as the U.S. Supreme Court enters the courtroom to hear arguments and issue some 150 annual major interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. [2] the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. [3] Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation [3] And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges[3]First, I never said the court interprets the law, I said it interprets the constitution. If you really want to contest this now, not that you can in this debate, then we can have a whole new debate on that. So Madison supported premeditated secession, but not random secession? How long is one expected to think about it? Ignoring that, you never specified a type of secession or a secession in some cases. You used secession as a blanket statement. Therefore, my quote holds seeing as how Madison trashes secession in it. There was nothing mentioned before my accepting of this debate that specified what type of secession or under what conditions it's acceptable. I don't disagree that Jefferson was saying that one could secede. I am saying that he was providing an option that people had to take advantage of at that point in time. It doesn't stay a viable option forever.Now that I re-read the quote, I see that Jefferson gave is telling people that they can secede but it would be a stupid idea void of reason.The marriage idea works in principle. They aren't a direct correlation obviously. Anyone can see that that conclusion could only be drawn by someone who was reading selectively. The idea I was getting at is that if no one objects to the marriage at that time, then they can't suddenly object 20 years later and expect the same results. When Jefferson made that quote, anyone could secede at will. Now, though, you can't draw upon that quote and expect the same results.Here comes that selective reading issue again. You ignored the part about it explicitly saying that secession was legal. The 10th amendment doesn't explicitly say that secession is allowed. It hints at it, but it doesn't explicitly say it.The winner of the presidential election tends to be the person that most people want. There have only been four instances where a president won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Unfortunately for you, none of those presidents were in power during Texas v White. Therefore, that Supreme Court would be an accurate representation of the people.I'd like to point out that the definition of public acts doesn't change my interpretation. I still interpret it as being a quote about transparency among the state governments.I honestly missed that second quote. I meant to delete the part about my possibly having to skip a part, but I forgot. I will attempt to address it without bringing in new information. That part of the quote is saying that Congress will decide on how to prove the legitimacy of the document(s), and its/their effect. My original response to that question was actually addressing section 1 of the quote. Your question about not recognizing freedom of speech fails to pull through because the freedom of speech is guaranteed EXPLICITLY in the 1st amendment. Secession be legal is not. Here is the definition of prejudice that I used.Prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand orwithout knowledge, thought, or reason. [4]Seeing as how you neglected to provide a definition at the beginning of this debate, I refuse to use your definition and instead use mine because mine is more favorable to me.I stated that I wasn't entirely sure what common law was, and I provided my own definition. Mine suits me better, so I will use it because you can't hold me to a definition that I did not agree to at the beginning of this debate.To close out my arguments section, I would like to point out how perfect it is that our interpretations of different quotes differ. You interpreted the quote one way, and I interpreted the same exact quote to mean something totally different. This is why the Supreme Court is needed to interpret the constitution. What one person may interpret one way, a different person could interpret to mean the exact opposite. The Supreme Court justices are privileged enough to have their interpretation be the one that counts in the court of law. Therefore, if they interpret the constitution to say that secession is illegal, then it is illegal until a different court overrules the original ruling.CONCLUSION I reject your definitions of prejudice and common law, and replace them with my own.Prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand orwithout knowledge, thought, or reason. [4]Common Law - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. [5]Quotes provided by my opponent do not support his claims. Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution; "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;... and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."This quote was interpreted by my opponent to mean states have the right to secede. This quote has nothing to do with that. It says that the federal government cannot take state lands because they dislike said state.Article 4 Section 1 of the US Constitution; "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."This quote has to do with transparency of documents between states, not secession.ConclusionIt can be seen that the Supreme Court does in fact interpret the constitution. This gives them the power to outlaw secession if they should see it as unconstitutional. This is what happened in Texas v White. My opponent failed to address my point about the law being the law until another ruling is made regardless of how unconstitutional the ruling is. This makes secession illegal according to Texas v White. It should be noticed that several quotes were either cut or removed in my opponent's conclusion. This would imply that my opponent realized that they were flawed and useless in his case. The quotes that did remain do not have anything to do with the legality or lack of legality in the case of secession. I have refuted all of my opponent's points while he has ignored a few of mine altogether. This debate was on whether or not secession is legal now. It doesn't matter on the circumstances under which a state tries to secede, or a special method of secession. Texas v White ruled secession illegal, therefore, secession is illegal. There has not been sufficient evidence to prove that the ruling of Texas v White is void.* NOTE: To any voters, please ignore the names of the participants in this debate when you vote. Please vote solely on the debate itself.[1] http://wiki.answers.com...[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com...[3] http://law2.umkc.edu...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://www.lectlaw.com...