State's have a Right to Secede

I'll get around to the case of Texas v White later seeing as how that is my argument. Also, I'm going to skip some things because I doubt I will have the space to address it all.I am kind of confused by your author versus critic point. It seems that you are getting at the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final ruling in what the Constitution says seeing as how the writer is no longer alive. Also, in case you have forgotten, the ultimate job of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. That means that you have to follow what they say anymore. Now, since Madison is a person that you quoted, I will also quote him."Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us." [1-1]Does this really sound like secession is well looked upon?Thomas Jefferson once stated, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "That's essentially the same as when the guy at the wedding says that anyone who doesn't want the marriage needs to speak or forever hold their peace. If they don't object to the wedding at that time, they can't go and object 30 years later and expect something to happen. Jefferson was clearly talking to a group of people. That means that THOSE people should have broken from the US. That quote didn't stand as an option to take advantage of once that meeting ended.The same goes for the second quote of Jefferson's. Your first quote for the Supreme Court is irrelevant as far as I can tell. If there was a point to that, please tell me. Your second quote says nothing about the Supreme Court re-writing the Constitution, not that they ever have. It says that laws of the states are subject to the rulings of US courts. The only exception is if the Constitution, a treaty, or a statute specifically says something is or is not allowed. I challenge you to find a federal paper that explicitly says secession is a right guaranteed to the states. A federal law counts too.I'd like to hit on the last part of the 10th amendment. The "or the people" part. The president of the United States is elected by the people. The elected presidents choose the Supreme Court justices if a new one is needed. So, any ruling of the Supreme Court would technically be a ruling that the people should be in favor of. The fact that no one has brought the illegitimacy of the ruling up just goes to prove that people were, and still are, in favor of secession being illegal.You say that each state joined the Confederacy after seceding. While this is true, the US Government never recognized the CSA as its own entity. They were all rebels. Therefor, the secession never happened in the eyes of the government, and the states joined in a confederacy, made both bills and coins, kept troops, not only kept but used an all new war ship, and engaged in war all without the required consent of Congress. In other words the States have the right to create public Acts, Records, and conduct judicial Proceedings, without the consent of other states.That isn't what that quote says. The public acts and such are just records of the proceedings of the state. That quote says that the states are being trusted with public affairs of the other states. So taxes, judicial rulings, new state laws, etc. of one state can be read and looked through by another state. That quote says nothing about the consent (or lack there of) of other states. The quote that you say directly conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with it. The ruling is on the state of the relationship of Texas with the other states. The quote is about transparency in public documents.That whole quote of Article 4 Section 3 is completely irrelevant to this debate. The entire thing is about the formation of new states. Of course there won't be anything about the dissolving of the Union in this quote. Article 4 Section 3 addresses New States The part you pulled out doesn't really say anything about each state being sovereign. To be sovereign would mean that the state is all powerful. Obviously, neither the state nor the federal government are all powerful. Of the two, though, the federal government holds greater power. The part you pulled out basically seems to be saying that the federal government can't take land from a state because they don't like it. I'll admit that I don't completely know what you mean by common law, so I will provide a definition.Common Law - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. [2]Seeing as how the northern states came together to fight a war to keep the CSA from officially becoming its own entity, I'd say there was universal consent among the winning side. That side also happens to be the one who made secession illegal. Now for my argument.It is undeniable that in Texas v White, the Supreme Court made a retroactive ruling that secession is illegal. While this ruling was unconstitutional, It was made. Until someone rises up and challenges this claim, the Supreme Court has no reason to revisit it. Even if they did revisit the case, there's no guarantee that they would declare the original ruling unconstitutional. Since it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution, then secession is illegal if they interpret it to be. No matter how much you call this ruling unconstitutional or say that it is void, this is not the case. Until the day comes when the ruling is overturned, it stands as common law and it must be followed."Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us." [1-1]This is a quote that I used previously. James Madison wrote this in the Federalist Papers. This quote clearly displays that James Madison, the one who you quoted as supporting secession, does not think highly of secession. He calls it a "baneful practice" that "ruins popular governments".Once again, thank you for this debate. Also, I am impressed. I didn't expect you to start challenging the Supreme Court's ruling. [1] - http://thomas.loc.gov...[1-1] - http://thomas.loc.gov...[2] - http://www.lectlaw.com...