State's have a Right to Secede

Response;My opponent claims that, "the ultimate job of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION."That is False the Supreme Court acts as a Final Court of Appeals, and does not interpret law, it upholds the law.uphold is defined as supporting against an opponentinterpret is defined as make sense of; assign a meaning toJudicial review as I stated before is subject to rule of Law, and the constitution. If it conflicts, than it is void.Your quote by James Madison was not in context. That is partial quote from Federalist papers No. 58 in which James Madison was referring the process of majority rule, not secession. He was speaking about how Majority rule would lead to arbitrarily secession. James Madison favored secession under certain circumstances, and opposed it being used arbitrarily.My opponent claims my quote by Jefferson, shows Jefferson was opposed to secession. That is false he supported secession, but opposed the arbitrary practice. "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. "Jefferson was saying those who wish to secede may do so , but they have to live with the result. My opponent claims a connection between the Jefferson quote and a wedding. That again is false It is not the same thing as a wedding, in order to dissolve a union, it must be previously established. In order to prevent a union it must not yet be established.My opponent has stated, "I challenge you to find a federal paper that explicitly says secession is a right guaranteed to the states. A federal law counts too." That would be the 10th amendment. My opponent has tried to make the claim that because the 10th amendment gives all unmentioned powers to the states or to the people, than the Supreme Court and the President has unmentioned powers, because the people elect the president and the president appoints the Supreme Court. There are 2 things wrong with that claim.1.) The 10th amendment limits the power of the Federal Government, not expands it.2.) The President is not elected by the people, he is elected by electors.My opponent claims that Article 4 section 1 does not state, that each states must honor all other states.This is false, and could have only been concluded by someone who was selective reading. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (Notice the period)Public Act is defined as an act of legislation affecting the public as a wholeJudicial Proceedings is defined as litigation: a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rights"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."This is the section my opponent must have skipped ahead to, disregarding what the rest of Section 1 had to say.It does not matter if the United States recognized the secession. If the united states does not recognize your right to freedom of speech, would you still protest?My opponent seems to misunderstand the term prejudice. Prejudice is defined as bias or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.My opponent stated he does not know what common law is, so I will define it for him.Common law is defined as a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws.-----------------------------------------------------Closing;Definition;Common law is defined as a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws.Public Act is defined as an act of legislation affecting the public as a wholeJudicial Proceedings is defined as litigation: a legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rightsPrejudice is defined as bias or a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.Closing;According to Section 34 of the Judiciary Act states;"That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."The ruling of Texas vs White states;"The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. "howeverArticle 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."The ruling of Texas vs White states; "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"howeverArticle 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."Conclusion;The case Texas vs White violated the constitution by requiring consent from other states in order to pass an act, according to Article 4 section 1 of the constitution. Therefore according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ruling is void in regards to common law.Note: I ask those who vote to please regard this debate as fantasy supreme Supreme Court case, because if the ruling was void, it would still be enforced.