Actually, the First Congress passed the Declaration of Independence into federal law. The Federalist Papers are propaganda to pass the Constitution. If you use them then you must use the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. It's not an either/or thing. Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
The only law that the DOI commands is that of the original colonies to become independent for Great Britain. Other than that, it is NOT law. That's pretty basic stuff. So you are wrong #1.
The Constitution IS law, and the preamble, which is part of it, has been used many times in court cases, as it identifies that states do NOT have the right to nullification. This is indicated in both the
Legal Tender Cases, and in
Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bdm both of which used the preamble's concept of a government over the people NOT a contract between states as was the Articles of Confederation. This, as has been established in case law, continues to indicate that secession was illegal, and that the preamble IS law and has been used by SCOTUS to determine legal precedence.
The Federalist Papers were discussions on the Constitution and clearly identify their intent. I have no problem with the Anti-Federalist Papers. However, their thoughts on secession did not make it into the Constitution. The Federalist position did.
So, you are wrong #2.
I already stated what the court thought and the reasons why they ruled the way they did. You have not proven that the ruling was within the confines of the Constitution nor did you prove that secession was illegal. Your only card is one ruling done by a partisan court that had everything to gain by keeping the south under a military dictatorship.
I have conclusively proven that secession was illegal both in past and in this thread. All you have is your displeasure of a court case... which is irrelevant. The case upheld law. Session is and was illegal. No matter how much revision you throw, you can not change those simple facts. Your denial of legal case law upholding the Constitution is shows you are wrong #3.
The revision was done right after the war. Stating the full historical record is far from revising what really happened. It was the War of Northern Agression.
It was a Civil War. The "war of northern aggression" is a made up revisionist term that attempts to ignore case law, legal precedence, and the historical record. So, you are wrong #4.
You haven't proven it with the text of the Constitution from any part of Article I Section X on what the states are prohibited from doing. You have proven nothing except for using appeals to emotion and authority logical fallacies.
I have proven, clearly, that secession is illegal, using the Constitution, the words of Hamilton and Madison, and now several court cases, including
Texas v. White,
The Legal Tender Cases, and
ush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. All you have is an appeal to emotion and revision. And you do not know what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is, but I will explain that in a moment. Regardless, you are wrong #5.
Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
You do not understand what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is. "
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area." If I had said that Michael Jordan said that secession was illegal, and tired to demonstrate that truth of that statement on his word, I would be committing that fallacy; he may be an authority on Basketball, but not on US law. SCOTUS
IS the authority on US law, therefore, the fallacy does not exist in this case. That, for you, is
epic fail. You may wish that SCOTUS didn't have the final say on this, but they do. Therefore, you are wrong #6.
Another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
Again,
epic fail on not knowing what the appeal to authority means. Those folks and groups ARE the authority, so using then to demonstrate my position is valid and credible. You have no facts, all you have is your revision and your appeal to emotion. It must be sad for you to get beaten so badly in this.
Btw, that made you wrong #7, quite a feat in one post.