And again, this has already been shown to be false. The Constitution, Madison, SCOTUS, all on my side of the issue. Like it or not, the decision is precedence. The Constitution is not a compact, secession is illegal. It must suck to lose, here, but you have no facts to back your position, so that's what has occurred.Again the Justice is wrong since Madison and the authors of the Constitution have repeatedly stated that the Constitution is a compact. Again, Founding Fathers>Justice Bradley.
And I've already shown that you do not know what the appeal to authority logical fallacy means. You can keep throwing it out there, but, it is false, nontheless. And SCOTUS for sure has the power for judicial review. You may not like it... because it further destroys your argument, but it has that power nontheless. The framers discussed this issue; there were only two who verbally dissented (Mercer and Dickenson). 5 of the states had this, and it is easy to infer this from the document. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78:You haven't proven anything other than your appeals to authority of men in black robes that are using an illegal delegation of power to interprete the Constitution. I choose to use the actual authors of the document.
Further, since the Supremacy Clause in Article VI idenfies the Constitution as being the supreme law of the land, it is the job of the SCOTUS to "test" for this through laws and decisions.The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
So, let's add Hamiliton, more parts of the Constitution, and of course John Marshal to my side. Hmmm... looks like you're getting buried.
Reject all you want. Doesn't alter the facts. You can deny the world is round. Doesn't alter the facts.SCOTUS is wrong and has been wrong. That is why I use the people who actually wrote the damn thing. If you prefer to use political activist judges that's your prerogative, but I don't have to accept it. I reject your cites due to bias on the part of the justices involved.
I have proven that you have nothing. Repeatedly. I know it is painful to be beaten so badly, and that's why you are denying all the evidence, but it doesn't change what occurred. Now, you can vacate this if you want, and remain in denial, but it doesn't change the fact that you have proven nothing except that you dislike the facts that have been presented to you.Saying I have nothing and PROVING it are two different things. We're done here because you are not here for an honest debate, but to spam your rhetoric and quasi-scholastic research as fact.