I find most of your arguments easy enough to deal with. And they are not strengthened by a constant stream of insults.
Indeed, you might consider a current analogy -- which Republican leader has been the target of more left wing attacks and insults than all the others combined? Does that not suggest Governor Palin's arguments are more feared by the left than any others? Think about it before you start in with the next round of insults...
Now, let's take a closer look at your arguments:
"So, you agree with Mr. Jefferson?"
"...[T]he [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself..."
I clearly misread this quote, and failed to recognize its context. But since it contained no words like "unilateral secession" or "withdrawal from the Union" I took the quote as merely a normal expression of States Rights, such as we find in the Tenth Amendment. Of course, I have no problem with that.
But on second review, I see now what we are dealing with here -- Jefferson's draft for the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is a different matter altogether.
If I remember right, Jefferson was on both sides of the issue of Nullification and even secession. On the one hand he helped draft the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, supporting nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. On the other hand, he in no way supported either: A) efforts by Northern States, in 1804 and later, to nullify President Jefferson's Embargo Act, or B) their threats to secede.
So, as on some other issues, where Jefferson stood on Nullification depended on where he sat.
The issue itself played out over many years, seemingly put to rest by President Jackson in 1833:
"Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation against the doctrine of nullification, stating: "I consider...the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
"He also denied the right to secede: "The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.""
But the biggest irony of the idea of Nullification is this: when the South seceded in 1860-61, their core reason was: that Northern states were, in effect, Nullifying and ignoring Fugitive Slave Laws. The South claimed such nullification was intolerable and so seceded.
This is enough for one post. I'll come back & deal with your other issues later...
Good luck with your trees and roof!
Thank you.
I have already cited (IIRC) Mr. Jefferson's Declaration and Protest on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of them [by the federal government] of 1825, which should clarify for you his views regarding State secession (link at my FR homepage: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp ).
As for Mr. Jackson - you completely discounted Mr. Rawle, because, in your opinion, he was not sufficiently involved in the ratification of the Constitution (see your Post 1588). Care to apply your own standard to Mr. Jackson? What was young Jackson's involvement in the process? Hmm?
Allow me to paraphrase your Post 1588:
And Mr. Jackson's role in the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 was what, exactly?
And Mr. Jackson's contribution to the Federalist Papers, or other debates of 1787 regarding ratification was what?
Sorry - but you can't have it both ways, can you?
(And, by the way, you are conflating nullification and secession, when, in fact, they are separate issues. ;>)
As for my other comments? In my judgment, I posted nothing your 'arguments' did not richly deserve...