Why do you have to LIE? You know as well as anyone that Federalist is THE definitive work on the Constitution. And has nothing it being ratified.
All you guys do is selectively quote from various documents and totally distort what is within them. However, EVERY time you throw up one of these smokescreens it gets blown away by a gnat's breath.
Your last paragraph is a perfect example of the distortions, red herrings, straw men and out right LIES which make up the bulk of your arguments.
There is no penumbra as large as that of secession. But it is even worse since the idea is a DIRECT contradiction of the Union and the Constitution. This is clear from reading the Federalist.
What lie? The DEFINITIVE work on the Constitution would either be Elliot's Debates or Farrand's Records, which discuss what was proposed, rejected and approved by the convention.
Show where that was done.
On the other hand, we have you quoting irrelevent portions of the Federalist, claiming that states voted to revoke their own sovereignty. Idiotic.
Then you insist we separate your views from Farbers. They are the same. The man researched and wrote a 260 page book attempting to draw the same conclusion that you have, wouldn't a sane person accept him as an authority? So when he indicates that the difinitive portion of the federalist at best "leaves open the door for emergence of a national people" doesn't that embarass you?
Don't you second-guess your conclusions about the other, irrelevent portions of the federalist when someone who's livlihood and reputation as a legitimate author depended on it found no merit whatsoever in the portions you continue to reference?