The trial wasn't about secession, homer. And go back and read the definition of dicta.
Once again you defend legislating from the bench just like a good little liberal.
were in line with Lincoln's intentions and were, doubtless, the best possible outcome
Bravo Sierra, professor. Nothing that disHonest Abe or his lackeys did resulted in "the best possible outcome". It was all dirty yankee politics.
And now, not only have we established that you agree with legislating from the bench, we can also conclude that you are a proponent of big government, Lincoln style, i.e., trash the Constitution when it's for political expedientency.
Well, FRiend, then you should bring such a case, and argue it to the Supreme Court. How far do you think you would get with it?
Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the current population even cares about the issue of secession and a vast majority of American's know very little about the history of the country that they live in. It would be a waste of time to even attempt to have a secession case heard by the SCOTUS.
More rubbish.
Texas v White required the US Supreme Court to rule on whether, in fact, secession had occurred.
It ruled in the negative, and that ruling has never been challenged by any law of Congress, ruling of the Supreme Court or even an executive order, in all the years since.
So, until that happens, it stands as "settled law".
cowboyway: "Nothing that disHonest Abe or his lackeys did resulted in "the best possible outcome".
It was all dirty yankee politics.
And now, not only have we established that you agree with legislating from the bench, we can also conclude that you are a proponent of big government, Lincoln style, i.e., trash the Constitution when it's for political expedientency."
Total rubbish, all false accusations, not a word of truth in any of it, FRiend.
cowboyway: "Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the current population even cares about the issue of secession and a vast majority of American's know very little about the history of the country that they live in.
It would be a waste of time to even attempt to have a secession case heard by the SCOTUS."
No, the real problem is that people like yourself are utterly, constitutionally incapable of truthful, honest & factual discussion, but always resort to hyperbole, insults & outright lies, just as you did here.
In fact, there is a strong case for secession based on mutual consent, but there is no case -- never was, never will be -- for unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession.