Replies

as confirmed in Texas v White, was that secession

Dictum/Dicta: Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

Still spitting out that revisionist history, huh professor? You False Causers are hilariously pathetic bunch.

You still haven't answered my question: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty? Yes or no, professor. Yes or no.

cowboyway on Texas v White: "...opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."

And yet, the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v White has never been challenged by any law of Congress, ruling of the Supreme Court or even by executive order of the President.
That's why it stands today as "settled law".

cowboyway: "You still haven't answered my question: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty?
Yes or no, professor. Yes or no."

In fact, I've answered your question now more than once, but since you have all the reading comprehension of a three-toed sloth, the answer still escapes you.

But I'm patient, I "get" that sloths are, well, slow, and will try again:

First of all, no Constitutional guarantee is unconditional or absolute, all come with implied or expressed limitations.
- To pick one example: the right to free speech does not permit you to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
- To cite another: habeas corpus may be constitutionally suspended if required for public safety during times of rebellion or invasion.
But even with those limitations, our Founders well understood that government can grow to usurp power and become abusive of its citizens.
They recognized that this was, in addition to mutual consent, an adequate reason for disunion, and indeed, qualified in their minds as a form of mutual consent.

Now, it seems to me that answer should be more than adequate for the quicker & more agile two-toed sloths, though perhaps, sadly, the slower three toed varieties will just never "get" it.