Replies

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.

I’ve always found it immensely amusing when lost cause losers seek the protection of the US Constitution in order to defend breaching it.

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.

But yet you side with disHonest Abe's incorrect opinion concerning the secession of the Southern States. The biggest problem with you False Causers is your boundless hypocrisy.

Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ." Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union." Judge Napolitano also reminds his readers that the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was in fact debated - and rejected - at the Constitutional Convention as part of the "Virginia Plan."