[rockrr]

The Southron War of Belligerence is a term I consider more apt than "The Civil War". But I agree with you in principle - the act of secession hasn't been settled. However, the act of unilateral secession was the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that currently stands as settled law.

[jeffc]

However, the act of unilateral secession was the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that currently stands as settled law.

Any liberal will tell you that a law is not settled if they disagree with it, why can't we?

I say if the Constitution does not specifically allow the Feds something, then it is illegal for them do to it, I don't care what convoluted reasoning or interpretation SCOTUS uses to justify their ruling. And, again I say, if it is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution through plain language, then the people and the states have the right to do what they want (Caveat: you can't plan for all future occurrences, so some things must be generalized and "interpreted" later. Interstate rules "Commerce Clause" come to mind).

We've all seen recently how the monkey judges jump through hoops to give the Feds more power through how they RE-interpret what the Founding Fathers intended.

I do agree that the Southerners went the wrong way in seceding in attacking Fort Sumter. They should have better prepared themselves for war before leaving and then dared the North to do something about it. Then pull a Palistinian on them and cry out for "justification" from the rest of the world. Hey, it works for them!