[Gianni]

Texas v. White did not make an argument based on the Constitution. It made an argument which extended the preamble of said document to another defunct article which had no force in law, Mr. "I don't make ad-hominems."

[4CJ]

It made an argument which extended the preamble of said document to another defunct article which had no force in law

A preamble which contains a statement of intent (much like the demised Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union which were abandoned) and NO Powers, and another Declaration of Secession.

[capitan_refugio]

"Texas v. White did not make an argument based on the Constitution. It made an argument which extended the preamble of said document to another defunct article which had no force in law, Mr. 'I don't make ad-hominems.'"

Please note the first use of "Just how stupid are you?" When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Post with civility, and you will receive it from me in kind.

Texas vs White was all about constitutional principles. But we have already been over this ground. If you don't believe that the Constitution represented a binding agreement, then Texas v White would have no meaning to you.