Replies

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[7]

As the Document which created the United States, and under the authority thereof created the Articles of Confederation and then the US Constitution, I would say that the principles outlined in the Declaration are authoritatively superior to what any lesser power should decree.

Certainly England had the same "Perpetual Allegiance" requirement, but the Founders explicitly rejected it.

In other words, even respecting the wishes and desires of the population (which in the case of the southern states there is doubt that it even constituted a plurality), if we are a nation of laws, then procedure must take precedent over passion.

I am one who has long argued that "Precedent" represents solidified mistakes; That all disputes should be resolved by a resort to first principles, not a tu ququoe ad vericundiam of previous opinions.

I put little stock into "appeal to tradition" as a sound logical argument.

In the argument about the aptness of an analogy between the Revolutionary war and the WBTS I would say that the points of divergence far outweigh any similarity.

You have stated such, but listed none which I can see.

I am one who has long argued that "Precedent" represents solidified mistakes; That all disputes should be resolved by a resort to first principles, not a tu ququoe ad vericundiam of previous opinions.

A notion that would result in legal chaos and utter uncertainty that two cases with identical circumstances would be decided in the same way. On a site that decries judicial activism, you're calling for every judge to interpret the law for himself every time, and undermine every decision that has come before.