Replies

No it's not. In fact, it is law. See the Judiciary Act of 1789: "And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction." Now unless the actions of the secessionists in ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy.

ROFLMAO - The States didn't think so. They considered it a right, and they exercised that right. No one took measures to stop them from exercising that right when they did it, so there was no "civil controversy" requiring legal action. If the states that remained in the Constitutional union objected, then they should have filed a grievance with the Court. The Southern States had no reason to. You are just as illogical as your alter-ego.

No it's not. In fact, it is law. See the Judiciary Act of 1789: "And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction." Now unless the actions of the secessionists in ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy.
ROFLMAO - The States didn't think so. They considered it a right, and they exercised that right.

Not for long.

Walt

They considered it a right, and they exercised that right.

Rights and laws are two different things. See the Declaration of Independence for a discussion of rights under Heaven vice the laws of men.

There was nothing illogical in what mac said. What you said was and is, pure BS.

Walt