But you said the Court's ruling isn't law. Here's your exact words: "And it isn't law in the first place." This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling (which illegally usurped the conditions stated in the documents that created the Constitutional union), therefore the ruling was making law, which you have denied was law, but yet you argue from the position that it was... Your fluctuating conditional anarchy is confusing.
And as a result of that I can say that the southern acts of secession were illegal because the court ruled that they were. It's you that said it was an invalid decision, apparently denying the court's authority.
LOL - See above. As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law. That is a position held by the Supreme Court, in fact, it is one of it's primary and fundamental postitions. My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.
And I stand by that. The Supreme Court doesn't make law. In the case of Texas v. White it was ruling on the Constitutionality of an act of the Texas legislature regarding secession. It ruled that the unilateral act of secession passed by the legislature violated the Constituiton.
This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling...
Your opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed.
As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law.
But who determines if the court decision is illegal? You? Who grants you that authority?
My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.
How much authority can the court have if you alone can decide if their decision was illegal?