[lentulusgracchus]

[GOPcapitalist] Trying to insert false distinctions of whether that right, when exercised, is "legal" amounts to nothing more than obfuscation of the real issue.

Concurring thud-bump. <crockery bounces>

That's the consistently employed device in all the court cases cited here that pretend to put secession and the secessionists on trial, in order to find their acts "illegal" for some immediate purpose of the Government.

But Job One is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the competence of the powers exercised, the legality of their form of exercise, and the consequent legality of secession and must flow from it like a river, which is the confession of the legitimacy of the Confederacy.

[lentulusgracchus]

Erratum (again -- I'm getting bad at this):

consequent legality of secession and that which must flow.....

Solly. <8^\

[capitan_refugio]

"But Job One is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the competence of the powers exercised, the legality of their form of exercise, and the consequent legality of secession and must flow from it like a river, which is the confession of the legitimacy of the Confederacy."

Given the political season, if you ignoring the "elephant in the room," you must then certainly pay close attention to the "ass" in the room!