I'm referring to the Supreme Court decision that ruled the rebel acts of unilateral secession unconstitutional. Your whining about the Chief Justice and the make-up of the court notwithstanding.
Although the Court never directly addressed the matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia statehood, despite persistent questions as to whether the Reorganized Government had legitimately given Virginia's consent to the creation of the new state, the conclusion in Virginia v. West Virginia also settled, for practical purposes, the statehood issue.
Not directly no. But by taking up the Virginia v West Virginia case it recognized both states as equals and ruled in favor of the state of West Virginia.
I can agree that you should give me your car, and your objection to that will not stand up in court.
Analogous to what y'all seem to believe solved the status of Fort Sumter. But I digress.
What about the large number of counties whose voters did not assent in the 1861 WV statehood referendum? Also, Jefferson County, one of the two counties in question in the Virginia v. West Virginia case, had voted to secede from the US in 1861. It then voted to join WV in 1863 but only when its Confederate soldiers were absent. Sounds like Northern style politics all right.
Complain, complain, complain.
GOPcapitalist once put this way about the [precedent] of Texas v. White on secession:
That precedent is built upon the point of a bayonet and nothing more. If you subscribe to the mistaken belief that law is nothing more than an accumulation of words upon sword tips, then yes. It is illegal. If you believe that law is predicated upon a greater and immutable truth than sword tips however, then secession was, is, and always will be a perfectly legal and legitimate act.
Analogous to what y'all seem to believe solved the status of Fort Sumter. But I digress.
We've been through this before. Here's a link to a long chain of posts between the two of us and several others on Eminent Domain. I'll summarize the discussion:
- I posted that South Carolina claimed the fort under eminent domain.
- You said they couldn't do that under the US Constitution.
- I said the US Constitution no longer applied but the Confederate Constitution did.
- I cited where the Confederate Congress had authority over forts, arsenals, etc.
- You said eminent domain could not be applied to property owned by foreign governments.
- I found an article that said the US had done just that.
- The article noted 1940 & 1941 US laws allowing seizure of foreign properties.
- You wanted something more recent.
- I cited a 1974 case.
Complain, complain, complain.
The case you cited said "counties would become part of West Virginia "whenever" voters assented. But counties whose voters had not assented were forced to become part of West Virginia that no one in their county had voted for.