[cowboyway]

Let me see if I can get some learning into you. An ex post facto law is a law first and foremost. And laws, as you should have learned from your grade school civics class, only originate in the legislature. It is usually, but not exclusively, a law which makes some formerly legal activity illegal and which tries to retroactively apply penalties to those who committed the action. Can't do that. A court decision is handed down by a court of law. It is always handed down after the fact. And, if the court specifies, can be made retroactive. Furman v Georgia is a good example of that.

Bwahahahahahaha.....you appear to have snared yourself in your own trap!

You have stated for years that the South never seceded because it was 'illegal' and then you trot out Texas v White. Now, ignoring the fact that the Texas v White decision was from a highly biased, politically motivated, Lincoln appointed court, it was decision, not a law and now you must admit that the Chase court did nothing to change the fact that the South legally seceded.

Then, to top it off, in a vain attempt to tie Southern secession with ex post facto law, you whip out Furman v Georgia in which the law that was broken to land these criminals on death row wasn't challenged but just the method in which the death sentence was applied. Sheer lunacy!

You truly are dumb as a post.

And you're as dumb as the post hole.

Your rationality is rapidly fading, and it was never all that strong to begin with.

Based on your long history of irrational ramblings, lies, denials and spin, I would suggest that you are the least qualified among us to be a judge of rational behavior, rat turd.

[Non-Sequitur]

Bwahahahahahaha.....you appear to have snared yourself in your own trap!

In your dreams.

...and now you must admit that the Chase court did nothing to change the fact that the South legally seceded.

Why must I admit that? The Supreme Court ruled the Southern acts of secession unconstitutional in the Texas v White case.

Then, to top it off, in a vain attempt to tie Southern secession with ex post facto law....

On the contrary, it is you making the apples-and-oranges comparison with a court decision and an ex post facto law. And making it clear you apparently have not a single clue as to what either one is.