Your mouth is writing checks that your feeble mind can't cash.
The Supreme Court ruled the Southern acts of secession unconstitutional in the Texas v White case.
Here we go, Texas v White again. You are pathetic.
The Chase court was totally corrupted in that case. If they hadn't ruled that secession was unconstitutional just 3 years after the end of the war they would have essentially ruled what everyone already knows: that disHonest Abe's war was an unnecessary waste of hundreds of thousands of lives, a waste of valuable treasure and the cause of misery for countless millions of people for many years after wards. Obviously, Lincoln's Lackeys sure as heck weren't going to do anything to sully his good name, so, for all practical purposes, they ruled that constitutional issues are settled on the battlefield, which, apparently is a stance that you advocate.
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.
More non-sequitur dicta.
Yawn...............
Says the feeblest mind in the whole Lost Cause brigade...
Here we go, Texas v White again. You are pathetic.
Here we go again, Chase was corrupt blah, blah, blah. Lincoln started the war, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's like a broken record. The pathetic one in the picture is you.
More non-sequitur dicta.
Obiter dictum. Another legal term you apparently can't define.