[Gianni]

Nor that you hang your case on grammatic trivialities which must stand against massive contrary evidence.

Trivialities? Do you know anything about the law?

I have quoted document after document, person after person, all denying that what you assert is true. So ironclad is the evidence against you that Daniel Farber wrote a 256 page book attempting to prove your point, and the best he could come up with was a strong idea of union, undocumented, existing only in a metaphysical state, detectable only by it's normative aura, with a super-legal potency.

Of course, the best he could do wrt Lincoln's Constitution was to say that his actions were not legal in the strict sense, but justified within the framework of that super-legal entity which nobody can find reference to.

In a way, it's very sad. To try so hard, and come up so short.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The case against your argument that there was no nation and only a contract between the states was clearly laid out in an irrefutable fashion by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist. You cannot read 16 through 23 without having to admit there was no state sovereignty left sufficient to destroy the Union. If you are honest that is.

Lincoln's actions against those attacking the United States need no defense. It is clearly laid out in the Constitution that insurrection can be put down. It is also extensively discussed in the Federalist how the need for force against insurrection within and even between states is provided for within the Constitution. Hamilton even foresees a possible split which would lead inevitably to war.

You cannot address the statement that the new government was NO LONGER a sovereignty over sovereignties. States were no longer fully sovereign (even in theory) over their own territory being restricted to making only SOME laws affecting their citizens.

It is clear from the bogus arguments and misleading quotes you use that you do not understand the Constitution's effect upon state sovereignty. Reread the Federalist.

[4CJ]

Trivialities? Do you know anything about the law?

Obviously he does not. But he seems to be of the opinion that the states ratified the Federalist Papers.

I have quoted document after document, person after person, all denying that what you assert is true.

He ignores a plethora of documents, all LEGAL - ratifications, treaties, Supreme Court decisions, etc.

So ironclad is the evidence against you that Daniel Farber wrote a 256 page book attempting to prove your point, and the best he could come up with was a strong idea of union, undocumented, existing only in a metaphysical state, detectable only by it's normative aura, with a super-legal potency.

The framers discussed secessions during the conventions, rejected the use of force against a state multiple times, refused to prohibit secession, rejected a national government, rejected the notion of a perpetual union, and rejected ratification en masse. Normative aura? One of those mystical penumbras like the court discovers to legalize abortion and gay marriage.