Replies

Still in all I am just dumbfounded by his curious observation that the Civil War settled the matter of secession.

It did provide the court with the one case on the matter, Texas v. White. And as much at the Lost Causers will cry that it's a bad decision because of X, Y, and Z, it's still a US Supreme Court decision.

It's as if after a single battle in a larger war against tyranny the loser is eternally obligated somehow to be under the heel of the winner. That the loser of a single battle and some other lesser skimishes cannot regroup, rearm and reorganize for a counter-attack just takes my breath away.

They can. They just can't go into court when they're arrested and explain that they thought it was legal.

There's a natural right of rebellion. Overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States and you can make up your own rules. But you can't expect that the government is obliged just roll over and give anyone anything they ask for.

It did provide the court with the one case on the matter, Texas v. White. And as much at the Lost Causers will cry that it's a bad decision because of X, Y, and Z, it's still a US Supreme Court decision.

Ah yes, precedent, the libtards holy grail. FWIW, and from what little I've read of this decision, "coerced" might not be a bad description.

They can. They just can't go into court when they're arrested and explain that they thought it was legal.

Why? Is it extra-constitutional and out of the purview of the courts?

There's a natural right of rebellion. Overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States and you can make up your own rules. But you can't expect that the government is obliged just roll over and give anyone anything they ask for.

Our present Constitution is adequate for self governance. It's not being followed by the federales who wish to convert its use to toilet paper. We don't need to overthrow anything, we need to get the feral government train back on the tracks -- whether they like it or not.

I think the more important issues that “settled” the matter were the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Those three sealed the fact that the states were junior to the federal government in the Constitutional scheme. The states essentially lost all control over the regulation of individuals within their boundaries and it clarified that all citizens of the states are also citizens of the United States.

And really, from a legal standpoint, that is why secession would not be allowed. If Texas decided to leave the union, Texas would - in theory - be denying its residents federally protected rights.

“It did provide the court with the one case on the matter, Texas v. White. And as much at the Lost Causers will cry that it's a bad decision because of X, Y, and Z, it's still a US Supreme Court decision.”

How about Penhallow v. Doane?

Majority of that Court held ( secession was legal )

They can. They just can't go into court when they're arrested and explain that they thought it was legal. There's a natural right of rebellion. Overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States and you can make up your own rules. But you can't expect that the government is obliged just roll over and give anyone anything they ask for.

Best explanation on the thread. It's not "legal" (it's "extralegal"), but it doesn't matter anyway.