Replies

I do. And you might recognize this language from somewhere as well: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

ah but that's false. The union was not indissoluble. The opinion of the Chase court here is no more binding than Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc etc

ah but that's false.

As you would have us believe.

The union was not indissoluble.

No it is not. Chase mentioned the two methods of dividing the Union: rebellion or with the consent of the other states. The Southern states tried the former and lost. Has they tried the later they may well be separate today. Next time make the right choice.

The opinion of the Chase court here is no more binding than Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc etc

Well Dred Scott was nullified by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al. Texas v. White remains binding today.

“And you might recognize this language from somewhere as well . . .”

Victor’s Justice.

Actually it is binding and was used as precedent as recently as 2010 by the Alaska Supreme Court in Kohlass vs the Lt Governer of Alaska.

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2010/s-13024-1.html