[nolu chan]

[613 nolu chan] I have only said it was unlawful.

[623 WhiskeyPapa] It wasn't unlawful when he did it.

When a court rules someone's action unlawful, it is ruled to be unlawful at the time of the act.

But I like your logic.

Perhaps I can knock over a bank and offer a compelling defense:

(1) It was not unlawful when I did it. No court had yet told me it was unlawful. The court telling me today, that what I did then was unlawful, is ex post facto.

(2) There is no evidence that I bucked any ruling of the Supreme Court.

[WhiskeyPapa]

When a court rules someone's action unlawful, it is ruled to be unlawful at the time of the act.

No, it affects subsequent acts, not previouus. There were plenty of questions about the president's actions. It has still not been decided.

You're not going to adopt the neo-reb "playing stupid" act, are you?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Knocking over a bank has always pretty much been known to be illegal.

Just as legal unilateral state secession has always been barred by the wording of the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 and the Judicial Act of 1789.

Walt