Following the same logic, the opinion in Plessey v. Ferguson must have had the force of law. Why did it NOT trump the argument of Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. Board of Education?
[CapnR to Gianni #1426] Chief Justice Chase did not alter one word of the Constitution. He ruled that the original intent of the framers was that the Union was paramount and that unilateral secession was, is, and will remain illegal.
According to CapnR, Salmon P. Chase not only rendered an opinion, he said it cannot be challenged and will remain the law for all time to come.
Let's apply that logic elsewhere. Pursuant to Roe v. Wade, restriction of abortion will remain illegal.
If the court in Plessey had only said its opinion was, is, and will remain the law, separate but [un]equal would remain the unchallenged, and unchallengeable law of the land.
Come now. You're better than that. Of course, your modus operandi to to take things out of context and post half-truths.
Let's take the case of the Bouvier Law Dictionary definition of "videlicet." As I recall, you posted the first part of the definition, which supported you "point." On the other hand, I posted, from the same source, the whole definition, which used the exact verbiage I suggested. And furthermore, it really didn't matter which synonym you used, because my observation was completely correct.
And you had the gall to call me "intellectually dishonest." Sort of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?
Another Nolu Chan misrepresentation and mischaracterization. I never said, "... it cannot be challenged and will remain the law for all time to come." I speculated that Texas v White, on the issue of secession, will never be revisited and over-turned.
But hey, if you are an aggrieved citizen you have the right to petition Congress. You have the right to bring suit. I'd like to see you put your money, time, and effort where your mouth is and rectify this alleged wrong! (This ought to be good - progress reports, please.)