Wrong - .
Finally, Penhallow was basically a property case.
Wrong. Patterson made certain that brain dead morons would understand it was one of jurisdiction. At the bar was he issue of jurisdiction - whether or not each of the adjudicating bodies had jurisdiction to hear the case. And to that he responded that as long as the state remained in the union they did.
Secession was not an issue before the court, therefore even if 3 of 4 justices held that a state may UNILATERALLY secede such statements were not binding.
My God you're obtuse. If the state had withdrawn herself the issue would be moot.
Or do I need to take you on my knee and explain, yet again, what obiter dictum means?
One justice writing that unilateral secession was legal might be considered dictum, but three holding that unilateral secession was legal is ample evidence that it was foundational, and not obiter dicta.
Regarding you perverted wishes to take someone across your knee, no thanks.
Sorry, but I'm quite right on that.
Patterson made certain that brain dead morons would understand it was one of jurisdiction
Well I can't speak for what brain dead morons understand, I'll defer to you in that area. But a reading of majority opinion make it clear that the original issue was never one of secession since nobody had seceded.
If the state had withdrawn herself the issue would be moot.
If a state had withdrawn then it might well have been an issue before the court. But a state did not so secession wasn't a matter for the court to rule on.
One justice writing that unilateral secession was legal might be considered dictum, but three holding that unilateral secession was legal is ample evidence that it was foundational, and not obiter dicta.
Wrong again. Any comment made in passing in a judicial ruling is made in dicutm. As you should know by now courts cannot rule on matters that are not before them for decision. Nobody had seceded so the court could not rule on the legality.