Texas v. White held, as a matter of law, that the southern states did not legally secede.
In response to an assertion that it did, the supreme court held that they didn’t, and that their pretense to that effect had and has no legal effect.
True but at least she can prove that she did pick her nose ;-)
Prigggs vs Penn held, as a matter of law, that Congress could solve a problem that needed no solution. So?
Your previous post was the only one in all this time that even gave a nod to covered subjects, and all the emoting and anti-sourthern drek is getting tiresome.
A discussion involves a point being made and rebutted, not hopping around from subject to subject spouting Cliff notes from history class.
If you cannot discuss this using rules [such as the Rule of Exclusion] and law [like finding the word 'secession' in the Constitution] and recognize the progessionary pattern of encroaching government by using historical records, then I really have no evidence you will accept.
Congratulations. You are now property of the US government.