Replies

The southern acts of secession were not constitutional just because my good and learned friend, 4ConservativeJustices, says they are. The southern acts of secession are not unconstitutional just because I, in my modest fashion, say that they are. The southern acts of secession were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States, in their wisom and by a 5 to 3 margin in an 1869 decision, says that they are. And until the Constitution is amended or a future Supreme Court modifies or overrules the decision in Texas v. White then the will remain unconstitutional.

The southern acts of secession were not constitutional just because my good and learned friend, 4ConservativeJustices, says they are. The southern acts of secession are not unconstitutional just because I, in my modest fashion, say that they are. The southern acts of secession were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States, in their wisom and by a 5 to 3 margin in an 1869 decision, says that they are. And until the Constitution is amended or a future Supreme Court modifies or overrules the decision in Texas v. White then the will remain unconstitutional.

The Supremes have made some decisions wherein they tortured or added language (penumbras and emanations on Roe vs Wade for example) that makes referring to them iffy at best. Although their track record has been okay, it hasn't been perfect by any means.

But going back to the original founding documents, the case becomes very clear. Even Madison himself rebuked Calhoun for misinterpreting his words on nullification and secession.

However, it is because of some strange Supreme Court rulings in the past (though mercifully they've been few) that many people (myself included) are uncomfortable with accepting any rulings from the court without first looking at the rulings and reasoning behind them.

But then, I've never been a believer of the "living document" theory...

....The southern acts of secession were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States, in their wisdom and by a 5 to 3 margin in an 1869 decision, says that they are.

Quoting Article I, Section 9 (in part): "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Pardon me if I point out that 1861 was anterior to 1869; that the Supreme Court is notorious for reading election returns and war news; and that they were....wrong, just as they were wrong in Plessey vs. Ferguson and United States vs. Miller.

And like I said, when we talk about Union and disunion, convention and ratification and secession, we're playing at a level above the Supreme Court's pay grade. The real answer was, the acts of secession voted by the conventions and plebiscites of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861 were ultra vires the United States and its federal courts.

So what the H*LL makes you think the Supreme Court's word is God's will? They are no better than old "honest (cough) Abe..... More "Yankee Rhetoric"....