[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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...

[Non-Sequitur]

I understand that. There are decisions made which have had me scratching my head as well. But when it comes to what is Constitutional and what is not then the opinions of the Justices are the only opinions that carry any legal weight. You and 4CJ and I can argue the why's and the wherefore's all we want but the fact of the matter is that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states has been ruled unconstitutional.

[lentulusgracchus]

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

Good for you. Myself, I've always thought "living document" was just another anagram for "now we've got you!" and "screwed to the wall!"

[lentulusgracchus]

The Supremes have made some decisions wherein they tortured or added language (penumbras and emanations on Roe vs Wade for example) ....

Is an "emanation" the moral equivalent of "interstices"? Or is it more an ex post facto "penumbra"?