Replies

Okay, then consider this from Texas v White (1869):

The Chief Justice writes ... "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

In this case the Court ruled that unilateral secession was impermissible and unconstitutional. It is settled case law.

In this case the Court ruled that unilateral secession was impermissible and unconstitutional. It is settled case law.

The fundamental argument on secession is whether a State retains the power and sovereignty to withdraw from a government. If it does not, your ex post facto court ruling is not necessary. If it does, your ex post facto court ruling is worthless.

Your argument implies that the court had jurisdiction and its ruling means something because the seceding States were still under its jurisdiction. Whereas my argument would imply that the court had no jurisdiction over seceded States and its ruling would mean nothing since the States were no longer under the Constitution.

I'm not trying to be an ass, really. Its just that this argument assumes from the beginning that a court could decide this which basically has to assume that secession was illegal even for the court to have jurisdiction.

This is not an assumption many of us are willing to accept on its face.

The court in Brussels can indict George Bush or whoever it wants for war crimes and it can say that it has jurisdiction over the entire universe if it so desires. We consider its rulings to be a farce under color of law. The court in Brussels would like us to ASSUME it has jurisdiction and ACCEPT its ruling just because it says it has the power to do so. The court in Texas v. White says it has the power to rule. But its power to rule over Texas post secession is exactly what we are arguing about in the first place!

The Constitution is silent on secession. Every attempted logical argument either for or against comes up against this problem. Those who wish to justify the northern position say that it is illegal out of thin air (like the Texas v. White court). Those who wish to justify the southern position say it is legal out of thin air. Only the Constitution can decide regardless of all our arguments and unfortunately it is silent.

My personal opinion is that if the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit something then it is reserved to the States or the people respectively. But that is just my opinion and opinions are all we have.

I can respect the arguments on your side, I just don't think they outweigh the arguments on the other side. IMO it is not up to a government whose consent to govern is being withdrawn to decide if the withdrawal of consent is okay or not. That view is consistent with my view on China not being able to decide if self-determination for Taiwan and Tibet are legal and consistent with my view that the legality of self determination of Latvia or Estonia could be decided by Russians.

The SCOTUS had the nerve to quote from the AoC, a document of which they had no intention of observing its instruction. They had no right to rule on a matter that was not expressly given them by the document to which they refer. That's a laugh and blatant evidence of the kangaroo crew being on the take of the FedGov. What's the saying, "Possession is nine points of the law"? The FedGov had its judges on the bench, don't you see...