cash
Brev. Brig. Gen'l
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Right here.
True to an extent, one could argue that the Supreme Court's decision was an ex-post facto interpretation of law. I would maintain that once a State leaves the Federal Union, that the Federal territory it once held within that State would revert back to that State. It's the equivalent of us saying to the British, we're declaring independence, but you can still keep those dry docks for the royal navy, and those customs houses, and those forts, and those arsenals.....
All Supreme Court decisions are ex post facto interpretations. But they tell us what the law was at the time of the action.
Unilateral secession was an illegal act.