The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!
A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.
It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.
Arguments?
Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?
There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!
A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.
It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.
Arguments?
Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?
There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!