“Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore”
Thats great!
I would phrase the summary slightly differently, we disagree if there theoretically is such a law.
We agree that practically speaking there isn’t .as you said “We both agree the defendant would lose.”
“So what are we arguing about?”
Two minor points (in addition to whether there theoretically exists suc ha law, which of course there isn’t , though to be fair some scholars say what you say) though one I’m less sure about
namely
1) IF a law only exists in theory but not in practice does that law exist? I say of course not.
Like according to the man deamaor that An Ir hanidachas could never happen, ie it doesn’t exist (lehavdil). there is no such thinkg as ir hanidachas So what’s the point? Lilmod ulekabel sechar (note: not just in case it ever does happen, according to this man deamaor that is not a thing) .
Lehavdil in the constitution there is no such thing as “Lilmod ulekabel sechar” There is no theoretical law if it can’t happen in real life, then it isn’t a law, in fact the court won’t even rule on theoretical cases- I grant that reasonable people can disagree on this point
2) The fact that it has never happened PROOVES that this interpretation isn’t correct. How could no one have made this claim before (in fact the court has ruled the reverse ,that there is no right to secede, and there are laws limiting the 1st amendment wehn it comes to talk of overthrow the government) ? – I’m less sure about this, I think it weakens your contention but granted it isnt proof.
“I like spicy cholent”
me too! see you then