When one threatens to lock up a Supreme Court justice to ensure one's continuing abuse of power, one does at that point not need to worry about Supreme Court decisions going against them.
Your opinion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional is just that, an opinion. It carries no weight in law in the United States.
Are we debating truth or are we debating power? Yes, I'm quite familiar with the rule that those with the guns can tell you what you are going to be forced to believe, (Gay Marriage) but in terms of speaking to the truth, what they force upon you to believe does not make it true.
You are trying to hide behind "The Supreme Court didn't say so", instead of answering the question honestly and within your own understanding.
How does this made up "contraband of war" acquire the authority to override an actual clause of the US Constitution? According to the rules, to override a constitutional requirement takes a vote of 3/4ths of the states to accomplish. "Congress" is not "3/4ths of the states.
People say the confederates were traitors for not abiding by the US Constitution. What then of people who are clearly violating it? Are they traitors as well?
And again you resort to fairy tale instead of fact and show your ignorance to boot. Nobody threatened to lock Roger Taney up. And even if they had then it must not have taken, because in the case that determined the constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts Roger Taney voted with the minority.
Are we debating truth or are we debating power?
As near as I can tell we're debating why we should accept that your interpretation of the Constitution is true and the Supreme Court's interpretation is wrong. And based on your track record on other subjects relating to the rebellion - tariffs, motivations, etc. - then I have no problem at all dismissing your posts as the drivel they are.
“Are we debating truth or are we debating power?”
I was stating a fact. You may call it what ever you like.
But prove by something other than you opinion that the Confiscation Act of 1861 was unconstitutional.
I am hiding behind nothing. The Courts allow the President and Congress broad power in the prosecution of war. Not all of the actions allowed during war would be tolerated in peacetime. The Emancipation proclamation, the Confiscation Act were tolerated as necessary to prosecute a war. Just as the Courts allow the Government to draft a person into the Army or throw 120,000 American citizens in concentration camps because of their ethnic background.
Since the 11 states of the Confederacy did not consider themselves to be a part of the United States, it was not unreasonable for the Federal Government to determine that the protections of the Constitution did not apply toward the Confederate States of America or its citizens. In this the Supreme Court acquiesced. Sorta like the logic behind the prison for terrorists in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Even though in the custody of the United States Government, full protection of the Constitution does not apply because Gitmo it is not part of the United States