[Walt] I don't post to you. I post to the lurkers.
[Walt] There is no reasonable interpretation that will say anything but that there is no legal right to unilateral state secession. The judicial power of the United States rests with the Supreme Court. --Every-- Justice agreed in 1863 that the Militia Act gave the power to the president to suprress rebellion. The majority opinion in that case referred to the rebels as traitors. These are the facts of the matter. If you -had- anything of note to say, which you apparently do not, it would be muted by your unsupportable position on this one issue.
[Walt] This is from Dorr v. Rhode Island:
[Walt] -- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.
Dear Lurkers:
Don't waste your time looking for famous decision Dorr v. Rhode Island, decided unanimously by the Supreme Court in 1863.
But then again, if you have an irresistable impulse to look for it:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder.html
CASE CITATION FINDER
1863-1889 Terms (1 Wall.-136 U. S.)
CASE CITATION FINDER
This feature sets forth the official citations, in the form recommended by the Reporter of Decisions, for every signed, per curiam, and in-chambers opinion published (or soon to be published) in the United States Reports. ...
My error.
"The Supreme Court decision in question is Luther v. Borden, from 1849, resolving a dispute that started in 1841.
In 1841, Rhode Island was still using its colonial charter as its system of government, with only slight modifications to reflect our defeat of the British. The charter restricted suffrage very severely, and thus was somewhat unpopular. Led by a man named Dorr, a new state constitution was written and approved by various mass meetings in the state, but without any sanction of the state government. Rhode Island claimed this amounted to an insurrection, and used the state militia to suppress the movement. Borden was a state militia officer who arrested Luther, a Dorr adherent, who sued for trespass.
The case involved, at its heart, which of two competing state governments was legitimate -- the charter government, which had commanded the militia to arrest Luther, or the new constitution government, which had not. Thus the Court was asked to rule on which of two state governments was legitimate, based on Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
By a vote of 8-1, with Chief Justice Roger Taney writing the majority decision, the Court ruled that Congress alone had the authority to do this, that it was a "political question," and therefore not something for the Court to decide.
Congress exercised the same authority in 1861 when it recognized the Pierpont government as the legitimate government of Virginia. Once that was done, the process of partition was entirely according to Hoyle. The inclusion of certain counties into West Virginia can be argued, and the *fairness* or justice of the decision to recognize the Pierpont government can be argued, but it was a perfectly legal step, founded on Court precedent."
Jim Epperson
[end]
Walt