Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: 4ConservativeJustices
How does secession constitute an attack? The states delegated to the federal government certain powers, among them to provide for the common defense - meaning ALL states. If the Executive is charged with the common defense of the states - and held that the seceding states were still states - then he violated the Constitution (besides exercising non-delegated judicial powers) by not protecting them from invasion from the federal government.

Not according to the Supreme Court. See the Prize Cases

Oh wait. You've seen the Prize Cases

Walt

1,463 posted on 12/07/2002 5:02:30 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
Oh wait. You've seen the Prize Cases

Oh goody - back to the case where the court held that the blockade was legal against southern states by virtue of " jure belli - International law? I love that case!

Either the states were still members of the union or they weren't. In one case the blockade was illegal, the other not. If still states then the ratifications of the 13th were null and void, else valid. In either case, both would have been states, their refusal to ratify the 14th legal, and the miltitary governments instituted unconstitutional.

The power to declare war is a delegated power to the legislature, not the executive. The President has the power "on extraordinary Occasions" to convene Congress, yet he delayed that action for months while he assembled an army, instituted a blockade etc. I guess Lincoln considered the events a every day occurance, no need to convene Congress (which could have ended his illegal actions). Additional, the grant of Congress (almost entirely Northern) attempting to legitimatize his actions was an ex post facto law - still unconstitutional to this day.

Additionally, in Texas v. White, if the states remained states, the the act of the Texas legislature repealing the requirement for the bonds indoresment by the Texas government would be a lawful act of the state (meaning the bonds were rightfully held and payable to White & Chiles), exactly the opposite of the decision by Chase - who held that the actions of the legislature were null and void, despite his decision that they were still a state.

When the 1st state seceded, did the state declare war on the US, or did it remain out of the Union peacably?

When each state seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - which required unanimous consent for changes - did the others then attack taking their secession/ratification as a declaration of war?

But please, enlighten me as to your rationale. Scurry off to some "moderated" newsgroup to find some revisionist tripe to explain your position. Please enlighten us about you rally feel about the Confederate flag and all that it stands for, how the founders didn't really mean what they wrote, that the 10th Amendment is null and void, that US laws apply to foreign coutries.

1,498 posted on 12/08/2002 10:39:34 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1463 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson