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

To: thatdewd; mac_truck
At this point I'm suggesting that one or more states could have taken their grievance to the US Supreme Court and obtained a favorable ruling from it on the constitutionality of seccesion.

That's completely illogical.

No it's not. In fact, it is law. See the Judiciary Act of 1789:

section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789:

"And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

Now unless the actions of the secessionists in ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy.

You don't know the history.

Walt

468 posted on 01/29/2003 6:02:40 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
Walt,

I'm becoming convinced that the original confederates knew they'd lose in front of the US Supreme court on the issue of secesssion. They also knew the precedent such an unfavorable ruling would set, both domestically as well as in europe.

-btw the patient is starting to become more incoherent and delusional. Should we continue therapy or move to more radical forms of treatment?

492 posted on 01/29/2003 11:37:53 AM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No it's not. In fact, it is law. See the Judiciary Act of 1789: "And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction." Now unless the actions of the secessionists in ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy.

ROFLMAO - The States didn't think so. They considered it a right, and they exercised that right. No one took measures to stop them from exercising that right when they did it, so there was no "civil controversy" requiring legal action. If the states that remained in the Constitutional union objected, then they should have filed a grievance with the Court. The Southern States had no reason to. You are just as illogical as your alter-ego.

501 posted on 01/29/2003 12:48:21 PM PST by thatdewd (nam et ipsa scientia potestas est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | 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