Splitting hairs Bump.
Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
“They both moved South, built their power base in the South, ran for office as Texans, and returned to Texas to live. Heck, Dubya even had a ranch and everything.”
Which makes them Yankee carpetbaggers, like I said.
Abe was a scalawag and a scapegrace. Bring your shredder....
Did Mr. Marbury ever get the commission he was seeking from president Madison in this case? (Marbury vs Madison)
If not, what happened to president Madison for ignoring that ruling? Was he censured in any manner?
Ya know what? Screw it! I had been trying to avoid making you look any more inept than you manage to make yourself out to be but what the hell? Why not? If you're hell-bent on making a fool out of yourself then who am I to deny you your opportunity? I will answer your two questions.
Question 1: Did Mr. Marbury ever get the commission he was seeking from president Madison in this case? (Marbury vs Madison). Answer: No. Marbury had been appointed to the JP post by President Adams in 1801. Madison was Secretary of State at the time the suit was filed in December 1801.
Question 2: If not, what happened to president Madison for ignoring that ruling? Was he censured in any manner? Answer: Nothing. Marbury v Madison was handed down by the court in February 1803. Madison did not become president until March, 1809; more than 6 years later.
Now it's your turn. Do you need me to refresh your memory or can you go back and look them up on your own.
While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two-thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States)
John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.
Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two-thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.
In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it was declared to have been passed by a two-thirds vote of the House.
Whether it requires two-thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two-thirds of those seated or two-thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution.
Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union.
A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.
By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.
One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment. However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.
Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.
By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.
By spurious, non-representative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published, and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:
And whereas neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution; And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];
And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;
And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;
And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];
And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next thereafter named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;
Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was resolved:
"That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."
Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States."
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.
To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?
How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.
End of Excerpt - Dyett vs Turner
And that was directed to me because....?
Oops, and then I went and answered both his questions the post before your's. Don't you hate it when that happens?
“Abe was a scalawag and a scapegrace. Bring your shredder....”
Crossfire. ;)
Please! Spare me your fallacious concerns as to to how YOU may think I may appear to others.
Thank your for FINALLY answering the questions I posed!
Now I will answer yours!
The Air Force WAS a part of the army and could easily be so again.
NASA grew out of the Navy's Vanguard project in the 1950's and could easily be put back under that authority.
The question is a nullity!
I will however go further and say that YES! I think that about two thirds of what the federal government currently does is PATENTLY unconstitutional!
Now! Getting back to Marbury vs Madison! The fact is that there is not one single word in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, or anywhere else in that document for that matter, to support your claim that:
They are constitutional or unconstitutional based on what the Supreme Court said.
How do 11 states get “re-admitted” back into the Federal Maw if they never left the stupid “Union” in the first place?
Woops! friendly fire Bump.
Because your education on the matter is obviously SERIOUSLY deficient!
Not knowing anything about the court case you were asking questions about can't have helped you much.
Now I will answer yours!
Except that you didn't. Let me repeat the questions for you, which can be found in reply #362 BTW. Both relate to your claim that only powers explicitly granted to Congress exist. No powers are implied.
Q1: Then where did the power to create NASA and the Air Force come from? The Constitution explicitly allows only for an army and a navy.
Your answer, "The Air Force WAS a part of the army and could easily be so again." ignores the question completely. Yes, the Air Force WAS a part of the army and yes it was was specifically allowed under the powers granted Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. But the Constitution only specifically authorizes an Army and, in clause 13, a Navy. It does not specifically autorize a separate branch of the military known as an Air Force. So, is the power to establish a separate branch of the military known as an Air Force implied in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 when it says Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense, and should have the power to establish whatever military branch is needed to accomplish that? Or is the Air Force illegal since nothing in the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to establish and fund it?
NASA was established by legislation passed in the 1950's and was never under any military branch, your incorrect claim to the otherwise notwithstanding. I suppose it could be incorporated into the Army or the Navy, but until it is and while it is a civilian operation what part of the Constitution specifically authorizes it? And if that part does not exist then isn't it, by your definition, illegal and unconstitutional?
Q2: Where does the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from expelling another state against its will?
The next question related to the 10th Amendment and your claim that no powers are implied, and you punted this one entirely. That requirement should extend to powers denied to the states by the Constitution, should it not? Then where does the Constitution specifically deny the states the power to expel another state against it's will?
So please, since I did answer your questions exactly as you had posted them then have the integrity to do the same to mine. If you can, that is.
I will however go further and say that YES! I think that about two thirds of what the federal government currently does is PATENTLY unconstitutional!
Perhaps. But I only asked you about two of them. Answer them please.
Now! Getting back to Marbury vs Madison!
Are you sure you want to go there? Since it was obvious from you questions that you hadn't the slightest clue on what Marbury v. Madison was don't you think you should take the time to read up on it first?
Because they were not readmitted to the Union, their delegations were readmitted to Congress. Which you would know if you bothered to read any of the legislation that ended reconstruction in each instance.
You ask if President Madison was sanctioned over the Marbury v. Madison decision and my education is the one that's deficient?????
Why won't he answer post 461?
Splitting hairs Bump.
No state is more sovereign than any other state so no state or group of states can tell ANY other state or group of states what it can or cannot do! That is the sole purview of "the people" of each state individually acting through their elected representatives within the state.
Because none of your answers addressed the questions as asked. (Why am I not surprised?)...
...in no way alters the fact that I did. As I said, befor and will repeat for you again here!
Yeah, right. You can't answer any of the questions, never could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.