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

To: WhiskeyPapa
So what? Anybody can tell you've no interest in fairness and balance.

Coming from you, that has about as much credibility as Jesse Jackson giving a sermon on the sin of adultery.

I believe at least one Supreme Court justice resigned to follow his state. Most of the judges and elected officials in the so-called seceded states went to the sesesh side. Taney was a Marylander. Maryland was rife with secessionist sentiment.

But last I checked, Maryland remained in the union (even if by force) and Taney remained the highest ranking justice of the United States. He had every right and proper jurisdiction to rule on a case before him. The Lincoln had no right to ignore it and committed an impeachable offense in doing so. You simply don't like the way Taney ruled and the implications of illegality by The Lincoln that his ruling entailed. Therefore you attack Taney and grasp at straws to discredit his sound and precedent-based ruling. Try again, Walt.

1,365 posted on 12/03/2002 11:55:20 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
The Lincoln had no right to ignore it and committed an impeachable offense in doing so.

Nonsense!

1. Taney ruled as a circuit court justice. The Supreme Court never heard the case. Until the full court hears a case the constitutionality is undecided.

2. Merriman (who was a major instigator) was released once the civil disorders in Maryland were ended.

3. Congress overwhelmingly affirmed each and every one of Lincoln's actions when they returned for the emergency session, making Taney's ruling moot and the case for impeachment beyond ridiculous.

I'd also remind you that the judicial branch does not have veto power over executive branch decisions. Only Congress has that power. Checks and Balances.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems that your view of events is that any action Lincoln took to defend the Union from forces that totally rejected the US Constitution was somehow by definition, unconstitutional. That's like saying I should be allowed to walk up and start beating the hell out of you but if you raise a hand to defend yourself, only you would be guilty of assault.

Your stand seems to be saying that the only Constitutional path Lincoln could have followed was to allow Washington to be overrun, the Union fractured, and the Constitution destroyed. That's just plain silly.

1,375 posted on 12/03/2002 12:36:11 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1365 | 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