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.
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!
No you don't. You're playing your disinformation card.
You've seen this before:
From the majority opinion:
"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
...On this first question, therefore, we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion which neutrals are bound to regard."
The "act of Congress of February 28th, 1795..." is the Militia Act, which reads in part:
According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:
"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
You might think it a puts a brave face on your bankrupt position to say you "love" the Prize cases ruling.
But the record won't support what you say.
In fact, the record proves just the opposite of what you say.
Walt
The Militia Act gives the president the power to call out the militia of the several states and insure that the laws of the United States are enforced --when Congress is not in secession.
The Court said in the Prize Cases ruling:
"All persons residing within this [rebel] territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are nonetheless enemies because they are traitors."
Your position just won't stand up to the record.
Walt