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
and In fact, the record proves just the opposite of what you say.
Read it again Walt. "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."
International Law, as documented by Hugo Grotius' De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) published in 1625.
In fact, the record proves exactly what I say.