[4CJ]

That has nothing to do with U.S. law. It's pitful to suggest that it does.

I'm not suggesting that it is US law - you finally understand! Justice Grier wrote the opinion of the majority, and by his own words opined that the legal justification of the blockade was via International (between nations) law. Despite your oft repeated assertions that they cited the Militia Act as justification, if the Acts contained the necessary powers there would be no need to justify the blockade by the "Law of Nations", simply cite the revelant US law and be done with it.

And last time I looked, the Supremacy clause does not include international law, nor does it require US laws to operate in foreign countries.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Justice Grier wrote the opinion of the majority, and by his own words opined that the legal justification of the blockade was via International (between nations) law.

And U.S. law -- the Militia Act.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Despite your oft repeated assertions that they cited the Militia Act as justification...

It's not just an assertion, is it?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

And last time I looked, the Supremacy clause does not include international law, nor does it require US laws to operate in foreign countries.

Seems like the parties trying to get possession of the ships and cargoes were playing the international law card. The Court ruled that the president did have power to blockade "the so-called confederate states" (the Court's phrase), as well as suppress the rebellion, based on the Militia Act and another act from 1807.

Walt