My objections would be meaningless, since both actions would be constitutional. As would the actions of President Bush if he increased the size of the court to 30 justices and if a future Republican congress reduced the size to 7 justices to styme a Democratic president. The Supreme Court would still sit, still perform its constitutional duties, still function as the third branch of government, acting as a check on the other two branches, just as our founders required.
Primary source evidence quoting public comments of President Jefferson Davis has been provided proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that your assertion against President Davis is false.
Nonsense. Nothing has been presented to indicate that the Davis regime actively tried to get a supreme court seated. He made one comment in one speech. He never addressed the matter again in any correspondence to the congress, never fought for it, never actively lobbied for it. It's OK with me if you sothron types want to blame the whole thing on the confederate congress. But then you turn around and blame ever action of the U.S. congress, from the creation of West Virginia to rioting in New York, on Lincoln personally. Well, wasn't Davis the head of his regime? Doesn't he bear responsiblity for what happened, or didn't happen, on his watch?
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Non-Seq has made another pronouncement.
They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. They ignored that. They are dishonorable men. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the hell you are.
Some check. Here are some pertinent observations from Madison in Federalist 47:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
This definition of tyranny applies quite well to the Lincoln government. Lincoln defied the courts and assumed powers delegated to the legislature. Now nolu chan points out that the Radical Republicans were even packing the Supreme Court.
So, you support the Liberal notion of form over substance. It matters not if the court is packed, twisted, perverted and prostituted as long as it exists and issues rulings.
[n-s] The Supreme Court would still sit, still perform its constitutional duties, still function as the third branch of government, acting as a check on the other two branches, just as our founders required.
If, as you have explicitly supported, one radical faction could increase the size of the court to 30 members and pack it with radical fellow-travelers whose appointment is specifically designed to pervert the law in defense of a dictator, there would be no check on the other two branches.
[n-s 765 ] Nothing has been presented to indicate that the Davis regime actively tried to get a supreme court seated. He made one comment in one speech. He never addressed the matter again in any correspondence to the congress, never fought for it, never actively lobbied for it.
What is this crap? A Mulligan? In this new revised version of your alleged thoughts, you lament that, in your opinion, there is insufficient evidence that Davis "actively tried to get a supreme court seated."
Here is what you actually said, and what you are still stuck trying to explain:
[n-s 763] The confederate constitution required a supreme court, just like the real constitution did, and Davis and the confederate congress deliberately ignored that provision. They deliberately violated the very constitution that they swore to uphold.
You did not accuse Davis of being insufficiently active in his pursuit of seating a supreme court. You said he violated his oath by deliberately ignoring a provision of the Confederate Constitution. No matter how much gas you pump into your assertions, they do not obtain substance.
[n-s] It's OK with me if you sothron types want to blame the whole thing on the confederate congress.
It's OK with me if you intellectually challenged Liberal types want to make fools of yourselves trying to maintain that all the actions of the Lincoln regime were legal and proper. I was born, raised, and educated as a Yankee. My Southron roots are in the South of New York. Your southron roots appear lie South of dull normal.
[n-s] They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. They ignored that. They are dishonorable men.
Lincoln willfully, deliberately set out to start a war and violated the Constitution with abandon. Even historians favorable to Lincoln, such as Daniel Farber, are unable to defend the actions of Lincoln, admitting that some of his actions were unconstitutional.
You are still trying to provide evidence that Davis violated the Constitution. So far, you have not been able to provide any evidence at all.
Your extraordinarily intellectual comments summon a comparison to Judith Butler, a Guggenheim Fellowship-winning professor of rhetoric and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, admired by some as "one of the ten smartest people on the planet." Professor Butler wrote the following in Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time, an article in the scholarly journal Diacritics (1997):
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. "
Yes it has. Two things, actually. First is the fact that Davis in the plainest of English asked Congress to do so. Second is the fact that Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, who was undoubtedly part of what you call the "Davis regime," was publicly reported to have been lobbying congress for the establishment of a court.
He made one comment in one speech.
And that speech was his STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS where he put forth his top legislative priorities for the year. He only gave one other state of the union address after the 1862 one, so its lack of mention of a court does not prove your allegation.
He never addressed the matter again in any correspondence to the congress
Evidence?
never fought for it
Evidence?
never actively lobbied for it.
He apparently sent Judah Benjamin to lobby for it. Just the same, George W. Bush recently gave a public speech calling for $87 billion in Iraq but I don't recall him ever going over to capitol hill to lobby for that bill. Instead he sent Rumsfeld and the other DoD people to do that. Does that mean Bush was unsupportive of his own Iraq appropriations bill?
It's OK with me if you sothron types want to blame the whole thing on the confederate congress.
It is no matter of blame, Non-Seq. It is a matter of historical accuracy. The Congress, and specifically the senate, blocked Davis' court bill in order to restrain his power. As the Wigfall resolution I just posted to you indicates, a certain faction of the Senate strongly believed that the STATE supreme court systems were of equal standing to any federal branch and they were perfectly content to prevent a stronger Davis-appointed competitor from arising. You may not like that fact and it certainly complicates your simpletonian and conspiracy-minded portrayal of the court issue as a nefarious behind-closed-doors nighttime plot between Jefferson Davis and a scheming secretive majority in Congress who nevertheless put on a facade of opposition during the day. But it is history and history doesn't alter itself to accomodate tu quoque boy every time he concocts a new twist or turn to the same old fraudulent and kooky conspiracy theory he's been pushing for years.