Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was created by Congress to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our nation, and to find the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives appointed a fifteen-member commission to commemorate the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and to emphasize the contribution of his thoughts and ideals to America and the world.
The official public Bicentennial Commemoration launches February 2008 and closes February 2010, with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
Across the country communities, organizations and individuals have already begun to plan parades, museum exhibitions, performances, art installations and much more.
Trying to weasel here. Check the date. Sumter had fallen several days before, the Federal Troops were gone from South Carolina and now the Governor of that state ordered his militia to march through two other states that were still legally part of the Union in order to attack the Federal capital.
As all the States were parties to the compact, they had the right to criticize the federal government whenever and how ever they wished.
-----
But in that 1842 decision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania (41 U.S. 539) the court also ruled that the Fugitive Slave Laws were federal laws and while the states could not override the law, the government also could not compel the states to enforce them.
Correct. The States could be sanctioned for not adhering to the Constitution, but they couldn't be forced into compliance.
This begs the question-
If the federal government had no legal authority to force a state to comply with something that was IN the Constitution, where did it get the authority to force a state into compliance for something that WAS NOT in the Constitution.....like secede?
Sure they could. The ruling simply said that the Feds could not force a state government to enforce Federal law within it's boundaries. But Federal authorities could enforce it, anywhere within that state, just as as was done with the Fugitive Slave Act which was actively enforced by Federal officials and Federal courts.
The fact I won't be browbeaten into agreeing with something I know not to be true does not a 'weasel' make.
I've noticed your penchant for making derogatory and inflammatory remarks as if that somehow substantiates your claim. I can assure you it does not..
Please refer to all my prior posts concerning the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged the receipt of South Carolina's legal notice of secession in December of 1860.
They read it into the record, and I have provided the link to the Library of Congress.
The Constitution and laws made in pursuance their of are the only enforceable federal 'laws' outside the areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
-----
Please show me the 'law' that says a State, once it joined the Union, could not leave when notification was given.
True, but those complaints were baseless.
If the federal government had no legal authority to force a state to comply with something that was IN the Constitution, where did it get the authority to force a state into compliance for something that WAS NOT in the Constitution.....like secede?
What the court ruled was that the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal statutes. But the government can compel states to abide by the Constitution.
In you opinion, perhaps.
-----
But the government can compel states to abide by the Constitution.
Agreed.
Please show me the Constitutional prohibition against secession.
Thank you.
What exactly does that have to do with the Governor of South Carolina ordering his state militia to invade Washington?
Um...because you were the one admonishing me to 'check the date'.
And who has the jurisdiction over deciding if a law is repugnant to the Constituiton? The judiciary, as the Chief Justice stated. Not the states. Not Congress. The courts.
Ex post facto rulings are unconstitutional. That's what Marshall said.
Once again you seem to be unable to grasp the definition of ex post facto. Texas v White was not an ex post facto ruling. The court ruled that unilateral secession had never been legal. It was not, and never had been a power granted to the states.
When Texas seceded, it was not 'illegal'...it was not anything. Making it 'illegal' after the fact IS an ex post facto law, ruling or edict.
The court ruled that it was illegal. It had never been legal. Therefore the ruling was not ex post facto.
ROFLMAO! Which IS an ex post facto ruling.
ROTFLMAO back at you. Rewriting the definition of ex post facto or imagining legality where it didn't exist doesn't make you right. Unilateral secession has never been lawful.
Section 2 follows section 1 for a reason. Legal documents can't say 'A'....oh, I meant 'B'...no, I meant 'A'. Their written in order of applicability. You can't do 'B' without conforming with 'A' first.
Section 2 follows section 1 because 2 is a higher number. Section 1 of the Militia Act concerns invasion by a foreign country or Indian tribe. Section 2 concerns rebellion, as in the case of the southern states in 1861. So in this case then yes, one can say 'B' because that is the applicable section. Or are you saying you can't have rebellion without a foreign country invading first?
I already showed you where both the Constitution and the militia Acts stipulated the State in question must request assistance....but that's not what you want to hear.
No you added one and one and came up with B. Article I gives Congress the right to call up the militia in case of insurrection, like that of the Southern states in 1861. Article IV says that the United States will protect the states from invasion or, if requested, domestic violence. The two are not necessarily related. If the state government part and parcel of the insurrection then Congress is within its powers to act.
Lincoln could 'call out the militia' all he liked, but the clause in questions says the STATE HAS TO REQUEST THE ASSISTENCE, and the President cannot enter a State without that Constitutional stipulation being met.
Complete nonsense. In his August 7, 1794 proclamation and his November 1794 message to Congress, George Washington clearly states that he called out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion he was acting on the authority granted him under the Militia Act, and not because the governor of Pennsylvania requested it. Lincoln's actions were no different.
(snicker)
Nice to see you're getting with the program. I find your posts funny, too.
Please point out the word REBELLION anywhere in that clause.
And the difference between rebellion and insurrection is?
Odd, I don't remember them marching on Washington D.C.
You never read on Early's raid against D.C. in July 1864? But I digress. The South attacked the federal garrison in Fort Sumter and launched the armed rebellion. Or insurrection. Your choice.
The Constitution makes it clear that states can only be created with the consent of the other states through a vote in Congress. Once admitted states cannot combine with other states without consent of Congress or split into two or more states without consent of Congress. The cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implicit in that is the need for Congressional consent to leave altogether. Or so the Supreme Court found in the Texas v. White decision.
And what was Lee doing to make them ready for freedom? Was he advocating that they should be taught to read? Not only was that not being done to prepare the slaves for that allegedly imminent time when slavery would be unprofitable and would end, but it was actually a crime to do so. No, Lee's attitude that God would free the slaves in his time is exactly the same thing as making an excuse to do nothing. It's a horrifying twisting of religion to excuse economic expediency and racial paranoia. What separates this from turning away from any evil, saying that, "Oh, well, it's God's will. Nothing to be done."?
And here's another thought for you: What if Lincoln was God's instrument to free the slaves, and the war God's punishment upon the south for holding slaves? Isn't that as valid a theory of God's will when it comes to slavery as yours?
Attention: There is a flag on the field! Fifteen yard - bad logic - on Non-Sequitur.
How can a court decision made eight years after the first shot was fired become the basis of legality in 1860.
Guilty of shutting the barn door after the horse escapes.
Pick up your flag. All Supreme Court decisions, all decisions made by any court, are made after the fact. How can it be otherwise? The deed must be done before the case can be taken to court and a trial can be held. And a court cannot issue a binding ruling on a matter that is not before it. So the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the Southern acts of unilateral secession just as soon as the matter came before it, and ruled those actions were illegal and had never been legal. Case closed. (No pun intended.)
Article IV Section. 3. New States may be admitted
Created is not the same as admitted.
-----
with the consent of the other states through a vote in Congress. Once admitted states cannot combine with other states without consent of Congress or split into two or more states without consent of Congress. The cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implicit in that is the need for Congressional consent to leave altogether.
It implies no such thing. If that had been the intent of the Founders, they would have said just that. Trying to stretch the Congressional power that prohibits a state from changing once it entered the union into forcing that state to stay in the Union is ridiculous.
-----
Or so the Supreme Court found in the Texas v. White decision.
Which is a ruling after the fact (ex post facto) whether you like it our not. Something that has not been ruled on is neither legal nor illegal, it is a legal nullitity.
§ 1339. Of the same class are ex post facto laws, that is to say, (in a literal sense,) laws passed after the act done. The terms, ex post facto laws, in a comprehensive sense, embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing, or controlling past transactions, whether they are of a civil, or a criminal nature. And there have not been wanting learned minds, that have contended with no small force of authority and reasoning, that such ought to be the interpretation of the terms in the constitution of the United States.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Neither legislation, edicts or judicial decisions can make something illegal after the fact WITHOUT being ex post facto and therefore, unconstitutional.
-----
We agreed the Constitution binds both the State and federal governments, now please show me the Constitutional prohibition against secession.
Hey! That's kind of 'ex post facto' too, isn't it?
(grin)
So you are saying that they were states before they were admitted? And please don't muddy the waters with the original 13. Yes they were states under the Articles of Confederation.
It implies no such thing. If that had been the intent of the Founders, they would have said just that. Trying to stretch the Congressional power that prohibits a state from changing once it entered the union into forcing that state to stay in the Union is ridiculous.
Not ridiculous at all, the Constitution is full of acts that states are restricted from doing without permission of Congress. Your claim that if the founders had meant that is ridiculous, one might as well say that if the Founders had meant that a Negro, free or slave, could never be a U.S. citizen then they would have said so. I suggest there is more support for my position than Chief Justice Taney's.
And far from forcing states to remain, I have said over and over again that there is absolutely no reason why a state cannot leave the Union. So long as it is done with the approval of at least a majority of the impacted parties, as demonstrated through a vote in Congress. Since that is how states are allowed into the Union in the first place there is no reason why leaving has to be any more difficult.
Which is a ruling after the fact (ex post facto) whether you like it our not.
Well no, it is not. This is not a case where the action was legal when committed, and then later made illegal. The Court ruled that unilateral secession had never been legal to begin with.
And your claim that what you classify as ex post facto decisions are illegal is just flat wrong to begin with. All one needs to do is look at cases like Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The court did not rule that death penalty cases going forward had to be consistently applied, it found that death sentences already handed down were unconstitutional and invalidated them.
Neither legislation, edicts or judicial decisions can make something illegal after the fact WITHOUT being ex post facto and therefore, unconstitutional.
And something is not unconstitutional merely because you claim it is. Which is a damned good thing for all of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.