As long as the judiciary is ruling within the confines of the Constitution, yes.
Please provide a source for Marshalls statement.
-----
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives Congress the power to call out the milita to suppress rebellion.
Trying to maintain a guaranteed Republican form of government is not 'rebellion', it is upholding the Constitution.
-----
But to suggest that the courts need to be bound in all instances by prior rulings and established beliefs on a subject is foolish.
LOL!
Those 'beliefs' you so easily discount were given by the acknowledged Constitutional lawyers and Judges of the day. The last quote was from a man whose Constitutional and legal knowledge was so highly regarded by George Washington he requested that William Rawle become the US Attorney General, yet that still isn't adequate for the all-knowing NS.
For 30 years, secession was acknowledged a a viable legal option of a State guaranteed by the Republican form of government expressed in the Constitution.
Yet again, not being what you want to hear, you disregard everything outside your limited time frame of about 1860 on.
-----
The Militia Acts passed in 1792 and 1795 gave the President the authority to call out the militia when Congress was not in session "...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..."
Oh! How conveeeenint you only posted that section. Let's try it from the beginning-
1. Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
The South was neither invading, foreign, or a member of an Indian tribe, nor were the People revolting against any of governments of the States. The States refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts from an entity that was designed to protect them is not 'rebellion'. There was no request to the federal government as per Constituently outlined procedures.... so the authority for a sitting President to call forth the militia to invade a state came from where, exactly?
Not to mention no Congressional Act can override any part of the Constitution. To allow such would make the entire document meaningless. The provisions of Article 4, Section 4 are paramount to any legislative. executive or judicial action of the federal government.
Ahem, BTW...Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 cannot operate outside the provisions for such actions laid out in Article 4 Section 4.While Article 1 is a declaratory clause, Article 4 is a RESTRICTIVE clause, and contains any enumerated power in Article 1.
( Legal contracts cannot contradict themselves...it makes them 'illegal')
-----
And that South Carolina had no more right to seize Fort Sumter without compensation than New York had to seize Fort Hamilton?
You can seize something that belongs to you, even if that ownership is shared with others.
-----
The land Sumter was built on was deeded to the federal government free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. The state had no claims to it whatsoever.
Please see all the previous posts on how the States remained sovereign within their own borders.
-----
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 does not apply because the Court was not making law only ruling on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Texas legislature in support of their acts of secession.
Okay. The entire concept of 'separate but EQUAL' just passed right by you.
If the legislature can pass no ex post facto law, it also means the President can make no ex post facto edict and the judiciary can make no ex post fact finding.
Um...do you know ex post facto means, don't you?
-----
This has really just been a blast, but it seems odd that you think you have a better grasp of Constitutional meaning that the Founders and 3 decades of Constitutional legal authorities.
Why can't rational thinking Americans get past the reflexive 'Lincoln was right' and 'slavery=South=evil' that was instilled by their (government-funded) public education long enough to objectively look at the evidence?
Oh, I forgot. You have no interest in truth, only affirmation. The conceptual difference between the legal aspects and the moral aspects of the history of slavery in America still lies beyond your grasp.
The irony is the very 'authority' the federal government prostituted to (supposedly) adhere to the Constitution and force federal will on the States was exactly what the Founders wrote the Constitution to prevent.
Sad all that all their blood and efforts were so obviously wasted.
And who decides if they are ruling within the confines of the Constitution? You?
Please provide a source for Marshalls statement.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty." -- Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison
Trying to maintain a guaranteed Republican form of government is not 'rebellion', it is upholding the Constitution.
The Supreme Court saw it otherwise.
Those 'beliefs' you so easily discount were given by the acknowledged Constitutional lawyers and Judges of the day.
Plessey v. Ferguson was supported by Constitutional lawyers and judges of it's day, and was probably supported by the majority of the people. But institutional discrimination and 'separate but equal' was overturned by a later court in the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al. Should the Warren Court not oveturned the earlier case merely because it would mean overturning precedent?
For 30 years, secession was acknowledged a a viable legal option of a State guaranteed by the Republican form of government expressed in the Constitution.
Turns out they were wrong. Or at least unilateral secession was found to be unconstitutional.
The South was neither invading, foreign, or a member of an Indian tribe, nor were the People revolting against any of governments of the States.
Glossed right by section 2 didn't you? As incorporated into the 1795 revision: "And be it 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, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, 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 legislature 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."
The south was most certainly engaged in insurrection, the laws were most certainly being opposed by forces too great to be handled by local judicial procedings, and the militias of the state were not capable of putting down the rebellion on their own because they were, in fact, part of it. Add to that the fact that Congress was not in session and Lincoln was well within his authority to call out the troops after the South initiated hostilities.
The States refusing to obey unconstitutional edicts from an entity that was designed to protect them is not 'rebellion'.
The states were not empowered to decide what was constitutional and what was not. Their actions were most certainly rebellion.
Not to mention no Congressional Act can override any part of the Constitution. To allow such would make the entire document meaningless. The provisions of Article 4, Section 4 are paramount to any legislative. executive or judicial action of the federal government.
The powers granted by the Congress to the president are limited in duration. They do not override the Constitution but recognize that Congress was not in session 12 months out of the year. And to the best of my knowledge the Militia Acts were not found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Ahem, BTW...Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 cannot operate outside the provisions for such actions laid out in Article 4 Section 4.While Article 1 is a declaratory clause, Article 4 is a RESTRICTIVE clause, and contains any enumerated power in Article 1.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives the government the power and the duty to combat rebellion. It does not have anything to do with domestic violence or invasion.
You can seize something that belongs to you, even if that ownership is shared with others.
Really? If you and I jointly own a piece of property I can claim sole ownership at any time merely by claiming you violated the agreement, without having to prove my claim and without any compensation due to you? I suggest you don't go into partnership with anyone.
Please see all the previous posts on how the States remained sovereign within their own borders.
Nonsense. A December 31, 1836 act of the South Carolina legislature said, "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..." provided the fort was not used to shelter fugitives from South Carolina law. So when South Carolina says that the state ceded all rights, title, and claims are you saying that they were lying?
If the legislature can pass no ex post facto law, it also means the President can make no ex post facto edict and the judiciary can make no ex post fact finding.
Um...do you know ex post facto means, don't you?
I do indeed, but I'm not sure you have a thorough understanding of how the courts work. Ex post facto means criminalizing actions that had been legal when the action was committed. That's not what the Supreme Court did. What the court ruled in Texas v. White, and which it does all the time in it's decisions, was to rule that the southern acts of unilateral secession had never been legal in the first place.
This has really just been a blast, but it seems odd that you think you have a better grasp of Constitutional meaning that the Founders and 3 decades of Constitutional legal authorities.
No, but it seems that I have a better grasp of it than you.
Why can't rational thinking Americans get past the reflexive 'Lincoln was right' and 'slavery=South=evil' that was instilled by their (government-funded) public education long enough to objectively look at the evidence?
Because in most cases Lincoln was right. And slavery doesn't enter into the picture. The South was not wrong because of slavery. The South was wrong because they launched a bloody rebellion against the U.S. government.
Oh, I forgot. You have no interest in truth, only affirmation. The conceptual difference between the legal aspects and the moral aspects of the history of slavery in America still lies beyond your grasp.
No shortage of ego on your part, is there? I have a great respect for the truth, but I don't accept that your opinion and your interpretation constitutes the truth merely because you say it does.